Technology might be a social bandage at best and a crutch at worst. Insofar as technology seeks to solve social problems—human problems—it can’t do much to enlighten us. Technology itself doesn’t make us better people; that’s not work we can pawn off to anyone (or anything) else.
For instance, modern cars may be safer than ever, saving thousands of lives in accidents; but they do nothing to discourage drunk driving. If anything, safer cars means that we can take more chances, since we’re more likely to survive accidents. Today, algorithms that make decisions for us mean we’re outsourcing that intellectual labor, risking the loss of deliberative skills, including moral reasoning. Those are exactly the skills we need for social progress.
Because it’s built on a technological foundation, modern society overprivileges empirical knowledge. Many seem to believe that engineering is real, while ethics is just opinions, and opinions don’t matter much. As a result, we see an emphasis on STEM (science, technology, engineering, and mathematics) education from primary schools to most universities. But non-empirical matters, such as ethics, continue to be difficult to teach and are often neglected, despite lip service to the arts and humanities.
More than tolerance, wisdom is difficult to sustain. We’re having to re-learn lost lessons—sometimes terrible lessons— from the past, and intergenerational memory is short. “History does not repeat itself, but it rhymes,” as Mark Twain (might have) said. (Patrick Lin “Technological vs. Social Progress: Why the Disconnect?“)
What is needed, now as ever, are forms of asceticism, forms of discipline that protect human beings from these pressures [to amass wealth and to struggle for power] and help to preserve the manifestations of human dignity and the forms of community that dignity makes possible. Intellectual life is one such crucial form of asceticism. May it be preserved as such. (Zena Hitz “Freedom and Intellectual Life”
A growing consensus among philosophers and cognitive scientists defines wise judgment to include the ability to recognize the limits of one’s knowledge, to be aware of the varied contexts of life and how they may unfold over time, to acknowledge others’ points of view, and to seek reconciliation of opposing viewpoints. (University of Waterloo “Wisdom is a matter of both heart and mind”)
See also the original research article, “A Heart and A Mind: Self-distancing Facilitates the Association Between Heart Rate Variability, and Wise Reasoning,” which includes many other interesting concepts such as:
- self-distanced vs. self-immersed perspectives
- egocentric impulses vs. self-distancing
- dispositional vs. situational attributions
- wisdom-related reasoning (e.g., prevalence of recognition of limits of one’s knowledge, recognition that the world is in flux/change, consideration of others’ opinions and search for an integration of these opinions)
- balanced vs. biased attributions (recognition of situational and dispositional factors vs. focus on dispositional factors alone)