What If We're Wrong?

[Author’s note: Not to be confused with the Chuck Klosterman book of the same name, but does share the basic premise, that is, what if we’re wrong about many of our commonly held beliefs? I take a more practical approach to the question, whereas much of Klosterman’s commentary – which is nonetheless quite interesting – is more esoteric.]

 

I am guilty of doing it more often than I’d like, behaving like everyone else, much to my chagrin. While I often think about how I could help the world be a better place as it seems to descend further and further into madness, I usually come up empty-minded, with no easy solutions and quietly wishing for a comet to strike the planet ala Don’t Look Up. Then it dawned on me as I was reading Chuck Klosterman’s book, But What if We’re Wrong? – the title of the book; what if we asked ourselves that question before being so certain of our beliefs? For example, before hitting ‘send’ on that tweet, what if we asked ourselves, “What if I’m wrong about what I’m saying?”

 

The problem with old-timey Western European philosophers is that, by-and-large, their arguments are only successful in a vacuum and suppose common people en masse can be convinced to take the time and think philosophically, and then actually apply those ideas in the real world. This doesn’t happen very often if at all, and very few people enjoy the mental masturbation of thinking deeply about anything. This is perhaps due to human beings’ motivations not being all that deep or interesting. That said, it is no wonder that ‘academics’ are regarded with suspicion by authoritarian leaders…who really don’t have that much to fear from academics being that even the general population thinks of philosophers as bullshit artists. Why would this be the case? As I said, most people just can’t be asked to think very deeply about anything. But, if this is a case of conditioning, here’s where my idea can play a critical role in how we treat each other.

 

Suppose when interacting with other people, before we speak or act we ask ourselves, “What if I’m wrong?” Think about how far this question would go in beginning thought processes that go deeper. I might add that asking this question really should be our default position since – when considering human history – we’ve been wrong about far more things than right. (This is still the case today.) The only problem is that asking the question is likely to be cut off at the knees due to an overriding self-righteousness driven by our lust for power (however minor or illusionary).

 

But let’s say in the off chance that we’re able to stop ourselves and ask, “What if I’m wrong?” what follows? If we’re trying to make factual claims, such claims are easy enough to corroborate, at least until disinformation campaigns and deep fakes become even more prevalent. If we’re stating matters of opinion, we can ask ourselves why we hold the opinions we do, what is the opposing view and why does someone hold their positions, are there any other competing views that may illuminate a false dichotomy, and perhaps most importantly what is the consequences of stating my position? Am I stating a point of view for the sake of being right? Am I just trolling? Is it for the well-being of society? (Keep in mind just about everyone thinks this.) We might also ask ourselves, No, really, what if I am wrong and I get torched for it? Having the foresight to think of possible consequences is another trait most of humanity could stand to cultivate. Trust me, in the U.S. society is a disaster because both the left- and right-wings, and corporations prefer the lot of us to act on nothing but impulse. I could be wrong about why society is a disaster, but if I am wrong I’ll own up to it. And this is something else asking ourselves, “What if I’m wrong?” aims to do – foster some goddamn humility.

 

Few people are going to disagree that we need less humility in the world. I’m not saying anyone should be a pushover instead, but rather accept the reality that none of us are right about everything – again, we’re likely to be wrong about whatever we’re on about – and be willing to accept this fact (and I’m not wrong that our propensity for wrongness is a fact). But what if I’m wrong about how much better the world would be if we asked my important question? The consequences would not be dire; people would just resume what these days is normal behavior.

 

But let’s say I’m an oil executive who insists that fossil fuels aren’t helping to change the climate, that climate change is not being driven by human activity. What if I’m wrong about that? The consequences wouldn’t be that dire for me; I guess my fortunes would keep me comfortable at least for the rest of my lifetime. For everyone else, though, well, you’re screwed and I don’t care because I’ll be fine. Ah, but do I want my name (my genes, really) to go on? And would I’d rather send my progeny into a world where climate change isn’t an issue, giving them one less thing to worry about? So, there could be dire consequences, just not immediately. And there is a myriad of questions we could raise about being wrong in this instance which could give us insight into the consequences of being wrong. But if we don’t ask ourselves if we could be wrong we’d never be capable of any meaningful thought on an issue or be able to see into the future.

