What are you wrong about?

[RobdoR]

Here's a good TED talk on the subject.

It got me thinking...is there actually anything I know I'm wrong about?

There's a few points of grammar that I use even though I've been told they are wrong, like never start a sentence with a conjunction. But other than that I can't think of anything I know that is wrong.

There are several things I am unsure of, but now that I think about it, I act as though I were convinced. Global warming is one. My opinion there is that we probably can't accurately know to what extent CO2 emissions are causing global warming, and more importantly, if it is happening I don't think it's possible to stop it, so spending billions on prevention seems wasteful to me.

I guess that makes me an anti-science global warming skeptic in denial of the facts. I just don't see how I could be wrong.




Is there anything you know is wrong but still hold to?

 

[ummidk]

What am I wrong about that I can think of? Obviously the answer is nothing because if I could think of it, I would no longer believe it and would no longer be wrong. At the same time I don't believe ANYTHING I know cannot be wrong.

 

[jameslikespie]

I agree with ummidk, kind of a stupid question, no offense. Unless you're asking what we WERE wrong about.

 

[Agent Intellect]

Great video.

For me, I often assume that I'm wrong. This is one of the reasons I fill some of my posts up with links, so I can at least feel confident that I have someone who agrees with my wrongness.

I wonder if the feeling of being confident that you're right and the feeling of being wrong can be linked to depression/pessimism? Perhaps something to do with depressive realism - having a more accurate (but disillusioning) sense of ones own fallibility?

The one thing I can think of off hand that I know I'm wrong about is my bias toward cell phone usage. When I see people texting on their cell phone a lot, I can't help but assume they must be shallow and uninteresting, only concerned with the doings of other people than things I deem to be more interesting. I have overwhelming empirical evidence that this isn't true, but as soon as I see someone doing this, I can't help but think this way about them.

I think in a lot of cases, common cognitive biases play a large roll (as opposed to just not knowing that you're wrong). For instance, people have a tendency to continue believing the first thing they heard even when contrary evidence is discovered* and to have a blindspot for their own errors.


*

Spoiler

From Scientific American Mind:


After people realize the facts have been fudged, they do their best to set the record straight: judges tell juries to forget misleading testimony; newspapers publish errata. But even explicit warnings to ignore misinformation cannot erase the damage done, according to a new study from the University of Western Australia.


Psychologists asked college stu*dents to read an account of an ac*cident involving a busload of elderly passengers. The students were then told that, actually, those on the bus were not elderly. For some students, the information ended there. Others were told the bus had in fact been transporting a college hockey team. And still others were warned about what psychologists call the continued influence of misinformation—that people tend to have a hard time ig*noring what they first heard, even if they know it is wrong—and that they should be extra vigilant about getting the story straight.


Students who had been warned about misinformation or given the alternative story were less likely than control subjects to make inferences using the old information later—but they still erred sometimes, agreeing with statements such as “the pas*sengers found it difficult to exit the bus because they were frail.”


This result shows that “even if you understand, remember and believe the retractions, this misinformation will still affect your inferences,” says Western Australia psychologist Ullrich Ecker, an author of the study. Our mem*ory is constantly connecting new facts to old and tying different aspects of a situation together, so that we may still unconsciously draw on facts we know to be wrong to make decisions later. “Memory has evolved to be both stable and flexible,” Ecker says, “but that also has a downside.”

 

[Trebuchet]

There's a few points of grammar that I use even though I've been told they are wrong, like never start a sentence with a conjunction. But other than that I can't think of anything I know that is wrong.

Actually, you are wrong about that. (And I deeply appreciate your starting the next sentence with "but.") My two favorite linguists, Mark Liberman and Arnold Zwicky, explains here. Whether or not you are religious, there is no doubt that English translations of the Bible do this all the time.

I am wrong in my belief that everyone else knows what is going on and agrees on all social expectations, and somehow I didn't get the memo. I know this isn't true, but I haven't convinced myself yet.

