The wrong way to be right

The wrong way to be right

Using language, we can isolate two categorical groupings consisting of different formations in language. We can call one category “accurate” and the other category “inaccurate.” For instance, we could list a few statements and sort them for logical “accuracy:”



Representation of high precision and low accuracy.

Representation of high precision and low accuracy. (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

“The letters of these words are black.”
“The letters of these words are green.”
“These words are in the specific pattern of language called the English language.” 
“These words are in the specific pattern of language called the Northwestern European language.”
So, we can check for consistently between the symbolic representations (the meanings) of a sequence of words and then familiar, expected definitions of the individual word labels. Does the meaning of the grouping of words fit logically with the meanings of the individual words? Is there total logical consistency, or is there some obvious contradiction of logic (or, is that not clear, such as if you are only literate in the Chinese language and then you try to read these strange shapes, then you would not be able to identify whether these words are logically accurate or not).
We can say “either accurate or inaccurate,” “either true or false,” and “either right or wrong.” Those are each “binary” pairs or two exclusive contrasting categorical labels. Logically, wrong simply means “not totally right.” Like on a test in school, an answer that is partially right may receive no credit. It is not right. Something is wrong- maybe 100% inaccurate and maybe only some tiny detail, but if it is not 100% right, then it is not right, not correct, not accurate.
Representation of high accuracy and low precision.

Representation of high accuracy and low precision. (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

In some tests, we also recognize distinctions in precision. If I say that the temperature is 0 degrees fahrenheit, that is distinct from 0.214 or -0.08.
Further, we can categorize something as “too precise.” If I want a haircut, 3 minutes may not be enough time for a reasonably precise cutting of hairs, but 30 minutes of haircutting may be “more then enough precision.”
So, what does “wrong” really mean? It could simply mean unexpected or unrecognized. If I ask you what 2 plus 4 equals, and you say “half a dozen,” I may say “wrong!” Why? Because I expected the answer to be “6.” Maybe I do not know what a dozen is (or a half). If someone does not answer as I expect them to (or something I recognize as being accurate), then that is what I call “wrong.”
Now, if I think that I know the answer to a question but I actually do not, that can be even more intriguing. I may sincerely insist that what I expect is right and anything else is wrong.
English: "Space" in the Chinese lang...

English: “Space” in the Chinese language (as in definition 5 at Wiktionary. (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

Now, two people with slightly different perspectives can sit together and list out 100 issues, like 100 political controversies. They might find 97 issues in which they both agree that they are both “right.” They might also find 3 issues on which they both agree that “the other one is wrong, but I am right of course.”
What do they do about the 3 disagreements? They could ignore those 3 items and perhaps talk about the other 97. They could get in to an argument or a physical conflict about one or more of the 3 issues. They could discuss how they reached their different conclusions (and risk learning something new). Finally, they could notice the differences of opinion as mere differences of opinion and do nothing at all further.
A thumbnail produced for usage in some templat...

A thumbnail produced for usage in some template about articles having grammatical errors and/or wrong words. (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

But what is the right way for people to handle a disagreement? That may depend on who you ask.
Is someone afraid of disagreements, afraid of arguing, afraid of the risk of learning something new? Is someone eager to learn new things, either to argue, eager to debate and start a yelling match or a war? Are people looking for excuses to cultivate a conflict or looking for excuses to start a conversation or discussion?
Is it wrong for people to ever cultivate a conflict? Is it right for people to always generously offer themselves to a conversation about anything at all with anyone at all?
Realistically, right and wrong are just two categories in language. They may be very useful, as well as categorical pairs like “either familiar or unfamiliar” or “either exactly as expected or not exactly as expected.”
The idea that “right and wrong” exist independently of language may be entirely imprecise, completely inaccurate, absolutely ridiculous… and yet quite familiar and even exactly what is expected. Is there a wrong way to be right? Is it wrong to use any discrepancy between the perspectives of two people or two groups to create a conflict and drama and tantrum? To be precise, that is just one alternative. It is not inherently wrong to cultivate conflict. The only thing that cultivating conflict is inherently is cultivating conflict.
How can anything be wrong without someone labeling it as wrong? Is there something inherently wrong with “2 +4 = 5?”
What about when two highways intersect: one with four lanes and one with two lanes, and then they merge in to five lanes? Didn’t think of that, did you!?!?
Montage of languages. Prototype header for the...

