Cold wash cold rinse

[mererdog]

You are wrong. If your parents are alive, they are also wrong. In point of fact, everyone you love, everyone you respect, everyone you trust, and everyone you believe is wrong. But, hey, so am I.
I base this Declaration of Wrongitude on two assumed facts- Objective reality exists, and all humans experience that reality in a limited and imperfect way. In other words, Truth exists and we are bad at seeing it.
So you are wrong. But nobody likes being wrong, in the same way that nobody likes being a loser. This makes us averse to looking directly at our wrongness. We minimize it, gloss over it, and put it in a convenient context that makes it seem insignificant. We externalize it, we blame it on others, we chalk it up to a learning experience, and we insist that the important point is that the other guy is way more wrong than we are.
Yet we are wrong, and the most efficient way to improve is to face that fact and try to change it- to admit we are wrong and work on being less wrong in the future. Please note that I don't cite this as a cure for being wrong. We will always be wrong. Being wrong doesn't mean we can't also be right.

Edited October 20, 2017 by mererdog

[cuchulain]

I don't mind being wrong.  It helps me to learn.  

I was reading something recently, but I can't remember what.  In any case, it was discussing people who view reality as absolute, vs people who view reality as subjective to the beholder.  I began to think maybe reality is simply both at the same time.  Maybe there is an objective reality, and maybe there is also a subjective reality that impacts it.  I don't say impacts it to the point of being able to do away with it or rewrite it, but impacts in some manner.

[Jonathan H. B. Lobl]

6 hours ago, cuchulain said:

I don't mind being wrong.  It helps me to learn.  

I was reading something recently, but I can't remember what.  In any case, it was discussing people who view reality as absolute, vs people who view reality as subjective to the beholder.  I began to think maybe reality is simply both at the same time.  Maybe there is an objective reality, and maybe there is also a subjective reality that impacts it.  I don't say impacts it to the point of being able to do away with it or rewrite it, but impacts in some manner.

 

I think it's both.  This is why scientists like double blind studies.  So that expectation and desire won't change the objective results.  

[mererdog]

18 hours ago, cuchulain said:

I don't mind being wrong.

No one likes finding out they were wrong about their spouse not cheating. It is a universally despised moment. Well, there are people who had spent years hoping for a yo-fault divorce, but those people are not good role-models.

 

Wanting to learn is a symptom of not liking being wrong. It shows a desire to change from someone who is wrong into someone who used to be wrong. 

 

Being wrong does not help you learn, in the same way that being fat doesn't help people lose weight. If you dont decide it is a problem, and thus desire to change it, its not going anywhere without some sort of lucky accident. That is what makes our aversion to being wrong a survival trait- it provides motivation for personal improvement. The problem is when the desire to not be wrong becomes twisted into an unwillingness to admit when we are wrong. Because it is the awareness that we are wrong that makes the learning possible. Am I wrong?

Edited October 21, 2017 by mererdog

[mererdog]

12 hours ago, Jonathan H. B. Lobl said:

So that expectation and desire won't change the objective results.  

The most rigorous methodology can only provide imperfect controls in the face of ever present bias. Double blind studies do an excellent job of eliminating the most obvious and direct impacts of bias. If we assume they eliminate all effects of bias, however, we are demotivated from looking for and eliminating the less obvious and direct ways the data is impacted by bias.

Edited October 21, 2017 by mererdog

[Jonathan H. B. Lobl]

On 10/21/2017 at 7:06 AM, mererdog said:

The most rigorous methodology can only provide imperfect controls in the face of ever present bias. Double blind studies do an excellent job of eliminating the most obvious and direct impacts of bias. If we assume they eliminate all effects of bias, however, we are demotivated from looking for and eliminating the less obvious and direct ways the data is impacted by bias.

 

Perfection in anything is an elusive goal.  That was your initial point.  Still, we can strive for excellence.