Why no one can be wrong (a non-political thread)

[Lucifer_Carroll]

It was rather strange for me to realize a while back a fact of humanity that has rather puzzled me and which suprisingly seems to be rather widespread. A disease in fact of the mind that plauge so many. The disease that makes people refuse to be wrong.

I don't mean the initial fight or the fact that nobody likes realizing that what they had held true or supported was total bullshit. People getting into a bluster initially I can understand. But as a life-long introvert and scientist, I like to admit when the facts and evidence prove me to be wrong. I like to apologize and correct myself because otherwise I'm fooling nobody but myself.

I assumed that most people when backed into a corner, when confronted head-on reluctantly do the same. Perhaps there is a fight, but naively I thought that truth eventually does win out when there is no other choice or when it's at least not fundamental to a very fundamental piece of belief. Indeed I can understand someone avoiding a truth if it would shatter everything they have ever believed. I can understand that denial. But refusal to be wrong for its own sake, where one's own stated beliefs are subject and whimsy to change just to avoid being wrong or being on the wrong side in a fight. Inventing bizarre justifications and beliefs just to avoid having fucked up when one has or to somehow continue arguing when what one is defending or arguing has been readily proven to be absurd or inconsistent.

Naively I had thought that rare.

It was interesting to notice that it is hardly rare, it is hardly a novelty. It seems paramount and sometimes the reason behind the most sociopathic behavior. How people will twist themselves so that they weren't "wrong" or "in the wrong" is simply staggering. An ex-boyfriend of my SO famously seduced, nearly raping her at a party while intoxicated. He later blamed her entirely for the affair under his own volition when asked by his SO of the time to my SO's detriment and manipulated her to accept it. He let himself off the guilt for that affair because "my SO was the only one who seemed to still mark that affair so how could he have been in the wrong".

Politically of course there is always the obvious. The alliances to party lines that leave one defending beliefs that are not one's own in some people. The unfortunate actions where someone is defending something unconscienable because they can't be "wrong" to have voted for that party or to have been affiliated with the party for so many years.

In arguments in general, there is always those who argue corkscrews to avoid having to fess up to being caught out in total bullshit where they have clearly expressed an opinion unsupported by reality or where they have to argue something they claimed to be opposed to simply to gain an upperhand or ledge when an argument turns against them.





So my question is this? Why can't these people admit that they are wrong? Is it a pride thing? A cultural stigma that punishes those who change their minds with new evidence as being "weak" and their opinions now considered less worthwhile for having changed? Is it that foolish link between strength and the illusion of unconvincable certainty? Or the belief that stubborness lends itself its own accuracy as if validity is bought by refusing to face reality? If so where did all this start? When did it became endemic? Why can't people just grow up and say those three fucking words?


It baffles me because it seems to me a simple action. It is no matter for me to say "I am wrong" when I believe I am in the wrong or am innaccurate. I see no reason to defend folly. So what makes me different? Is it the fact that I am an eccentric right angle to "normal" society? Is it the flavor of my morality which respects and honors truth and honesty to myself? Is it the practice of regular introspection which often rejects the conforting delusions and lies people need to get themselves through the day or remain happy despite themselves? Or is it the fact that many people have in fact been replaced by mind-control robots and Exploding ducks and only a car chase with a handsome male lead and giggling love interest will put it all right?


Who knows? Who cares? And who has an opinion on the subject?

 

[elsol]

So my question is this? Why can't these people admit that they are wrong? Is it a pride thing? A cultural stigma that punishes those who change their minds with new evidence as being "weak" and their opinions now considered less worthwhile for having changed? Is it that foolish link between strength and the illusion of unconvincable certainty? Or the belief that stubborness lends itself its own accuracy as if validity is bought by refusing to face reality? If so where did all this start? When did it became endemic? Why can't people just grow up and say those three fucking words?

