Daniel Ellsberg on the Limits of Knowledge

The "moron" part is persuasive.

Ellsberg is a traitorous POS who not only betrayed his country but caused the death of innumerable foreign agents who had committed to our cause.

He should be executed.

It's hard to evaluate Ellsberg's claims regarding this matter.

I'd like to see an instance where various "layers" of information are set out.

Layer 1 would be general information on a country, say from the almanac, newspaper, or history book.

Layer 2 would be specialists' essays, but in the public realm. The sort of think you might read in Foreign Affairs.

Layer 3 would be low-level secret information.

Layer 4 would be this super-secret info.

I'm thinking of when I used to read Foreign Affairs in the 1980's. In that publication, there was no hint that the Soviet Union was going to collapse, even after Gorbachev took control. And we're led to believe the CIA missed on that as well. But a simple look at the USSR in the 1970's, with it's shoddy consumer goods and imbalanced economy (so much devoted to the military) - and an reading of history - would lead to the conclusion that it was destined to fail. And it did. In that case, specialist knowledge didn't seem to help.

But I'm willing to believe otherwise, if presented with some example where those in the know had a better assessment of the situation due to secret knowledge. By now there must be some issue that is old enough so that everything can be exposed and we can see what people knew at different levels. Is World War I a candidate? How about World War II?

Speaking of World War II, the Enigma sleuthing helped out, but even then, the anti-U-boat success was less the code breaking and more the development of long range bombers and 10cm radar. I don't doubt that Enigma shortened the war, but its absence wouldn't have changed the outcome. The Allies simply had a tremendous advantage in productive capability. That didn't take special knowledge to figure out.

it you read Garry Wills new book "Bomb Power" he fleshes out the secrecy
problem that started with the invention of the bomb.

> "Over a longer period of time — not too long, but a matter of two or
> three years — you'll eventually become aware of the limitations of
> this information. There is a great deal that it doesn't tell you, it's often
> inaccurate, and it can lead you astray just as much as the New York
> Times can. But that takes a while to learn.
>
> "In the meantime it will have become very hard for you to learn
> from anybody who doesn't have these clearances.

I think this is the trap that Obama fell into.

It isn't just that there are "limitations" to the secret information. It is that not only is the secret information wrong as often as the non-secret information, but that there are people feeding you bullshyte on a platter marked "top secret" in hopes of controlling your viewpoint and your actions.

Cranky

""You will deal with a person who doesn't have those clearances only from the point of view of what you want him to believe and what impression you want him to go away with, since you'll have to lie carefully to him about what you know. In effect, you will have to manipulate him. You'll give up trying to assess what he has to say. The danger is, you'll become something like a moron. You'll become incapable of learning from most people in the world, no matter how much experience they may have in their particular areas that may be much greater than yours."

-this is basically what Robert Anton Wilson called "the Snafu Principle" in the Illuminatus trilogy. Hierarchical systems screw up the flow of information and knowledge. People above only tell inferiors what will make them do what they want them to do. People below only tell superiors what won't get them in trouble. the result: SNAFU.

and is the subtext that you should be aware of when reading those Ellsberg comments. URK and Cranky are totally right about Ellsberg's comments to Kissinger. There is a much larger truth than just the information in all the secret compartments. Information is one thing, but ultimately judgment and ethics are the most important.

Ellsberg was a contributor to those papers and knew that our leaders (who had all the supposed "real" SECRET "truth") were lying to us about the war. I got to spend 1970 in Vietnam because of those damn lies and I have immense respect for Dr. Ellsberg for releasing those papers in 1971. I just wish the'd been released earlier.

Because I had numerous clearances beyond top secret later in my career (not in the military), I think I have a pretty clear idea of the nature, clarity and pragmatism of what Ellsberg was talking about. If there was any justice in this universe there would be a lot more Ellsbergs now.

"Dollared"'s comment, "Actually, what Ellsberg is saying is only relevant in the tiny, distorted world of the media-military-Foreign Policy groupthink.", and " The Ellsberg perspective only matters if you assume people can't see larger strategic choices. It's only in the constrained and limited Washington parlor game, supported by a national media that only wants to be dealt into the game, that escalating security clearances allows you to turn over little playing cards and feel like you have changed the way you play the game.", illustrates precisely the point Ellsberg is making here.