 

[Hadoblado]

There are a few things I am on the fence about but don't want to explore other possibilities. I may not be an INTP, I may have some sort of brain disorder, I may be less intelligent than I assume. Knowing the answers to a more certain degree might make my quality of life considerably worse, so I put off finding out until I'm past my prime :P

 

[SpaceYeti]

Here's a good TED talk on the subject.

It got me thinking...is there actually anything I know I'm wrong about?

There's a few points of grammar that I use even though I've been told they are wrong, like never start a sentence with a conjunction. But other than that I can't think of anything I know that is wrong.

There are several things I am unsure of, but now that I think about it, I act as though I were convinced. Global warming is one. My opinion there is that we probably can't accurately know to what extent CO2 emissions are causing global warming, and more importantly, if it is happening I don't think it's possible to stop it, so spending billions on prevention seems wasteful to me.

I guess that makes me an anti-science global warming skeptic in denial of the facts. I just don't see how I could be wrong.

1. Grammar is never "right" or "wrong", it's "proper" or "improper". You could put together a string of incoherent words and word fragments. You're not doing anything wrong, you're simply not communicating in a formal manner (or, with jibberish, at all).

2. If you realize you're wrong about something, why would you not immediately change it?



Is there anything you know is wrong but still hold to?[/QUOTE]

 

[Trebuchet]

1. Grammar is never "right" or "wrong", it's "proper" or "improper". You could put together a string of incoherent words and word fragments. You're not doing anything wrong, you're simply not communicating in a formal manner (or, with jibberish, at all).

Yeah, just because something is non-standard, or informal, doesn't mean it is wrong. It might be wrong in certain circumstances, like informality ruining a job interview, or too-long sentences boring a class of 5-year-olds.

2. If you realize you're wrong about something, why would you not immediately change it?

What, you've never been awake all night fretting about something, knowing that there was nothing you could do to affect the circumstances and that sleeping would be more useful, but unable to relax? I sure have. I'd call that being wrong, and knowing it, and continuing to be wrong anyway.

 

[ProxyAmenRa]

That woman took 17 minutes to say "Even though you think you're right, you could be wrong."

 

[pjoa09]

I don't know.

I see a mockery of people who are ignoring global warming and those who prefer to use correct grammar.

 

[Jordan~]

I know the rules of formal grammar but unless I'm writing very formally I don't use them anyway. That's not being 'wrong', it's being situationally aware. It's still perfectly possible to communicate clearly and effectively while flaunting proper grammatical rules - often even more clearly and more effectively - but some situations call for a style that strictly obeys them.

I don't really understand this idea of knowing you're wrong about something. If you know you're wrong about something, doesn't that mean exactly the same thing as not actually believing in it? Isn't it basically a kind of lie or dissimulation?

 

[Smooch]

What am I wrong about that I can think of? Obviously the answer is nothing because if I could think of it, I would no longer believe it and would no longer be wrong. At the same time I don't believe ANYTHING I know cannot be wrong.

WHy would you no longer believe it just because you could think that you were wrong about it? that doesn't make any sense. Don't you ever contradict yourself? I Think we all do at times.

 

[Smooch]

There are a few things I am on the fence about but don't want to explore other possibilities. I may not be an INTP, I may have some sort of brain disorder, I may be less intelligent than I assume. Knowing the answers to a more certain degree might make my quality of life considerably worse, so I put off finding out until I'm past my prime :P

Y do u think u might hav a brain disorder?

 

[Hadoblado]

A myriad of maladies all seemingly stemming from the mind. A unifying disorder might be behind them, or it might just be chance, I don't want to know which.

 

[Words]

Watched this a while back and...

I don't give a shit.

I don't really understand this idea of knowing you're wrong about something. If you know you're wrong about something, doesn't that mean exactly the same thing as not actually believing in it? Isn't it basically a kind of lie or dissimulation?