 

To be fair, on the other hand, what if climate scientists are wrong about climate change, that the earth is experiencing a normal, cyclic change in overall temperature? Let’s say the belief that humans are driving climate change drives us towards more and more renewable energy sources and away from fossil fuels, what are the terrible consequences of being wrong in this case? When you consider clean air and water, this alone would be enough for me to say I would accept the consequences of being wrong even if it meant a few people who work in the fossil fuel industry would lose their jobs. [People lose their jobs all the time; they can be retrained if they’re willing. I’d be willing to lose a job I had if it meant a more beautiful, and cleaner, less-toxic environment.] So, some consequences can be quite unfavorable and others favorable if we’re wrong on an issue. But – again – we’ve got to ask the question first.

 

We’ve all seen the consequences of a world in which people act without foresight and are reactionary in the moment. Does society have to behave like this, thus becoming less civilized? Impulses may compel us but the more reason is cultivated, the more we may dull the sword of impulse. As it stands, impulse is cutting all of our relationships to ribbons. Think about the consequences of continuing this course of behavior. Is it worth it? Let’s start by asking ourselves if its wrong to act like this; what are the consequences if we change our behavior so that our interactions have more favorable results (i.e. less harm)? My guess is even if we’re wrong to temper our impulses, if we’re wrong that causing less harm is actually doing more harm, we can see that makes no sense. I’d dare say that most of us would recognize this as insanity. I’d dare say most of us would not like to see society continue in this way. So, we should stop behaving in this manner, and all we have to do is ask a simply question.

 

Practice it. Practice it and it gets easier to do. If we find that asking ourselves if we’re wrong does not lead to better outcomes, we haven’t lost much and I can go back to wishing for a comet to strike the planet. I shouldn’t want to wish for that. But maybe I’m wrong.

Theory Parker: Citizen of the World

I’ve long maintained that one of the worst ideas to ever plague mankind is nationalism. Nationalism, the identification with one’s nation and its interests typically to the detriment of other nations, is a natural outcropping of tribalism which, long ago, used to be on a small enough scale as to not be harmful on a global scale. But, thanks to population growth, the internet, and all the other streams of media that know the value of sowing division, tribalism and nationalism have become so strongly embedded in people’s psyche that they would become virtually rudderless without these identity markers. When the alternative to being rudderless is being a detriment to other members of the human race, I, as a thinking and rational person, would choose to be rudderless. Only I am not; my county is the world. More on that momentarily.

The thing about concepts like tribalism and nationalism is that it divides people along often arbitrary lines. As a citizen of the United States I’m supposed to hate the Chinese for letting COVID-19 out of their country and wreaking havoc across the globe? Last time I checked, viruses didn’t have nationalities, doesn’t care what tribe you belong to, and will potentially kill you regardless. (Funny story – as of this writing the U.S. has more cases than any other. Americans are the ones spreading it more than any other nationality, so, I guess we’re supposed to hate Americans given the preceding logic.) Even within the United States, citizens are often raised to have contempt for their neighboring state because, well, because someone drew a line somewhere.

Tribalism and nationalism strictly ignore what binds people everywhere together – the fact that we’re all people where by ‘people’ we mean human beings. Undoubtedly it is difficult for nations to fight a wars if their troops think of the animals they’re fighting as anything more than that. Here, I’m reminded of a line from the movie Saving Private Ryan (I think) where one or the troops asks another, “Why are we fighting the Germans if we’re probably going to be friends 30 years from now?” (I’m paraphrasing). People everywhere have more in common than they think such as the need for food, clean air and water, shelter, friendship, intimacy, and a sense of belonging (e.g. tribalism). Of course there are nuances to these concepts but the point is people often have to conceptually go out of their way to dehumanize others in order to get a sense of any self-worth. Why should this be the case?

This shouldn’t be the case because it is clear that throughout history cooperation between people has been more productive than going to war or worse, committing to genocide. Squabbling over irrelevant things like which side of an egg to crack open accomplishes nothing and wastes time, though to be sure, people have killed each other for less, such as being a woman. What’s really at stake when people commit wholeheartedly to tribalism or nationalism is power, that goddamn exertion of power human beings are so bad at getting over. Certainly, Nietzsche’s Will to Power is more or less in the nature of all human beings, but it can be nurtured out of a person as easily as its flames are fanned by manipulative forces. Or, the Will to Power can be overcome by introspection. I overcame it through self-analysis when I realized (fortunately early enough) that I didn’t like people telling me what to do, especially when they didn’t have good reasons for wanting me to do what they wanted. This allowed me to examine the world through consecutively larger lenses.