Many have made good, poignant points here, and have tried to frame this in the context of politics, media and policy decisions as they apply to our government. But it is a mistake, I think, to frame this in merely those perspectives and assume it only matters in politics and governmental decision making. His point applies to any situation, at any time, anywhere. It applies in government, business, religion, culture, personal relationships and one's own quest to further understanding, experience and knowledge (presumably to aid us in making better informed decisions).

It is an applicable and important point for all of us, especially anyone in a position of authority, power or positions to make decisions that affect a larger circle or group of people than one's self (i.e., business owners-employers, managers, teachers, educators, parents, law enforcement officers and officials, social workers, aide and charity workers, etc., and even those who do not make such decisions of import but whose choices affect others in an ever expanding circle of cause and effect relationships. In other words, his point can apply to virtually each and everyone of us in our daily lives and impact the world around us in either a negative or positive way.

As someone who has experience in government service (Military & Civilian service), education, corporate leadership, private business ownership and both corporate owned and Free Press media, I can assure you I have been in exactly the position Ellsberg describes here many times. His point is not relevant to merely government and intelligence related matters only, again,. it has applicability to virtually any situation confronting any of us anywhere at anytime, whether that be in employee-employer, spousal-partnerships, parent-child or other family relationships and all of our personal relationships with others, the world, and our own ability to continuously challenge ourselves and our assumptions (and presumptions) of "what we think we know" and our ability to adapt to ever changing realities.

Simply put, whenever we acquire any certain level of knowledge and experience that is beyond what others in our immediate environment or surroundings know or have experienced, it is very easy for the supposedly "informed" to become isolated within a bubble of arrogance, smugness and narcissistic nihilism that prevents us from being able to see beyond our own limited perspectives to see a larger picture (ironically, often gleaned from those with the least "knowledge" or lessor levels of "knowledge". I think "URK"'s point on this was right on the mark and well made.

Here are a couple of everyday, common persons, scenarios to consider.

Do most adult parents have general and specialized knowledge beyond that of their 4 or 5 year old children, that they do not disclose to or tell their children, thus, in effect, will lead them to lie to their children in an effort to wisely make decisions that aid in safely raise those children? Of course they do. Do all parents make good and wise decisions and choices for their children, all the time, regardless of whatever knowledge the parents hold that the children do not? Of course, they do not always, ... many attempt to do so, but regardless, everyone makes mistakes whether they have good information or bad information. Obviously, the more "good" information one has the greater the chances of reducing incidences of mistakes, versus relying upon merely bad information. But, the reality is for most parents, mistakes will be made, nonetheless. Who do you think would make the better parent, one who solely relies on a very narrow and select set of information, say, from a so called "parenting expert"s books, for instance, or the parent who may not have read any of the so called "expert"'s books, but who is willing to learn from their own parents, friends, neighbors and many others around them who do have actual experience raising children, coupled with their own innate instincts?

Obviously, one who has read every so called "expert child raising" book available would have a great deal of information, and much of it will often be conflicting. In fact, the more conflicting information one acquires, the greater the likelihood of fomenting confusion just as much is the likelihood of furthering understanding would be. As a consequence, were a parent to rely solely upon such "expert" guidance, and disregard the experience and wisdom of their own parents, grandparents, friends and others who have actual experience raising children in actuality, not theory, it is a very strong possibility that the children of such parents will grow up in one confused mess of a conflicted world of understanding (or lack of clear understanding, more accurately put).

Let us not forget that that knowledge and understanding are not the same thing. Which, I believe, is part of the essential point Ellsberg is making. Secular knowledge, removed from the realities of actual experience, most always leads to situations of self serving, self fulfilling, and generally bad decision making, if not outright arrogance and stupidity. Both secular knowledge and broader actual experience have their places of importance, but a balance must always be struck between the two for true wisdom to be exercised appropriately.

Another example.

I am a seasoned world traveler, having visited all four corners of the earth and over 75 different countries and 200 different cultures, thus far. I have also lived overseas in 8 different countries, at one time and another, for various periods. I pride myself on having a great degree of first hand experience and knowledge of other countries, peoples and cultures, gleaned from my experiences, each experience based upon differing perspectives of military duty and service to my country, corporate & business interests, that of a journalist, as well as that of a private citizen with residency and that of a mere tourist. I have been consulted, employed and paid as an "expert" on various topics or subjects related to those experiences by businesses, governments and private citizens by those who did not have such experiences (yet, nonetheless, did have the wisdom and foresight to seek more knowledge and, hopefully, better understanding, from those who did have such experiences).

