A current politcal ad targets the incumbent, quoting a local paper as saying:
I think one can be naive (politically or otherwise), but that once one has moved past that state, it can’t be regained.
Whaddya think? Can one *become * naive?
Sure. Brain injury robbing one both of much old memory and the ability to gain new memories.
The older I get the more naive I become. Or maybe the more aware of being naive I become.
A.k.a., the Regarding Henry method.
If you’ve been out of the rough-and-tumble of politics, you may have forgotten how to mix it up. Sort of a ‘use it or lose it’.
Naiveté is not the same thing as ignorance, but your question still brought Oscar Wilde’s quote to mind: “Ignorance is like a delicate flower; touch it, and the bloom is gone.”
Yes, I think one can become naive about new developments in society, politics, whatever. If your field heads off in a new direction and you don’t pay attention to what’s going on, you become ignorant and quite possibly naive. Thinking that things are still going the way they did 10 years ago, and that you still understand them–that’s pretty naive.
Are they diagnosing him/her with Alzheimers? Nah, can’t be. We had a President with that and he was still elected to another term…
Naive suggests a state of ignorance that comes from inexperience. Complacent is a state of ignorance that comes from not caring enough to be active. If one has had experience, and doesn’t use one’s brainpan to consider new trends, that would be laziness. If it’s for a political office, part of the job is to be astute and aware of changing times and issues, so “naive” doesn’t cut it.
I’ve seen a number of politicians who have found it politically expedient to become naive.
Exactly. Thank you.
I agree with elelle’s definition. They used “naive” incorrectly when they really should have used “Complacent” or “Out of touch”.
I feel you can’t “become” naive any more than you can “become” a virgin. 