No. It's perfectly natural for humans to be irrational. I think we can also experience opposing emotions at the same time. I'm not sure if there is a relationship. Also, I think machines are simpler because of this.

 

[SpaceYeti]

What, you've never been awake all night fretting about something, knowing that there was nothing you could do to affect the circumstances and that sleeping would be more useful, but unable to relax? I sure have. I'd call that being wrong, and knowing it, and continuing to be wrong anyway.

That's not being wrong. That's being unwise, perhaps, but not wrong. If you should sleep, but cannot, you're not wrong for not sleeping. You're never wrong for not doing what you're incapable of doing.

 

[Artsu Tharaz]

I don't much care for the truth. If I like the sound of something, I'll say I believe it. I'll change my mind if I like the sound of something else better at the time.

 

[Words]

That's not being wrong. That's being unwise, perhaps, but not wrong. If you should sleep, but cannot, you're not wrong for not sleeping. You're never wrong for not doing what you're incapable of doing.

Wrong, in the context of the video, is about irrationality. Like Agnostic Theism, People can believe in something and yet accept the idea that they don't have enough knowledge to support that belief.

One's belief can rely on a different set of principles hence, there's no need for immediate correction. In a way, it's more like "wrong" in one criteria but "correct" in another.

 

[Jordan~]

No. It's perfectly natural for humans to be irrational. I think we can also experience opposing emotions at the same time. I'm not sure if there is a relationship. Also, I think machines are simpler because of this.

Naturally. What I mean is—

Well, taking a few things for granted:
1) There is no objective standard of truth
2) It is impossible to know for certain whether one is correct
3) Claims to objectivity in human communication are expressions of subjective emotional values

—that if someone says, "I know this not to be true," what they're saying is, "I don't believe this," dressing it up as an objective statement to grant it higher authority. "I know this not to be true," you might say, and the listener would either agree with you or challenge you, effectively inviting you to present evidence that it's not true, which they'll be inclined to accept or reject based largely on their irrational preferences, too.

If you claim to know something to be false, you're claiming not to believe it in a way that's intended to make other people not believe it, too. It's different to holding two conflicting emotions because the words have a purpose that the emotions lack - they're a deliberate and consequently purposeful and meaningful action.

If you say that something is true while simultaneously not believing it, you must be dissimulating - you have an ulterior motive for wanting the listener to believe that it is true, when in actual fact you 'know', in the only sense that anything can ever know anything, that it isn't true. The reason for which you want them to believe that it's true takes precedence.

I don't know how someone could believe two contradictory things being aware that they were contradictory. There could be conditions so that the two could coexist - e.g. someone can believe "Violence is always wrong" and "If someone hurts my loved ones, I'll hurt them back," aware that these positions are contradictory, by modifying the first to, "Violence is always wrong but if someone hurt my loved ones I wouldn't be able to control myself."

It's also possible that a person might not be aware that two things they believe contradict eachother, but then they don't 'know they're wrong'. They haven't realised that there's an issue - to them, it's no more contradictory than believing that the sky exists and that one should respect one's parents. They don't, therefore, believe anything that they know is false or vice versa.

Basically, "I do not believe this" and "I know this to be false" are functionally identical sentences. The reality that they express is the same, presented differently.

 

[SpaceYeti]

Wrong, in the context of the video, is about irrationality. Like Agnostic Theism, People can believe in something and yet accept the idea that they don't have enough knowledge to support that belief.

One's belief can rely on a different set of principles hence, there's no need for immediate correction. In a way, it's more like "wrong" in one criteria but "correct" in another.

With agnostic theism, you're either wrong or you're not. Admitting you don't know if you're correct or not doesn't make you less correct or incorrect. You can be irrational and correct, irrational and incorrect, rational and correct, and rational and incorrect. Being irrational makes you more likely to be wrong, and being rational makes you more likely to be correct, but they are not synonyms.

Maybe the video uses them as such, in which case the video is using the words atypically, but I'm not going to bother using my meager afghani bandwidth on trying to download it to watch.

