I ask this simple question of who
would have the better argument between them? Do you suppose the
intellectual always wins? I hope you answer yes so you continue
reading...
A layperson might be able
to think clearly from a naive perspective that the intellectual cannot
fathom. This is possible if the person has been used to doing things
"their way" for so many years that maybe they have yet to hear about a
new method or study conducted.
Even worse, it could be new data that is simply ignored.... or old data.
This still happens and it really get's your attention when you notice it the first time...
An
intellectual will look for answers to some of the most hard-pressed
questions passed onto from society. Their solutions to these questions
are the ones I put into question. Mostly, their ideas are the main
end-products to be used by policy-makers or whoever implements this into
law or culture. I have noticed Such ideas are the end products of an
intellectual (which I am certainly not an intellectual!).
So,
if the end-product of an intellectual are ideas then why are some of
them claiming to be the only ones advocating for change? That is a deep
question.
I ask for change as well. Except there's a
massive problem getting in my way: I am surrounded by people who have
yet to hear opposing opinions other than the ones they grew up with.
When
challenged by an intelligent person, their guard is typically down and
usually forget a few key points of their argument. Note: the idea is simply arguing but instead, promoting thought and critical thinking.
So, with that in mind, a good objective person (and economists as well) always ask the final question: "...and then what?"
I
have noticed that several incredibly intelligent people do not ask this
question. It's as if they refuse to question their own authority and
ignore the possibility that ego is getting the best of them. How to
confront this, you ask?
Simple. Ask that question to yourself. No matter who.
