I'm really glad this video showed up in my feed. I didn't know there was a term for what I do when I purposely avoid watching, reading, or hearing the daily news. I live near Philadelphia, PA, and the news always has stories of people (or children!) getting killed, shot, abused, or robbed. And other anxiety-producing stories. I just do not want to hear about it. It does not affect my world or my work or my loved ones. So I feel it is better to simply avoid it all. I believe this practice of Strategic Ignorance has helped keep my mind free of awful thoughts and terrible information. Maybe it's wrong, but it's just better for my mental health. Thanks for making this video. It was really well-produced and the writing was superb.
Thanks for this great comment! Just as many other things, strategic ignorance is not inherently wrong. It definitely saves the brain from some cognitive overload. As humans we can’t consider everything happening in our vaste world.
I disagree with the moral wiggle room example, if you know that there's a potential harm that you can avoid by actually bothering to check and deliberately avoid doing it for the wiggle room because you can benefit from it then you are absolutely at fault when the harm actually happens.
Yes! I completely agree with you. From a third-party-perspective the person would typically still be at fault, but the moral wiggle room, as described here, is self-imposed from that person to the person. That means that this is merely a description of how people usually avoid that piece of knowledge that would condemn them as a “bad person”. In a situation with uncertainty about the whether a person has herpes, that person typically would feel better continuing that questionable moral behaviour rather than in a situation where he knows 100% that he has herpes. So he is creating a moral wiggle room for himself, to justify his own behaviour
Sounds like avoidance. Also the responsibility part sounds like a bureaucratic excuse, it's "beneficial" like being a murderer is beneficial. This is sociopathic behavior not business psychology
I would argue that this is an integral part of microorganizational litterature and therefore an integral part of how people act in businesses. Take Bearings Bank that also plead ignorance to Nick Leesons fraudulent activities to make profit. It’s a very common thing to do and not necessarily an indication that someone is a sociopath.
@@businesspsychologycb In the example you use, Sanofi ignore red flags in order to generate profit. Reporting them would not have landed the company in trouble. The product killed people but it is considered a good case because Sanofi managed to make a profit out of it. Moreover if the product was not dangerous, they would have continued to make profit. So this only benefits you when the product is in fact dangerous, rationalizing inflicting human sufferings for profit/upwards mobility as a good thing. The fact that is it integral only highlights the implicit complicity of all involved and that the literature has become itself corrupted. I would also like to point out that by ignoring red flags, they are encouraging the faking of the data to begin with, as favorable results will get you more customers. So it's not just corrupt, it's self sustaining and defeats the purpose of the tests. The regulations are not there for the companies to overcome, but to follow
@@zombieGI I definitely see your point. The way I see it, is that strategic ignorance is not inherently bad or good, depends on what you use it for. As another person commented he ignores knowledge about bad things happening in his city, because he wants to savor his mental health. In the Sanofi example it was used extremely maliciously, and McGoey (the person who wrote the article) describes how they used strategic ignorance to deflect accountability for their immoral act - she nor I aren't condoning the behaviour, it's a decription of their particular behaviour. I wouldn't say that the litterature has necessarily been corrupted by merely pointing out what Sanofi did.
@@businesspsychologycb If this is the case can you point me out to a morally good case of strategic ignorance. I see the opposite in practice all the time. Sales experts describing the deliberate psychological manipulation of minors to gaming execs (and the preamble i am not gonna talk about the moral implications) is another good example. The preamble itself is another demonstration of strategic ignorance. One is strategic ignorance, the other is just ignorance or coping with things you cannot affect another difference between the examples).
@@businesspsychologycb Another example would be bankers ignoring toxic assets. They made a law to ban it and now its back in a different form because they didn't ban strategic ignorance, and i would say it's hard to justify plausible deniability when you have literature that lays out your intent
I'm really glad this video showed up in my feed. I didn't know there was a term for what I do when I purposely avoid watching, reading, or hearing the daily news. I live near Philadelphia, PA, and the news always has stories of people (or children!) getting killed, shot, abused, or robbed. And other anxiety-producing stories. I just do not want to hear about it. It does not affect my world or my work or my loved ones. So I feel it is better to simply avoid it all.