Montage of languages. Prototype header for the language portal. (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

All of those shapes are symbolic codes. Symbolic codes are inherently codes that symbolize something else.
There is no inherently right way to spell the words color and colour (the British variation) because words do not inherently have any independent existence. Words only exist within the context of a language. Spelling only exists within the context of an alphabet.
Familiar spellings are just familiar. Familiar alphabets are just familiar. There is no font that is more inherently a font than any other font. There is no inherently right font and no inherently wrong font.
Fonts are all made up. Words are all made up. Languages are all made up.
Within language, we can create two isolated, contrasting categories such as right and wrong. Those categories, like all of the others in language are inherently just a bunch of made up categories in language. All categories are made up.
Other people may disagree with what I just stated. They may say “that is wrong.” They may find it unfamiliar. They may seek to argue with anyone who says such things. They may say “that is the wrong way to be right.” I might even say that I agree with them.
Stating agreement has a social function. Claiming disagreement (and focusing on that) also has a social function.
I may go out of my way to tell people when I disagree with them (but generally ignore it if they agree). Or, I may go out of my way to tell people when I agree with them.
Then again, if “my way” is to ignore disagreements and focus on agreements, then to behave that way is not “going out of my way.” That is claiming a particular way as mine and sticking with it.
If you want to have a lot of conversations with people, then claim a particular way as yours and tell everyone every chance you get. If you want to have fewer conversations, then do not claim a particular way as yours or at least do not make a point of telling people that your way is “not to claim any particular way as mine.” That is clearly the wrong way to be right!
When will people know to disagree or agree with you? When will people know to invest a lot of energy in creating a huge momentum of interaction with you? Don’t you owe it to people to clearly in advance let them know how you FEEL and what you think and so on? Exactly how much warning should you give to other people when are you about to eventually feel something new soon? Shouldn’t you always feel something and think something and need to tell everyone about all of that?
Well, look here and listen up… if that’s the best you can do as far as claiming to know the right way, then you might as well not even bother. Everyone should know the right way. Everyone should agree. 
That is what is inherently right. That is what I expect. Maybe it is not familiar, but it simply should be that everyone already has the same subjective opinion as to some exclusive, inherent set of things that are inherently right (in contrast to another very specific set of things that are inherently wrong). Specifically, people should always agree with me.
People basically should be more like I expect them to be. All other people should be much more like me- in fact exactly like me. All of these other people that are different from me in at least one way are ruining my life!
They are causing me tremendous frustration and confusion. Day after day, someone eventually does something that is not precisely what I presumptively expected. When are these people going to stop this? It’s so annoying!
I need to know what to expect. I need to know what I think. I need to know who I agree with passionately and who I disagree with completely (in regard to at least one detail). I need to know when to argue and have a tantrum or glorify any people who are inherently right because of their total agreement with my way, which not only should never change, but cannot. If I ever say anything inconsistent with something that I ever said in the past, that would be horrible. 
Learning is one of the very worst things that can happen to someone. Trust me because I say that from experience. You don’t want to have to learn that lesson for yourself like I did. It was truly horrible. Once I found out that learning new things was ruining my life, I simply stopped.
If you want to do what is inherently right and avoid learning new things, the key is to avoid interacting with other people, especially strangers. In particular, please do not have casual conversations with people who have not been carefully screened by a registered personality profiling agency as being so similar to you that your conversations will be refreshingly dull- kind of like the familiar conversations that you used to have, you know, back before you were ashamed of being so shy. 
