Ontology:Q22,44
- pronounced [S2] Being wrong means relinquishing freedom 1-1-1
Core characteristics[edit]
- item type
- S2 (pronounced C) 1-1-1
- pronounced [P] alias (en) [string]
- Admitting you're wrong requires relinquishing freedom
- Admitting you are wrong does not just mean giving up wrong models, but means actively giving up your ability to choose what model to use for a particular thing in order to simply accept that you must do what someone else said
- pronounced [P] alias (en-x-pona) [string]
- Being wrong means giving up freedom
- QID references [Item] 1-1-1
- --
- color swatch references [Item]
- --
- sub-case of [Item]
- --
- case of [Item]
- --
- super-case of [Item]
- --
- topic or subject [Item] (TS)
- --
Components[edit]
- model combines claims
- --
Use in thesis portals[edit]
- appears in work [Item]
- --
Wavebuilder combinations[edit]
- pronounced [P] pronounced Wavebuilder: forms result [Item]
- Berdly (Deltarune) 1-1-1
- along with [Item]
- pronounced [S2] Being wrong means relinquishing freedom 1-1-1
- forming from [Item]
- pronounced [S2] Being wrong means relinquishing freedom 1-1-1
- Lightner (Deltarune)
- Berdly (Deltarune) 1-1-1
Prototype notes[edit]
- ... derived Existentialist proposition, though I don't totally know what it's derived from. the reason people don't like to admit they're wrong. every time people are busy being wrong, they're also busy exerting individual will and effort to do what they want to do and be where they want to be. people are always told, try hard, believe in yourself, and you will surely be allowed to do anything. in practice, this saying isn't remotely correct. it's all too easy for somebody to try hard, go into physics, mess with string theory, create a wrong model, and end up getting bullied out of science simply for not magically being perfect and guessing the correct thing in a world where the material topics of science are getting so utterly esoteric that nothing can properly be tested before it's published. or try hard, try to create art, and suddenly a bunch of Gramscians or anarchists or postcolonial theorists show up and are like, you're not fit to make art, you didn't magically know what every prejudice and microaggression is when speaking in terms of the physical communication of information you couldn't possibly have known. my issue here obviously isn't that there are standards, it's just the way anarchists and Gramscians elevate socially constructed standards to natural law and expect people to automatically know things that require education.
Usage notes[edit]
This claim stands in opposition to the crimson-color claim that being wrong only means giving up wrong models. This claim is meant to represent one of the major subjective justifications for why people would not want to accept that claim: to admit that you are wrong results in a loss of individual freedom.
This concept is easy to demonstrate with the archetypical example of Liberal-republicans versus Marxists. If Lenin says that the theory behind capitalism is incorrect and we hypothetically assume he can produce a solid argument for why capitalist society does not make sense and will tend to destroy outright itself from the inside out unless it transforms into something else, there will be some number of people who do not necessarily even engage with this argument on the level of scientific investigation and material mechanisms and simply reject it because the cost of finding out they are wrong would be too great. If the objectors accept the possibility that capitalism could implode and Bolshevism could be better, they would have to give up their right to build business territories the way they individually want to and to endlessly resist countries transitioning from pluralities of parties into single continuous party-nations. Great numbers of people are afraid of party-nations; people fear, correctly or incorrectly, that if a party-nation is created Trotskyite conspiracies will be illegal and no one will be allowed to talk about tearing the party-nation open and never having a party-nation again. The sheer cost of everyone believing Lenin is correct and going along with what he says begins to matter to people more than whatever it is that is factually true, and thus they start turning against Communism just because they know that resisting change will preserve the amount of individual ability to make free choices that they have right now, while they have no idea how much freedom they will retain if it turns out both that Bolshevism is correct and it comes to pass.
For a more down-to-earth example, we can look at the fictional world of Deltarune and the story of Berdly. Berdly is, in summary, an isolated teenager lost in his own invented conceptions of what is smart. He approaches the main characters thinking that if they do not see things a certain way, it could not possibly be because they know more about that subject, and must be because he was the only one smart enough to figure it out. This muddled way of thinking quickly gets him lost in the schemes of "Queen", and the task of ending the world in order to improve it. Berdly resists the main characters on the many things he is wrong about because he does not want to give up the freedom of never being rejected. If anyone else had the ability to tell him he wasn't good enough or didn't deserve attention, they might all decide he was never good enough and endlessly reject him for things he could not control, so he simply convinces himself he is always good enough. It could be that he is wrong and even if he actually tried to know his place and be a good person nobody would like him. But a discovery like this can bring real psychological damage, so people will try their best to exert their individual will to recover their own dignity.
In various ways, Berdly is comparable not only to a certain swath of console gamers, but to a concerning number of subcultures within First World countries — it's not too hard to see Berdly within circles for Japanese animated shows, Warriors books being written to be acceptable for Russia, or Harry Potter. In each case, people get passionate about things made by and for isolated circles of people who hardly know much of anything about the world, and jump to praising the most basic ideas as "amazing" and "original" or the most basic forms of representing social issues as "insightful". The state of being ignorant is inherently tied to the expansion of society and the proliferation of countable cultures; each time a countable culture is created is inseparable from the process of drawing the boundaries of that countable culture and the inner self-determination of that countable culture. The ultimate result of this is that when a particular fanbase is formed, the people in it can become resistant to accepting that something about a book is wrong or that they are wrong because as a group of people they formed an entire cultural population on top of those wrong assumptions. Human beings can be very attached to culture and the implicit promise that if they group together around a particular conception of culture they will not be alone and they will be safe. As a result of this people become afraid of the possibility that if they admit they are wrong their countable culture could dissolve around them and they could lose all of their friends, or worse, the culture could remain mostly intact but all their friends could turn around and hate them. In this case, it is less any individual that holds the claim to freedom than the entire countable culture of people functioning as a unified whole. Every countable culture, in general, seeks to be free from other countable cultures telling it what to be, and takes any attempt to force a new identity on it as an offense. In some cases this can aid countable cultures in defending themselves from actual abuse, but in other cases this can amount to countable cultures acting on their own ignorance to decide to never change and never accept the authority of anyone who attempts to make them change.
In religion, people may hang on to the concept of a worldwide god whether or not it truly makes any sense, simply because they perceive the act of being a single person performing rituals to be the same as being part of a group of at least two beings that constitutes a population and a countable culture. This will lead people to defend monotheistic religion on the grounds that one isolated person being forced to give it up would be the freedom and identity of a countable culture being squashed.
In most examples of this proposition, the issue reduces down to a countable culture attempting to set its personal boundaries outside the line of anyone actually making it update its information about the outside world, and claiming that trying to make it change is an assault on freedom. This is not an easy problem to solve, given that no two groups of people can be required to be friends, and if people do not trust each other they can never be required to listen to each other's commands on each other. Any legal system which is able to force minimum standards of behavior out of people relies on the implicit assumption that people are part of the same group of people at all, but this is not always a safe assumption given that relationships can break at any time, even at relatively large scales.