Yes Carl, you were one of the few that responded and always refused to accept that you had information that either was completely wrong or partially wrong. We always presented you with our source of information that your refused to accept. I suspect you are suffering rom “political overconfidence.”
Well, you were one of hundreds of letter writers so I certainly am not going to remember every conversation, but the standard when there was a problem with a letter was that we pointed out what we found to be factually inaccurate and gave you the opportunity to correct it. If you were saying that you were never given that opportunity, I find that hard to believe.
Sep 28, 2022·edited Sep 28, 2022Liked by Ken Tingley
In the past year or so I have become more and more aware of the "Dunning-Kruger effect."
All of us, to a greater or lesser extent, and differently in different areas of knowledge, have a tendency to over-rate our abilities. I think it's a rare skill to learn to distinguish what we know thoroughly from what we know only somewhat.
Plus, there are many many YouTube videos explaining this.
I have an additional question I like to ask people. Only thoughtful people, you know. Reactive people get upset. Here's my additional question:
When you find that your thinking has not been quite correct, but needs some adjustment, do you feel good that you have found a better way, or bad that you have been wrong for so long?
And, a corollary: If your thinking deals, somehow, with your sense of who you are, and of the social group(s) you identify with, how do you peel yourself away from that old sense of self, that old peer group, and establish a new way? Can you live as a (possibly despised) outsider?
How free are you to think and get good, grounded answers?
What a great conversation start. I believe when I find out I’m wrong or partially wrong, I’m at first a little upset at myself for not knowing the real truth. But I do try to learn from it. But my first reaction is to kick myself.
Sep 28, 2022·edited Sep 28, 2022Liked by Ken Tingley
Yes. I have favorite epithets for that occasion. Dolt. Ijit. Numskull. But then I remember Jimmy Cricket (well how about that, I cannot, cannot, overcome the autocorrect that changes what I type into "Jimmy," who sang about being better than you are. Shake a leg. Get off the couch. Get movin'.
The founders had a trust that the vast majority of people who reached a place of prominence would hold the concept of honor in high regard, that they could be trusted to tell the truth, to honor an oath, and that the public would reject representatives, the people in the best position to know and convey details of policy if they were proven to misrepresent the truth. It is strange that so many who claim incorrectly that we are a Christian nation would accept representatives who bear false witness. Good news for them whole networks of news sources have developed to feed misinformation to them. Now they can feel like they are being truthful as they bear false witness. Zarathustra considered this about 3,000 years ago. He developed a religious practice based in Asha (order) vs Druj (deception), truth vs lie (anti-creation). The practice was simple “good thoughts, good words, good deeds.” We certainly see plenty of political figures who do not conform to Zoroastrian norms, Asha, and benefit through the practice of Druj, deception.
Yes Carl, you were one of the few that responded and always refused to accept that you had information that either was completely wrong or partially wrong. We always presented you with our source of information that your refused to accept. I suspect you are suffering rom “political overconfidence.”
Well, you were one of hundreds of letter writers so I certainly am not going to remember every conversation, but the standard when there was a problem with a letter was that we pointed out what we found to be factually inaccurate and gave you the opportunity to correct it. If you were saying that you were never given that opportunity, I find that hard to believe.
Key word here is “factual”.
In the past year or so I have become more and more aware of the "Dunning-Kruger effect."
All of us, to a greater or lesser extent, and differently in different areas of knowledge, have a tendency to over-rate our abilities. I think it's a rare skill to learn to distinguish what we know thoroughly from what we know only somewhat.
Psychology Today has a good description:
https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/basics/dunning-kruger-effect
Plus, there are many many YouTube videos explaining this.
I have an additional question I like to ask people. Only thoughtful people, you know. Reactive people get upset. Here's my additional question:
When you find that your thinking has not been quite correct, but needs some adjustment, do you feel good that you have found a better way, or bad that you have been wrong for so long?
And, a corollary: If your thinking deals, somehow, with your sense of who you are, and of the social group(s) you identify with, how do you peel yourself away from that old sense of self, that old peer group, and establish a new way? Can you live as a (possibly despised) outsider?
How free are you to think and get good, grounded answers?
How resilient are you?
What a great conversation start. I believe when I find out I’m wrong or partially wrong, I’m at first a little upset at myself for not knowing the real truth. But I do try to learn from it. But my first reaction is to kick myself.
Yes. I have favorite epithets for that occasion. Dolt. Ijit. Numskull. But then I remember Jimmy Cricket (well how about that, I cannot, cannot, overcome the autocorrect that changes what I type into "Jimmy," who sang about being better than you are. Shake a leg. Get off the couch. Get movin'.
And re-check your new understanding.
A healthy skepticism is my preferred approach.
Somehow, autocorrect, or the Substack service, won't let me correct "Jimmy" to "Jiminy."
The founders had a trust that the vast majority of people who reached a place of prominence would hold the concept of honor in high regard, that they could be trusted to tell the truth, to honor an oath, and that the public would reject representatives, the people in the best position to know and convey details of policy if they were proven to misrepresent the truth. It is strange that so many who claim incorrectly that we are a Christian nation would accept representatives who bear false witness. Good news for them whole networks of news sources have developed to feed misinformation to them. Now they can feel like they are being truthful as they bear false witness. Zarathustra considered this about 3,000 years ago. He developed a religious practice based in Asha (order) vs Druj (deception), truth vs lie (anti-creation). The practice was simple “good thoughts, good words, good deeds.” We certainly see plenty of political figures who do not conform to Zoroastrian norms, Asha, and benefit through the practice of Druj, deception.