Be proud that you are ashamed of being shy. Be ashamed that you are proud of being shy. Be shy about how you are ashamed of being proud. Be shy about how you are proud of being ashamed. 
But please, for God’s sake, do not over-do it. If there is one thing that throws me directly in to a jealous rage, it is those pests who are too undramatic and pretend that they do not know it. You know who I am talking about: dead people. They are ruining my life. 
Also, I cannot conclude without passionately condemning very small children who have not learned language yet and thus are unable to agree with me about how my point of view is inherently superior to all other points of view. They totally suck… nipples. They should be applauding me for my intelligence, which does not require talking- they could just clap, like while they are sucking out mother’s milk from the breasts of human mammary glands.
Why aren’t they clapping? Why aren’t they worshiping my inherently right way of being a narcissistic perfectionist? Why do they just keep laying there and totally suck at sucking? 
What the hell is wrong with young people nowadays? Back when I was a youngster, we had morals. We had values. We had sincerity. We had arrogance. We knew what was inherently right. We were superior to everyone else who did not do what we had learned to expect as what is familiar to us. 
And then something horrible happened. I kept learning so long that eventually I discovered that my way of being right was neither inherently right not inherently wrong. It was just one way of being right among many. 
Furthermore, “my way” was not even really mine. Dozens- perhaps even hundreds of young people in my midst had more or less the exact same set of familiar expectations as I did (in contrast to the unfamiliar expectations of people who did not expect what I expected them to expect). 
Who is going to fix this terribly terrifying terror? How can I make everyone else agree with me like I need them to? How can I prevent anyone from ever doing anything unexpected? How I can I figure out the right way to agonize so that once I have it mastered, then I can stop practicing the behavior of agonizing?
I’m about to give up here, folks. I am about to resign myself to always being resigned. I am about to accept that one way of relating to reality is to simply accept it as it is. 
But I just FEEL like I shouldn’t be so accepting (so resigned!). Shouldn’t I condemn anything that is inherently wrong- to prevent it from ever frightening me in the future? Shouldn’t I glorify everything that is inherently right because it is what I personally prefer and expect? 
Like I said, this is horrible. I am so depressed about me being totally okay with everything however it is. I really need something to reject (or else I simply will not able to live with myself). I need an excuse to reject myself, to condemn myself for being inherently not what I expected, or else… I might break down and openly accept how I already am. If I ever did that, then, well, then what would I struggle to become instead of what I am already?
Here I am, tormented by my complete freedom from ideals and idolatries. Who can rescue me from this humble, innocent dignity? What ritual can save me from heaven? What can I condemn? What can I reject? What can I protest as insulting to what is inherently decent? 
First of all, infants should not suck. We need to properly raise them so that they realize that breast milk is extremely dangerous. Once, I was walking down a street and I slipped in a puddle of breast milk and fell hopelessly in love, drowning in my own words, and then suddenly died. My life was totally ruined. 
I only wish that my life had not been ruined by what ruined my life. Please, if you learn nothing else for the rest of your life, I insist that you learn from my mistakes, well, unless you are being a jerk again like you used to always do. Stop doing things that are inherently wrong. Stop totally sucking. Only suck in moderation. 
Be more like I expect you to be, like for instance stop acting like I somehow owe it to you to inform you in advance of what I expect. The arrogance of some people never ceases to amaze me. Stop that. Stop that right now. Thank you. Do not make me come over there and repeat myself and come over there, you worthless sack of sucking sucks (not to be confused with sacking sacks, which by the way are NOT worthless).


Accuracy and precision example

Accuracy and precision example (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

Tags: , , , , ,

One Response to “The wrong way to be right”

  1. profesorbaker Says:

    Reblogged this on Profesorbaker's ELT Blog and commented:
    This is absolutely intriguing, every time you feel like you are going to stop reading, you realize that you can’t because what seems to be evidently and inherently wrong, it’s author, Fibonacci, proves himself to be right, and vice versa…

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: