So, in other words: which of your core beliefs do you think has the highest likelihood of being wrong? And by wrong, I don’t necessarily mean the exact opposite - just that the truth is significantly different from what you currently believe it to be.

  • JackGreenEarth@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    5
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    16 hours ago

    I don’t think it could be anything I expect. Most of the things I have consciously evaluated about myself I’ve come to a conclusion based on rational or empirical evidence, so I am certain either in my knowledge or ignorance about a topic. Most of the time when I’ve been proven wrong it’s about a belief I imbibed as a child and never questioned or considered until then.

  • MagicShel@lemmy.zip
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    17
    ·
    edit-2
    18 hours ago

    That people are fundamentally benevolent to one another. Obviously it can be trained out of you by circumstance, overcome by self-interest, and mental illness is a thing, but I think people innately care for one another. It’s why dehumanization is the first step to committing atrocities.

    But if someone offered proof that I’m wrong that might be the least surprising thing that happened all week. And if I’m wrong, the evil-doers are sub-human and should be culled without mercy until I am right.

    • Lv_InSaNe_vL@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      6
      ·
      17 hours ago

      The evil-doers are sub-human and should be culled without mercy until I’m right.

      I know what you mean but that sentence is really funny when 1.5 sentences earlier you said “it’s why dehumanization is the first step to commiting atrocities” haha

      • CarbonatedPastaSauce@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        6
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        16 hours ago

        It’s the intolerance paradox in action. It’s like tolerating cancer. Cancer is a living thing, it doesn’t mean you respect it and let it have its way with you without interference. Same principle.

  • MoreFPSmorebetter@lemmy.zip
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    4
    ·
    17 hours ago

    The way I landed on all my current beliefs was taking in information from as many places as I could and I decided on what I think is right.

    There are a ton of topics that can’t have an objectively correct answer which makes things fairly complicated.

  • hitstun@fedia.io
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    4
    ·
    18 hours ago

    That all living things are worthy of my compassion. If the millions of conservatives out there somehow prove me wrong… then all attempts at civilization are doomed to collapse and we’re reverting back to feudal times.

  • WhatYouNeed@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    10
    ·
    20 hours ago

    That people are not wilfully stupid. The last 10 years have proved people will act against their own benefit if TV tells them to do it.

  • TokenBoomer@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    12
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    20 hours ago

    That people can change through conversations. It’s tough to accept, but most people only change when forced to.

    • cynar@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      7
      ·
      17 hours ago

      I’ve noticed 2 types on this, stick-in-the-muds and peak-hunters.

      Stick in the muds latch on to the first version of a belief they encounter properly. They will stubbornly hang on to that for as long as possible.

      Peak hunters are the opposite, they will rapidly change beliefs to maximise the results/find truth.

      Interestingly, after some time, the 2 groups look almost identical. The peak hunters tend to find the ‘best’ version of their belief, based on their existing memeplex. To budge them, you need to show a different belief is better, on their rankings (not yours). This is hard when they have already maximised it. Without knowing how they are weighing things, they can look like stick in the muds.

      The biggest tell is to question why they believe what they do. If they have a reasonably comprehensive answer, they are likely peak hunters. Stick in the muds generally can’t articulate why their belief is better, outside of common sound bites.

  • thebestaquaman@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    5
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    19 hours ago

    My deepest core belief is that there is a non-zero likelihood (which may be quite high) that everything I think I know about the world is wrong.

    If it was proven to me beyond a doubt that something I know is undoubtedly correct, I would probably think that there was a possibility that the proof was wrong and go on with my day.

  • Opinionhaver@feddit.ukOP
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    2
    ·
    20 hours ago

    For me it would be that while lies are in many cases morally justifiable.

    My current belief on this is that lying is never right unless you’re literally using it as a form of self defence as an alternative to physical violence. However, I also tend to believe that absolute beliefs are virtually always wrong, and these two are conflicting beliefs. I can atleast think of a few extreme scenarios where a white lie seems justifiable even when you’re not in danger. For example: a dying person showing their painting and you complimenting it despite not liking it.