When one is young, naivety often masks the complexity of the world. We assume that systems function according to the most intricate logic we know. Yet, the knowledge of a neophyte is, by definition, limited. This naivety leads us to believe that most things are simple, which is a structural error.

When confronted with complexity, only two options exist: learn to understand or refuse to learn.

Choosing to remain a neophyte is a personal responsibility. We all have our constraints, our contexts, and our objectives. However, in any society, there are certain subjects where the choice to ignore is not a valid strategy. We must learn to navigate taxes, we must learn a trade, and we must learn to drive before taking the wheel.

Humans are not born with a genetic package of knowledge. We have the permanent obligation to learn throughout our lives.

It is increasingly evident that our society is losing the capacity for honest, logical, and informed discourse on critical issues. In its place, we experience fiction, manipulation, and the loud diatribes of the uninformed.

Those who refuse to learn often justify it as a search for "simplification" or a desire to not "overthink it."

This search for simplicity leads to a polarized and immobilized society. I have experienced the cost of this fallacy personally. For years, I shared travel photos, believing that sharing these moments with family was a positive act. I soon realized this transparency was working against my interests.

Clients looked. Corporations looked.

By lack of knowledge, and through the lens of simplification (naivety), these observers concluded that I was less professional than they had thought. They assumed I was spending more time in tourism than in labor. I removed my photos from the web to protect my confidentiality. Private data in the hands of family is handled differently than private data in the hands of professionals.

The knowledge lifecycle

Intellectual hygiene consists of stripping away opinions in favor of verifiable facts. This is difficult today because refusing to wear one's opinions as a badge is often seen as a refusal to identify. If one limits themselves to facts, they accept that others will project whatever narrative they wish onto them.

Developing knowledge is not a linear event; it is a lifecycle. One must:

  • Collect raw signals.
  • Analyze the data.
  • Connect the patterns.
  • Test the hypothesis.
  • Compare the results.
  • Document the findings.
  • Maintain the knowledge.

The "simplifiers" prefer to ignore these steps under the pretext of "saving time." In reality, they are avoiding the humility required to accept that they must learn.

Case study: The health pass paradox

The lack of nuance in modern discourse creates dangerous absurdities. Consider the 2022 distinction in France between the vaccine and the "Health Pass" (Pass Sanitaire).

The naive saw a false but convenient reciprocation: that those who refused the pass were against the vaccine. This is a staggering vacuum of knowledge.

  • The vaccine is an individual medical act related to health.
  • The health pass is a structural violation of privacy, sanctioned by a government.

Opposing a violation of privacy is perfectly compatible with supporting a medical act. To conflate the two is to abandon analysis for the sake of a simpler, more aggressive narrative. This phenomenon is exacerbated by the need for public posture and social tribalism.

Conclusion

When we fail to understand our interlocutor and immediately resort to labels, we are at "Level 0" of analysis. This leads to emotional escalation and the slow, certain death of objectivity and truth.

We must reclaim the humility to collect information and accept the confrontation of ideas. Nuance is not a bug in the system; it is the infrastructure of a civilized society.