I believe that one of the greatest powers I possess is the ability to admit when I’m wrong. Unfortunately, in this day and age, being able to say, "I was wrong about that," appears to be a superpower few possess. I’m not trying to be braggadocious or elevate myself by saying that; I’m sure most of you have this ability as well. Whether it be pride, fear of loss, or potential damage to one’s reputation, we don’t live in an age in which the three words "I am wrong" are commonly used back-to-back in the same sentence.
I have a theory about this: I think schooling does this to people. The stakes for being wrong in a classroom are public humiliation in front of your peers at the hands of a substitute parental figure. That shit burns deep, especially for midwits who build their whole identity around academic achievement.
For them, any kind of face-saving tactical retreat or misdirection is better than the gut-wrenching shame of being wrong. Public midwits do this all the time (won't name names, but I'm sure you can come up with a long list).
Normal well adjusted people don't have a problem with admitting they're wrong, because being right about everything all the time isn't _their thing_ in the first place.
Well said. Truth and intellectual honesty are probably my highest values. We all make mistakes, intellectual or otherwise, and it is extremely valuable to just admit it and move on. I'm pretty good about admitting my mistakes too, but ironically, I think neither of us makes as serious or as many mistakes as most people.
Big time! It reminds me recently of an episode of The Highwire a couple weeks back in which Neil Degrasse Tyson comes on and wants to focus on the scientific method, specifically. He suggests that the scientific method is doing everything in your power to not elicit a bias and to not be wrong or mistaken, so listening to anyone who challenges you. Of course, this sets him up to look like the ultimate non scientist when it comes to Covid vaccines when he doesn’t want to even listen to or entertain voices that went against his personal beliefs about the vaccines that have turned out to be utterly, devastatingly and tragically (for many) wrong.
Between people not admitting they were or may now be wrong about something and also the purity tests we put each other through (that politician is only 80% good fuck him and you!!!) I agree we could be far more unified. I'm one of these guys who loves Thomas Massie but would delete government if possible. I can't really make camp with either side if those are sides.
Also, I look to the scientists who revel in uncertainty and probabilities. Those who want to give everyone absolutes and refuse to admit uncertainty are almost always manipulators, for their own interests that go against that of those they are peddling certainty to.
I have a theory about this: I think schooling does this to people. The stakes for being wrong in a classroom are public humiliation in front of your peers at the hands of a substitute parental figure. That shit burns deep, especially for midwits who build their whole identity around academic achievement.
For them, any kind of face-saving tactical retreat or misdirection is better than the gut-wrenching shame of being wrong. Public midwits do this all the time (won't name names, but I'm sure you can come up with a long list).
Normal well adjusted people don't have a problem with admitting they're wrong, because being right about everything all the time isn't _their thing_ in the first place.
Well said. Truth and intellectual honesty are probably my highest values. We all make mistakes, intellectual or otherwise, and it is extremely valuable to just admit it and move on. I'm pretty good about admitting my mistakes too, but ironically, I think neither of us makes as serious or as many mistakes as most people.
Aren't all of us admitting that we were wrong about everything just by being here? :)
I'd like to meet the postliberal Burnham appreciator that never had a liberal frame. Based from birth is pretty hardcore.
Regarding your “enemies”: are they sincere?
Big time! It reminds me recently of an episode of The Highwire a couple weeks back in which Neil Degrasse Tyson comes on and wants to focus on the scientific method, specifically. He suggests that the scientific method is doing everything in your power to not elicit a bias and to not be wrong or mistaken, so listening to anyone who challenges you. Of course, this sets him up to look like the ultimate non scientist when it comes to Covid vaccines when he doesn’t want to even listen to or entertain voices that went against his personal beliefs about the vaccines that have turned out to be utterly, devastatingly and tragically (for many) wrong.
Between people not admitting they were or may now be wrong about something and also the purity tests we put each other through (that politician is only 80% good fuck him and you!!!) I agree we could be far more unified. I'm one of these guys who loves Thomas Massie but would delete government if possible. I can't really make camp with either side if those are sides.
Also, I look to the scientists who revel in uncertainty and probabilities. Those who want to give everyone absolutes and refuse to admit uncertainty are almost always manipulators, for their own interests that go against that of those they are peddling certainty to.