And so I came to a point where I realized it’s irrelevant that I happen to be American by an accident of birth. (I find it repugnant when people do this, are proud of something they had no choice in being.) I could go so far as to say that I have so little in common – value wise –  with my countrymen and women that I’m actually not American. I’m a simple human being, much the same as any other, and if I owe allegiance to any group – which I don’t – it would be the human race whether that person is red, white, blue, or black. It doesn’t matter which country’s ideology one subscribes to, one is still part of the whole. We should then act accordingly because the differences one makes along ideological lines are less than the lines drawn between species (though, even at that point, we’re all still living things). The more one sees the bigger picture, the closer we can become. Divisions we’re supposed to prescribe to are typically driven by the rich and powerful. Recognize this and the less likely we are to be coerced to kill for them in wars. The only way I could possibly find myself fighting for my country of birth is if the entire world was at risk, such as in World War II. The ‘War on Terrorism,’ a situation the U.S. helped create, not so much. I’m sure I would fight for my own preservation, but until that’s required of me I have better things to do.

There are still many countries to visit and many cultures to experience. I find it fascinating to do so because one never knows when they’re going to come across a situation where they find people doing things better than they were doing within their own culture. And this is the value of experiencing other cultures; it allows you to see problems in a new light and therefore possibly solve them with different thinking. In the supposed words of Albert Einstein, “We cannot solve problems with the same kind of thinking that created them,” which he apparently said upon musing about a post-nationalist, post-militaristic world. It is clear no one culture is superior to another in successfully propagating the human race or in securing its future, so why is the idea so widely subscribed to? We already know and we already know that it’s false.

I owe allegiance to no country because no country has demonstrated it is superior to any other. (Proponents of American exceptionalism are easily defeated and will not be entertained here.) My allegiances are made on a case by case basis. My judgements are cast on a case by case basis. The world is too rich, too ripe for exploration to remain within one’s shell for too long. For it’s a myth that the shell offers protection. It does provide insulation, where being too cozy with one’s own ideas for too long leads to mental weakness, inflexibility, and worst of all, controllability. These are not a good things. If humanity as a whole would only recognize themselves as such, as human, the fewer robots there would be hell-bent on destroying it all.

The Power and No Glory

"Nature, red in tooth and claw.” Lord Alfred Tennyson

There are many facets of human existence, yet none are as insidious as an individual’s hunger for power over other people. The hunger for power over others and the exercise thereof – the most obvious manifestations of Nietzsche’s Will to Power – has caused untold suffering throughout human existence. But the hunger for power is not unique to Homo sapiens; it extends back long before the birth of our species. Gorillas and chimpanzees, for example, in fighting over resources and mates routinely go so far as to kill their competitors (if not within, then outside of their group). This behavior is not unique to our closest genetic relatives either; such behavior can be observed in animals far older and removed from us, but who with whom we still share a common ancestor, such as lizards.  [Lizards share the same Phylum as Homo sapiens; Chordata.] The behavior of one human seeking power over another human has a long history. This raises some questions: What is any one individual getting out of it? What are we getting out of it collectively, as a species? Are the ramification for better or worse? Should we accept this aspect of our nature or seek to overcome it?

“Nearly all men can stand adversity, but if you want to test a man's character, give him power.” Abraham Lincoln

What does an individual get out of seeking power? The reasons for any one individual seeking power over others is pretty clear as it is the same reasons mentioned earlier – it is a battle for resources and/or mates. Seeking power may also be for the sake of securing one’s own safety or the safety of their group (though their own safety typically supersedes that of the group’s) or to inflate one’s sense of importance, from which other ventures requiring confidence can then take place. We can see these reasons manifested in examples such as an unscrupulous CEO that suppresses information concerning the safety of their product for the sake of making money, any clergyman or self-described mystic (or any person in general) who claims special knowledge, authors of self-help books who must first convince you that there is indeed something wrong with you, and we can see it in porn that typically treats women as objects. A March 2013 paper that appeared in Psychological Science concluded power makes people happy. Happy people are generally healthier than unhappy people, so there appears to be a biological benefit to having power on several levels, so long as you’re the one who has it.

