when his salary depends on his not understanding it

[GoodTaste]

Does "when his salary depends on his not understanding it" mean "when his salary depends on his IGNORANCE"?

__________________________
Yes, I can say that 10h
Replying to
@SamHarrisOrg
“It is difficult to get a man to understand something, when his salary depends on his not understanding it.”


― Upton Sinclair, I, Candidate for Governor: And How I Got Licked

 

[SoothingDave]

The point is that that the person has to act as if he doesn't understand or has to think a certain way because that is what his employer wants.

 

[GoodTaste]

The point is that that the person has to act as if he doesn't understand or has to think a certain way because that is what his employer wants.

Got it. He needs to have an ability to play a role that his boss wants. When the boss wants him to be a smartass, he would be a smartass; when his boss wants him to be a thug, he would become a thug.

 

[GoesStation]

You are giving the words a meaning that is not there.

Right. The quoted statement is about pressure an employee may feel to not understand something. This is not the same as being pressed to behave a certain way.

 

[GoodTaste]

Right. The quoted statement is about pressure an employee may feel to not understand something. This is not the same as being pressed to behave a certain way.

I don't understand. If the employee felt hard to understand, the boss could fire him or lay him off. Why does the boss still want to pay him ( his salary depends on his not understanding it.)?

 

[GoesStation]

I don't understand. If the employee felt hard to understand, the boss could fire him or lay him off. Why does the boss still want to pay him ( his salary depends on his not understanding it.)?

The boss doesn't want the employee to be hard to understand. That would mean that the employee was unclear or confusing. The boss wants the employee to fail to understand things.

A famous example from the United States: in the 1960s, when medical research was finding stronger and stronger links between smoking and disease, big tobacco companies ran covert campaigns to confuse the public about the evidence. Their own employees would be included among the targets of these campaigns. These employees were being paid, in part, to be ignorant of the link between smoking and lung cancer and heart disease.

 

[GoodTaste]

These employees were being paid, in part, to be ignorant of the link between smoking and lung cancer and heart disease.

Were they really ignorant? Or were they pretending to be ignorant? The latter is involved with the skill to role-play.

 

[jutfrank]

It's obviously implied that they were pretending. You can't pay someone to actually be ignorant, but you can pay them to act as if they are.

 

[GoodTaste]

It's obviously implied that they were pretending. You can't pay someone to actually be ignorant, but you can pay them to act as if they are.

Right. That is what I said in #4:

He needs to have an ability to play a role that his boss wants. When the boss wants him to be a smartass, he would be a smartass; when his boss wants him to be a thug, he would become a thug.

 

[GoodTaste]

#5 is not consistent with #11.
The best pretending is you truely know how to play a role - to be a true actor or actress.

 

[GoesStation]

The Upton Sinclair quote does not imply that employers expect their employees to be thugs. When you suggest it does, you're "giving the words a meaning that is not there."