My point is not that I am an expert of this or that, in spite of that designation by some for the sake of expediency, but, rather, that those who chose to hire me for my knowledge and breadth of experience in other nations and cultures, were exhibiting true wisdom. Why? Because, rather than merely relying upon the incredible breadth of so called "expert" travel guidebooks, papers and other purely secular or academic sources of information about these topics, those aforementioned entities had the wherewithal and openness to seek information from those who also have actual, real life, real world, experiences engaging in those areas of discussion. And, if they took the advice given them by me, they did not stop there, merely relying on my information and knowledge gleaned from my own experiences, but continued to seek out further sources of related firsthand information from others who have such to offer and share. This is how international business is always done, these days, if any given company in question has any halfway decent management and leadership that wishes to do successful business in various countries and cultures around the globe, ... few rely on merely secular sources of information or knowledge about any given country or culture. That is wisdom, when applied.

The same could apply to any would be world traveler, who has yet to have the those first hand experiences. Only a fool would depend solely upon one or two published "guidebooks" (secular) for accurate, as complete and thorough an understanding of the cultures and places they will be visiting (sorry, all you travelers who often do that very thing or even less), if they truly wish to have the most satisfying, immersive, safe and truly most rewarding and educational travel experiences. In other words, when one goes on a two week long packaged tour of Italy, for instance, armed with information gleaned from only the travel tour group, travel agency or similar single source, and one never veers from the packaged itinerary, one is experiencing Italy in a purely secular fashion, not in any really immersive fashion.
In such a case, one could hardly call themselves an "expert" on all things Italy or can say they really know Italy and the Italian people and culture in any real sense.
It is a far cry from actually living in Italy, say, for 5 years or more. At best, in such a case, perhaps one would have a greater understanding of Italy, than they may have once held, but they certainly couldn't truthfully say they totally know and understand Italy in any more than the most superficial and surface ways. The wise, and those truly wishing for better understanding, will always seek to immerse themselves within a culture and seek many sources of information, both secular and that based upon the broader perspectives and experiences of others who do have such firsthand experiences and knowledge. Knowledge can be power, true, only if real understanding is the target goal.

One last note here, related to my own military service. When I graduated as a junior officer from the academy, I thought I knew all there was to know about military culture, thinking, planning, execution, and so on. All that knowledge, I thought I knew and understood, I learned in the secular world of the Academy (college) and from my own family elders (5 generations of military service, 3 generations were Command Officers). In a real world sense, I learned nothing useful from the Academy regarding any of that, but learned a great deal from my elders who had direct experience leading men and women within that military culture and afterwards in civilian life, in business.

If I had relied merely upon my knowledge and understanding gained at the Academy to guide me as a career officer, my career would have ben very limited and likely a very miserable experience, at best. Instead, I had enough sense to couple that learned academic knowledge with the actual knowledge based upon experience from my elders who had walked that path before me. This served me very well during the course of my military career, as a result, garnering me not only a successful career, but also the respect and willing obeisance of the men and women under my commands. My grandfather, a highly decorated former Col. himself, had admonished me many times to always seek broader knowledge and understanding from as wide a range of sources as possible and to always guard against the arrogance of thinking that I "know" this or that. As important as always listening to my fellow same grade officers with more real world experience, and those of a higher grade as well, I was admonished to also listen to my junior officers and the enlisted men and women under my command.

Listen to the enlisted men and women? What? Some would say, usually those who served as enlisted personnel, that military culture doesn't allow for the low ranking, non commissioned, to have any say or input,... no one (command officers) ever listens to what the enlisted have to say. And, admittedly, due to the very nature of military command and control culture, from the perspective of the enlisted man or woman, that would appear to be the case. And, honestly, in many cases it is. But, it is not the true and real, full, picture or story,... i.e., it isn't actually the case. Not with really effective command officers it is not. The best officers know well that they do not know everything or always have the best judgement, and whenever possible, will seek out and listen to the input of anyone, including the enlisted personnel under their command. This is not always apparent, however, especially to the enlisted rank and file. And, of course, this is by design, part of the military culture, to some extent, as a necessary part of the whole command and control structure. However, the best officers will employ every possible source of information, if they are smart commanders.