I believe this practice of Strategic Ignorance has helped keep my mind free of awful thoughts and terrible information. Maybe it's wrong, but it's just better for my mental health.
Thanks for making this video. It was really well-produced and the writing was superb.
Thanks for this great comment! Just as many other things, strategic ignorance is not inherently wrong. It definitely saves the brain from some cognitive overload. As humans we can’t consider everything happening in our vaste world.
I disagree with the moral wiggle room example, if you know that there's a potential harm that you can avoid by actually bothering to check and deliberately avoid doing it for the wiggle room because you can benefit from it then you are absolutely at fault when the harm actually happens.
Yes! I completely agree with you. From a third-party-perspective the person would typically still be at fault, but the moral wiggle room, as described here, is self-imposed from that person to the person. That means that this is merely a description of how people usually avoid that piece of knowledge that would condemn them as a “bad person”. In a situation with uncertainty about the whether a person has herpes, that person typically would feel better continuing that questionable moral behaviour rather than in a situation where he knows 100% that he has herpes. So he is creating a moral wiggle room for himself, to justify his own behaviour
Linsey McGoey teaches at my university, great person
And undoubtedly a knowledgeable professor!
Great video as usual!!
Thanks ❤️
hahaha great video, you always use just the right amount of humor to explain a point
Appreciate it 😎
So basically.. how to be a successful politician😂
Exactly lmao. I should change the title
Great video! Subscribed.
Thanks a lot!
Sounds like avoidance. Also the responsibility part sounds like a bureaucratic excuse, it's "beneficial" like being a murderer is beneficial. This is sociopathic behavior not business psychology
I would argue that this is an integral part of microorganizational litterature and therefore an integral part of how people act in businesses. Take Bearings Bank that also plead ignorance to Nick Leesons fraudulent activities to make profit. It’s a very common thing to do and not necessarily an indication that someone is a sociopath.
@@businesspsychologycb In the example you use, Sanofi ignore red flags in order to generate profit. Reporting them would not have landed the company in trouble. The product killed people but it is considered a good case because Sanofi managed to make a profit out of it. Moreover if the product was not dangerous, they would have continued to make profit. So this only benefits you when the product is in fact dangerous, rationalizing inflicting human sufferings for profit/upwards mobility as a good thing. The fact that is it integral only highlights the implicit complicity of all involved and that the literature has become itself corrupted. I would also like to point out that by ignoring red flags, they are encouraging the faking of the data to begin with, as favorable results will get you more customers. So it's not just corrupt, it's self sustaining and defeats the purpose of the tests. The regulations are not there for the companies to overcome, but to follow
@@zombieGI I definitely see your point. The way I see it, is that strategic ignorance is not inherently bad or good, depends on what you use it for. As another person commented he ignores knowledge about bad things happening in his city, because he wants to savor his mental health. In the Sanofi example it was used extremely maliciously, and McGoey (the person who wrote the article) describes how they used strategic ignorance to deflect accountability for their immoral act - she nor I aren't condoning the behaviour, it's a decription of their particular behaviour. I wouldn't say that the litterature has necessarily been corrupted by merely pointing out what Sanofi did.
@@businesspsychologycb If this is the case can you point me out to a morally good case of strategic ignorance. I see the opposite in practice all the time. Sales experts describing the deliberate psychological manipulation of minors to gaming execs (and the preamble i am not gonna talk about the moral implications) is another good example. The preamble itself is another demonstration of strategic ignorance. One is strategic ignorance, the other is just ignorance or coping with things you cannot affect another difference between the examples).
@@businesspsychologycb Another example would be bankers ignoring toxic assets. They made a law to ban it and now its back in a different form because they didn't ban strategic ignorance, and i would say it's hard to justify plausible deniability when you have literature that lays out your intent