 

[GYX_Kid]

Bottled up anger to unhealthy levels, and the fact that this present is due to a butterfly effect that caused an amount of preparation and perspective to be in vain. I'm wrong to believe all of that, and to not be completely kick-ass like I used to be before then. Of course now it's easier to complete my dark and angsty songs I had from years ago (and became pompously ashamed of when I was "so awesome"), so maybe there is some being right in being extremely pissed. But the better way is to not be mentally affected, though make sure you're still violent against an attacker while still being unmoved.

 

[Reluctantly]

I'm never wrong, only sometimes misaligned with reality.

 

[Trebuchet]

That's not being wrong. That's being unwise, perhaps, but not wrong. If you should sleep, but cannot, you're not wrong for not sleeping. You're never wrong for not doing what you're incapable of doing.

I like this way of thinking!

 

[SpaceYeti]

I figured it was obvious. Then, frequently things I consider obvious are unnoticed by others, just as what they consider obvious goes unnoticed by me.

 

[Essence]

Something that IS can be perceived as something else if certain details are missed. That seems to happen alot but the only thing I can really say to myself is "I know now and something like this won't happen again in a similar situation" Thats just learning. You don't know what you don't know, and you don't know what you're really going to think until you think it. For me this means the only solution is to take in as much information as possible. But i feel that that idea is flawed in some way. I don't even know if there's really a problem.

 

[AlisaD]

I don't much care for the truth. If I like the sound of something, I'll say I believe it. I'll change my mind if I like the sound of something else better at the time.

A man after my own heart.

 

[scorpiomover]

It got me thinking...is there actually anything I know I'm wrong about?

If I think an idea, I can only think it within the limited framework of my own brain. Yet, I am also trying to think of it in a generalised way, which goes way beyond my data, and way beyond the number of things that my brain can process. So by definition, my ideas are all imperfect.

So pretty much anything I think, is imperfect, and that makes it wrong.

I also found it very funny, that someone so successful, would talk about what it means to be wrong. I mean, she's used to everyone thinking she's right. So how does she know what it feels like to be wrong?

When she told that story about getting the picnic symbol being wrong, and her friend laughing about it, I just thought "That's pretty much the story of my life". In almost everything, I make dumb comments, that others find to be hilarious. I'd love to see someone up there talk about being wrong, who is often wrong.

Mind you, she made some good points. So maybe I'm wrong about that, as well.

 

[RobdoR]

Actually, you are wrong about that. (And I deeply appreciate your starting the next sentence with "but.") My two favorite linguists, Mark Liberman and Arnold Zwicky, explains here. Whether or not you are religious, there is no doubt that English translations of the Bible do this all the time.

Vindicated!

I should have known INTPs would quibble over the definition of "wrong".

I just had some good insight into this issue yesterday. I was arguing with my wife about something belief she had, trying to challenge it like I normally do. We realized that the reason she didn't want to change was because it affected so many other issues and it would take way too much effort to sort out. It would also nullify actions taken in support of that belief.

Sometimes the cost of correcting yourself is just too big to deal with. And sometimes it's too important not to deal with. And sometimes both, like in relationships.

 

[rattymat]

I've actually been dealing with the dilemna of human wrongess. The way my mind has worded it is that human perspective can only have so much exposure in any given moment to its reality, and that truth cannot fully be seen through a single human perspective. Even humans as a collective are limited in their ability to truthfully see reality. The realization that humans only have a limited ability to see the truth of reality has made it difficult for me to make judgments in my thoughts, and in doing so made my thoughts rather disorganized. I do believe however that there are methods of thought to come to purer grades of truth in reality, though such a belief is currently under-developed. I also find it a valuable lesson to genuinely listen to what other people have to say and not automatically (even if subconciously) reject it. This is also difficult because I don't think everyone is great at expressing themselves, so it takes a certain effort to understand what they mean without tainting it with your own thoughts.