Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

chrisdh79 OP t1_j8g7dwk wrote

From the article: A new study explored reasons why some citizens of the former East Germany chose not to view files that the Stasi, the notorious secret police force, kept of them when the archives were opened in 1991. Aside from claiming that the information is not relevant, most people stated that they wanted to avoid finding out that one of their colleagues or family members was a Stasi informant and that viewing those files would impact their ability to trust others. The study was published in Cognition.

Curiosity, the desire to obtain knowledge, is one of the defining traits of human beings. Yet there are situations when people willingly choose not to know. This phenomenon — deliberate ignorance — has been attracting a growing interest from researchers in various scientific disciplines.

When a society faces a fundamental transition, such as moving from war to peace or from dictatorship to democracy, people must find ways to interpret, remember or ignore past experiences and include that interpretation into the collective memory of the group in a way that allows the society to move forward.

387

Gloinson t1_j8hgh5d wrote

>most people stated that they wanted to avoid finding out that one of their colleagues or family members was a Stasi informant and that viewing those files would impact their ability to trust others

Anecdotally: it didn't work, though, as the former denunciants knew who they informed on and either came out (didn't hear that from my parents) or acted different and thereby dropped hints.

IMO the water on that is seriously muddled, as

  • files and viewing opportunity have been available for 20-30 years, mixing now nostalgia and real reasons back when the decision had been made
  • files were given out incremental, making experience worse: files aren't even complete yet (a lot of paper had been shredded manually and money wasn't made available to recover the files)
    (Anecdote again: my father abstained from asking for _further_ files later.)
71

fractiousrhubarb t1_j8ida9i wrote

There’s a proverb for this:

“Look ye not though keyholes, lest ye be vexed”

62

fitzroy95 t1_j8j35p2 wrote

Also "Look not at witches, lest ye be hexed"

35

Hedgehogz_Mom t1_j8j38z5 wrote

My motto is: be sure you want to know what you are going to find out.

20

The_Razielim t1_j8kmjsg wrote

Classic "don't ask questions you don't want the answers to"

8

eastbayweird t1_j8lhpkv wrote

"Don't start digging if you're not ready to find dirt"

5

copperdomebodhi t1_j8kmqel wrote

Some of the better advice others have given: "Don't ask questions if you don't want to hear the answer."

1

ledpup t1_j8glxnt wrote

> Curiosity ... is one of the defining traits of human beings.

That's a curious claim.

42

helm t1_j8i3odu wrote

Only because many animals are curious.

10

TheArcticFox444 t1_j8iqias wrote

>>Curiosity ... is one of the defining traits of human beings.

>That's a curious claim.

Especially on Reddit!

6

Varias279 t1_j8iimz9 wrote

That is also a reason why some things repeat themselves. Only with all knowledge can we repair or prevent things as a society.

This also the case with abuse and racism. If enough people forget or don't want to know it keeps going in some form. The reason why people don't want to know is the same, to make their suroundings better in their mind. That is why some families ignore or even hide sexual abuse. If it is not happening in your mind it can not be true. But it is just pushed deeper and has lasting effect, the mind remembers more then we know.

21

Finrafirlame t1_j8n24xw wrote

Your comparision is absolutely incorrect.

It's not about HOW Stasi worked, HOW you were observed and reported.

It's about WHO snitched on you.

Opposite to most racism and abuse, there is no one denying the crimes and its victims.

In a lot of cases, the victims already narrowed down who might have known. Looking into the folders means finally finding out, if it was the neighbours, the mailman, the plumber, the parents (quite unusual), or one of the 5 family friends. In those 30 years after the "Wende", the victim moved away (no contact to neighbours, mailman or plumber), father has died, mother is in a senior home, and 3 of the 5 friends are also out of the picture. The consequence, typically a hold or downgrade in career is also 38 years ago.

So this the standard case:

- no need for proof, people believe you when you just tell them

- a thought of "it doesn't matter almost 40 years later, it won't improve my life"

- and a thought of "either it was omeone I will never see again, or it was someone that I would forgive anyway, but before it would hurt a lot.

And here we are...

1

Varias279 t1_j8n6heb wrote

I am not comparing what happened, but instead why they chose not wanting to know. The reasoning for that choice is the same.

So not how but why people don't want to know the possible bad things done by neighbors, friends and family or country. This was and always is a possibility thus fear will influence that choice. Even if you already have suspicions or know you can choose to believe otherwise by ignoring real evidence.

That same influence happens with abuse and racism. This is something people sometimes choose not to believe or ignore because it could be somebody you trust, a best friend or family member you love.

What people find more important also influences that choice. You can choose somebody you know or yourself over what somebody did.

So my comparison is indeed about the influence of who on a choice. For bystanders and victims.

2

TheNextBattalion t1_j8nfnza wrote

Yea people don't wanna find out that grandpa held the rope at the lynch mob, etc.

2

not_that_planet t1_j8j70qm wrote

I mean, yea. Anecdotally, just about every mother I know does this with her kids. They simply don't want to know if they are gay, doing drugs, homicidal maniacs, etc...

8

GLnoG t1_j8khzim wrote

It is very interesting to observe where the feeling of curiosity and love increase and decrease relative to each other depending on what they were caused by.

For example: Just about every mother you know decides to stay ignorant about the bad parts of their kids; so, you can make the assumption that their love for them is greater than their curiosity. That is very interesting.

4

Kirsten t1_j8krsib wrote

Deliberate lack of curiosity is appropriate and adaptive in some cases. I worked as a physician at a prison and one of the pieces of advice I got was to purposely avoid knowing what anyone was locked up for. It didn’t matter for my purposes and it would definitely not help me provide better medical care.

5

macksters t1_j8k4pkn wrote

This is exactly why I never look at the fingernails of the waiter. I look away. I just don't want to know in what condition they are.

1

J-Love-McLuvin t1_j8lj3e5 wrote

Perhaps considering the hierarchy of needs would be helpful here. In that model, psychological safety is foundational. Meeting that need is critical before we can start to expand on our human journey and take risks. Then again, i could be wrong.

1