Words are interesting things. Each has a connotation and a denotation. Many times the two are closely aligned, sometimes they are different as a result of the social norms influence on the word/concept over time. Naïve is one such word. Mr. Webster offers three definitions:
- Marked by unaffected simplicity
- Deficient in worldly wisdom or informed judgment
- Self-taught, primitive
When many think of naïve, a picture of a “backwood’s bumpkin” or a “lost innocent soul” comes to mind. They don’t “get it” and they are often taken advantage of by others. It is this “taken advantage” of that drives the negative connotation. That’s because too many of us buy in to the “win-lose” mentality; and, under that schema, the naïve person rarely comes out “on top”. After all, winning is everything. Isn’t it? (sarcasm BTW / for the avoidance of any doubt)
I prefer to operate under an “intentionally naïve” model. I’m going to keep things simple, dismiss the conventional wisdom, and approach things new and fresh with an open mind. I’m going to trust those around me to help me better understand things, see new solutions, and work together with me to find the best path. I chose to operate under the “win-win” philosophy. And it works.
With that in mind:
Are you better off knowing everything or being a intentionally naïve?
As always, thanks for the time.
(Thanks to Erin Patti for a conversation yesterday AM that triggered me pulling this post together)
Recent Comments