User Tag List

First 12

Results 11 to 13 of 13

  1. #11


    Quote Originally Posted by fia View Post
    Let's explore one of the biggest social taboos - admitting when we are mistaken. When were you wrong about your ideas about politics, religion, philosophy, the nature of reality, or about the people you have met?

    It feels like there is an enormous taboo on admitting to being wrong, as though it discredits a person in other ideas they put forth. A pure sort of objectivity requires enough distance from self to be able to determine when self is mistaken and make revisions to one's thinking. Ego plays no role in objectivity as it is the antithesis to it. Both empathy and logic have the capacity for something akin to objectivity when they are accurate because these are thought processes capable of subjecting ego and personal investment for a distanced, larger view of reality.

    I've been wrong about all of the fundamental concepts that I was initially taught. It took years for me to realize I was mistaken in my concept of reality. I was wrong about the religion I was raised with and allowed myself to be invested in ideas that can not hold up under reason. I was wrong about my political views when I had too much trust in authority. I have been mistaken about people I have met when I thought they rejected me, and it was just my fear of rejection blinding me. Because of this I know my mind is limited and that it will take a lifetime of continual scrutiny to work towards a more accurate view of everything, and it is likely I will never reach purely accurate understanding.

    What do you realize you have been mistaken about?
    Even admitting to being mistaken is speaking in terms of an absolute state of affairs. It's a process of renewal, and for that reason, I must conclude that true doubt must be followed by an alternate belief. I think that the least redundant sort of thinking, in terms of how it progresses over time, is one that is not mired in a preoccupation with doubt itself, but with a reconsideration that consciously forms a completely new framework. Right/Wrong doesn't factor in as much as "This is what I once believed, and this is what I believe now".

    I used to believe that reality was unattainable, and in doing so I realized that I was by definition incorrect, and that the experience I'm having is a gift from a source higher than I am.

    I used to believe that I was special and that diverging from the status quo was something I had to consciously strive for. Now I believe that everything, including myself, must be questioned from time to time to truly diverge and change my path in life.

    I used to believe that change was always a beneficial thing, but now I believe that we must sometimes adhere to conservatism now so we may make more reasonable changes in the future.

  2. #12
    Senior Member Little_Sticks's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2009


    Quote Originally Posted by fia View Post
    I think you are right about that perception of admitting to being wrong. Sometimes accurate information can save your life, and on a lesser note, it is not possible to learn if you can't admit when you are wrong, so it is stunting to intelligence and growth.
    I like how you think my perception is right, but then you showed how it can be wrong. How diplomatic. Did you mean to do that?

    I'm just not sure. Sometimes what becomes right or wrong depends solely on whether a person submits or not. And even when it stunts intelligence and growth, plenty of people in this world seem happy believing in something that may not be very healthy, realistic, or practical - obsessions, religious ideation, and even typology . Sometimes being right is part of who somebody is and they don't want to give that up. Sometimes being right is a matter of virtue or principle and people aren't willing to give that up - they will go down with the ship in honor of what they believe is important.

    Take someone who is naturally open to receive what other people say and think; for them, they are interested in the mutually inclusive information of the world they experience, similarities and commonalities between people. They focus on shades of grey. Now take someone who is focused on mutually exclusive information of the world they experience, the differences and contentions between people; for these people, right and wrong has different motivations. One sees awareness of the similarities and commonalities between people as right, even if they do not make that directly known to others, and wrong to focus on differences and contentions; the other sees the opposite, but they are fine making everyone know that they think they are right in doing so.
    Where the mutually inclusive and mutually exclusive are combined there is an uncomfortable uncertainty and great unknowing that results because how can two somethings be both opposing and equivalent? Higher order logic can deal with this by treating these somethings as sets; however, a relation of sets does not tell a person whether or not they should oppose someone or not or whether or not they should consider someone to be kin. A priori, a choice of equivalence or opposition, must be made on this unknowing, this uncertainty of the nature of the world, those sets, in order that human reason can present itself and function as a metaphysical filter to a confused and fickle universe.

    Am I right or am I wrong? Am I mistaken? .....................OH GOD WUT?!

    Quote Originally Posted by bologna View Post
    Nah, I definitely appreciate it when people take the lead and talk about their vulnerabilities in order to get others to open up. People don't do that enough, and so we stigmatize having flaws--and inhibit actual growth in the process.
    This reminded me of Victor.

    First thing that comes to mind? I was wrong about my self-perception and my relation to other people. I was practically raised as though I was autistic--I didn't talk much as a toddler and so I was placed in a preschool for mentally disabled kids (which is apparently where they dumped autistic kids), which of course didn't give me much of a healthy perception of self. I chose my initial career because I thought I was 'destined' for an impersonal, isolated job.

    My first psychologist played a bit of a trick on me. He got me talking, and he deliberately shot me some subtle facial gestures--expressing tiny hints of distress, befuddlement, agreement, disagreement, concern, and so on. Instinctually, I'd 'course correct' my speech and automatically target it to 'pick him back up.'

    The rest followed from there.
    That's interesting. Thanks.

  3. #13
    Senior Member You's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2010


    for some its a doubt inception.admitting youre incorrect about subject A can force them to doubt their outlook on subject B-Z.over time ive gotten better at admitting when i am wrong, but im stubborn. however, admitting when youre wrong makes your own points have more validity because you consider other perspective in discussion.
    Oh, its

Similar Threads

  1. [SJ] SJ's: When You're Lost in Thought, What Are You Thinking About?
    By coconut in forum The SJ Guardhouse (ESFJ, ISFJ, ESTJ, ISTJ)
    Replies: 54
    Last Post: 08-04-2010, 09:12 PM
  2. What are you guys feeling about the state of affairs now?
    By Risen in forum Politics, History, and Current Events
    Replies: 33
    Last Post: 03-31-2009, 02:13 PM
  3. What are you sensitive about?
    By Sunshine in forum The Bonfire
    Replies: 54
    Last Post: 11-12-2008, 09:34 PM
  4. [NT] What are you most concerned about?
    By Lucifer in forum The NT Rationale (ENTP, INTP, ENTJ, INTJ)
    Replies: 23
    Last Post: 10-03-2008, 05:52 PM
  5. What are you in the closet about?
    By heart in forum The Fluff Zone
    Replies: 91
    Last Post: 07-15-2008, 04:51 AM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
Single Sign On provided by vBSSO