That said, nonetheless, the reality of warfare and combat situations, as well as command and leadership, dictates that both officers and enlisted, are given only the information they need to know to do their assigned tasks effectively. In critical operational situations, too much information is often counter-productive. For instance, should I order my men into an operational combat zone to achieve a specific goal, target or objective, am I doing them a service or disservice by giving them all the information I may have at my own disposal, say, including all the details of how operations planners came to the determinations they had in orchestrating a plan for the mission or action in question.

The short answer is, I would be doing them a disservice.

Having such information at their disposal will not make a soldier a better fighter or achieve their mission objective more effectively. In fact, just the opposite is true, experience has shown that too much superfluous information actually serves to confuse, distract and, often times, demoralizes a solider, rather than spur them on to fight harder or achieve any specific objective. Later on,after the operations are completed, such superfluous information may help a given solider put an overall experience into perspective, help understanding as to why certain things were done under certain conditions, etc. But, in terms of battlefield effectiveness, it serves no valid usefulness to overburden personnel with too much extraneous or superfluous information not immediately pertinent to the completion of their assigned tasks.
In all cases, however, it is always a judgement call, hopefully made by those exercising the full breadth of their own knowledge and experiences, and those of others they seek out for consul, in attempting to make the wisest and most effective decisions.

Ellsberg is basically warning against the pitfalls of arrogance derived from exclusive, but almost always secularized, information and knowledge, that limits and blinds us to seeing or seeking larger perspectives. His warning is applicable in all sectors and to all people in life, in general, not just governance.

Does our government lie to us? Of course, it does, about some things. Did our parents lie to us? Of course, they did, about some things (Santa Claus, tooth fairy, etc., among the most innocuous and what most believe to be harmless white lies ...I disagree on that, however, it merely teaches and reinforces the idea of duplicity from an early age, both to expect to be lied to, as well as how to lie, or that some lies are harmless and therefore, "okay".)

The issues of who has what knowledge and who should have that knowledge, in other words, "National Security secrets", is beside the point. On that point, like it or not, as long as we live in a competitive world, there is always going to be the need to guard some information from public disclosure, for the sake of national self preservation. Just as most parents will continue to tell their children harmless little white lies or fairy tales, or lie by omission. While the majority of the world's citizens may be people of good will and basically honest, there are a significant number of those who are not so honest and of negative intent that they will always dictate the needs for being guarded and selectively disclosing certain vital information.

If I approach you and ask you for your bank account number so I can transfer all your money into my own bank account, would you honestly give it to me? I think not. Most people will rightly refuse and say something like, "it's none of my business", or "why would I be so stupid as to do that?", or what have you. But, there you are, keeping secrets, telling lies by omission, for your own self preservation and interests. Where's the lie? It's in the presumption that it is "none of my business", ... it is my business if my business is transferring money from others bank accounts into my own. My point being here, why should you expect to have the right to keep your bank account numbers secret from most everyone else, but all the while expect that your government is supposed to reveal every little secret it knows or has at it's disposal at any given time?

Yes, in an ideal world, there would be no need for anyone to lie or keep secrets. But that world doesn't exist. At least, not on this planet we call "Earth", it doesn't. We live in a world full of liars and the lies they tell, we are all liars to one extent or another, if nothing more than in self deceit. It is the nature of life as a human being. Most lie for one of two reasons, either self preservation or to gain something, or both. Governments, being made up of people, are no different and only the blind or foolish would expect them to be any different.

The main point Ellsberg is trying to make, I believe, is not who knows what, who has a right to know what, but that regardless of what we know or think we know, the reality is we don't really know squat and we can and should always be open to seeking more, to learning more, to balance the needs of discretion with the very real world needs of disclosure and honesty. We must always guard against becoming arrogant in our so called "knowledge" and thereby isolating and preventing ourselves from acquiring the broadest possible understandings and awareness, which leads to making bad decisions.

As it has been in the past, and will be in the future, now we could really apply some of what Ellsberg is lamenting us to do, ... in this age of polarized and very secularized politics, there is far more to the story on every side than what most people believe or think there is, regardless of the issues. The "truth" is always a mobile and flexible target, it is never pat and absolute on any issue.

Critical thinking is always crucial in any situation, we just need to do more of it.