What does a group get out of seeking power? Since groups consist of individuals, it stands to reason that groups of people would seek power for the same reasons individuals do. By extension, you get similar examples of this behavior as before; a CEO extends their power to a board which runs a company with a clear hierarchy and agenda, the mystic who creates a religion around themselves, a multibillion dollar sector of the book-selling industry, and institutionalized misogyny. Even capitalism, assumed by many to be a mere economic system with no inherent flaw, in practice ultimately becomes a system that sees people working in unison to gain power over each other through the accumulation of wealth. (If you’re going to argue that this is a stretch, I would counter with the need for reports on a country’s health in which economic growth is a heavily considered factor.) The social arrangement of groups that seek power form hierarchies where those closer to the top benefit more from the arrangement. Even those at the bottom get something from the arrangement, assuming they are not forced into the group by coercion or threats of violence. Individuals run great personal risk to their freedom (if not overall health and safety) by operating outside the confines of the dominant group. You need only to ask anyone in the U.S. who is not a Christian for confirmation. Even at a most basic level, social groups form some kind of hierarchy; there appears to be a need for some people to be more important or thought of as more important than others.

“What do men of power want? More power.” The Oracle to Neo in The Matrix Reloaded

Without doubt, there are benefits to seeking power whether as an individual or group, but it is clear that both individual and group survival and reproduction are the driving forces behind the behavior. But, what are or have been the ramifications on a scale beyond the individual or group? Generally speaking, death, suffering, repression and imprisonment for those of a lower or outsider status at the behest of those in a group fearing giving up whatever status they have attained. Those who have power don’t want to share resources or are reluctant to change their own ‘tried and true’ ways. Historically, groups seeking more and more power have formed tribes and tribes became nation states (though tribalism is still very much alive), with the leader of any given group easily leading their group to war with another group. What all this power-seeking does is legitimize the notion, through killing or some form of repression, is that some lives are more valuable than others. From an evolutionary standpoint, it is easy to understand why individuals or groups would think this way. If this is the way we really want to think or want to believe that it is perfectly okay to seek power though other people’s lives are the price, then we have to be able conclude – across the board and without question – that some people actually are more important than others and are therefore deserving of their lofty or privileged positions.

“Judge not, least ye be judged.” The Bible, Matthew 7:1

Traditionally, there are several ways to examine a person’s worth; it can be measured in terms of a person operating within a society or in terms of the individual itself, free from the constraints of a society. But to talk of a person’s importance free from the constraints of society is irrelevant; there’s no need to measure a person’s importance if they stand alone on a deserted island. A person’s importance is then measured by that individual. Again, irrelevant. Individual worth can only be measured by those outside of any given individual and in being given this power to judge another human being is to begin the process of power-seeking itself. Any judgment by one person upon another person is for the person doing the judging to effectively say, I am – in at least some way – better than you and should therefore have power over you. In Western societies at least, the rush to judgment is so quick, so automatic that it implies that collectively, we think that some people are in fact better than others. If some people are better than others, than to seek power over other people is perfectly acceptable.

“Since mankind's dawn, a handful of oppressors have accepted the responsibility over our lives that we should have accepted for ourselves. By doing so, they took our power. By doing nothing, we gave it away. We've seen where their way leads, through camps and wars, towards the slaughterhouse.” Alan Moore in V for Vendetta

Certainly, we draw arbitrary limits on exactly how much power one person should have over another. Murder and rape are generally illegal. So are many predatory economic practices. (Though, if you’ll notice, there is often a loophole regarding such things.) But, in general, it’s okay to seek power. Those, who when being judged angrily lash out with “Don’t judge me!” are saying so because they don’t like power being in the hands of others. Of course, those same people judge others all the time, though I suppose for people to be hypocrites is nothing new. Again, collectively, at least in Western cultures (and surely many others), we agree that power-seeking is okay and that the global impact it has is not so great that we regard the consequences as acceptable. Think about that – billions of lives lost since the beginning of recorded history alone – means there are lots of people who have existed that essentially deserved to be put to death or repressed for the greater good of others having power (or for anyone in general to seek power). If the consequences of power-seeking are not acceptable, the only recourse is to treat each person as equals with no regard for gender, ethnicity, personality or skills. Naturally, this is completely impossible, especially when it comes to personality and skills.

“The day the power of love overrules the love of power, the world will know peace.” Mahatma Gandhi

It may be that we tend to seek power over others because the alternative is impossible. Yes, we can and do place limits on the amount of power one has over another, but those limits are always governed by the ones who have the most power and the will to use it. So what do we do? I suppose recognizing the behavior is a step towards dealing with it, like alcoholics who have to recognize they have a problem before they can get clean. (Where by “dealing with it” I mean start a dialogue towards finding a balance between power-seeking and treating people equally since the alternatives are either negative while the other is impossible.)

I do not offer any solutions here; this is merely a reflection on what I perceive as a problem for the human species. Do you think there is a problem? If so, you have passed judgment on the human race. It is not so easy to fight our nature.