*burp*

You're approaching this from the wrong side. What purpose does the belief system serve in the person's life? If the belief is fundamental to how they see the world... what would changing it mean? If the belief shapes their world... what would they have to do/redo if the belief is wrong? If that belief JUSTIFIES some of their acts... what would they have to stop doing if they 'changed their mind'?

I bet if I put a gun in your face and cock the trigger, you'd fight to hold on to life.

Well, that's what people are doing, fighting to hold on to 'life'... their mental life so to speak.

This is why I have an absolute rule of NEVER discussing someone else's articles of faith with them. By articles of faith, I don't mean religion but the beliefs they hold to as if they were articles of their faith.

I'd kill for my religion, no questions asked, you want to get rid of the evangelical movement in the US, pray that they cross me on being Catholic... I will drop so many of them that the rest won't come out of hiding for 1000 years.

Therefore as soon as I see that 'look' in someone's eyes that they've elevated a belief to the position I hold for my religion... I immediately drop the subject, because it will take a religious crisis for them to change their mind.

 

[neonlyte]

So my question is this? Why can't these people admit that they are wrong? Is it a pride thing? A cultural stigma that punishes those who change their minds with new evidence as being "weak" and their opinions now considered less worthwhile for having changed? Is it that foolish link between strength and the illusion of unconvincable certainty? Or the belief that stubborness lends itself its own accuracy as if validity is bought by refusing to face reality? If so where did all this start? When did it became endemic? Why can't people just grow up and say those three fucking words?


It baffles me because it seems to me a simple action. It is no matter for me to say "I am wrong" when I believe I am in the wrong or am innaccurate. I see no reason to defend folly. So what makes me different? Is it the fact that I am an eccentric right angle to "normal" society? Is it the flavor of my morality which respects and honors truth and honesty to myself? Is it the practice of regular introspection which often rejects the conforting delusions and lies people need to get themselves through the day or remain happy despite themselves? Or is it the fact that many people have in fact been replaced by mind-control robots and Exploding ducks and only a car chase with a handsome male lead and giggling love interest will put it all right.

'Might is right' - isn't that one of those school yard lessons? I suppose it has some relevance when considering who has an ability to impose their version of truth upon another. It is a lesson learnt early, then reinforced through various contrivances, the sports field, machines, even the good old PC needs a bigger brain than most need or would understand how to stretch to the limit.

But you are less bothered by the physical ability to bend truth, it's a fact, the more powerful can and often does imposes its might on the less powerful. Power vested in proxies, the Commander in Chief, is little different from the power of the school yard bully, other than in magnitude.

The people I've met who cling to their version of truth, other than 'the powerful', fall into various catagories, the righteous, those holding conviction of faith, the ignorant, the prideful - morality and faith, ignorance and superiority. Is there a link, maybe, what about shame. Shame is a powerful and negative emotion. Quite what its function serves, other than in the sphere of morality, is beyond my reasoning. But the fear of exposure, of being shown for a phoney, to be proved wrong or clueless, of bringing shame upon your morals, your faith, your ignorance or your pride, is strong motivation to cling to fallacy. It's weakness of character.

A powerful CEO knows some decisions will be wrong, they correct the error before the error buries the company. They are pragmatic. Custodians of value, measurable value, stock prices. With the individual, value is an emotive measure, seemingly destroyed if admitting to error, an erosion of personal stock, shameful loss of face.

ETA: Some people are happy to admit they were wrong - but they've usually got something to sell

Hi Will,

I'm writing today because I have to admit I was wrong!

A while back, I told you one of fastest ways to make more as an author (or anyone with expertise) was to go out on the road and start giving speeches about what you know at trade shows, meetings and seminars. Make no mistake, I still believe speaking can be a great way to go and the speaking business has been very good to me.

However, I've realized there's an ever better way to make mulah...

 

[rgraham666]

It is a matter of ego, Luc.

Most people's identities are founded on the belief that they are very smart and very knowledgeable. These facts mean that they are superior human beings.

So if they were wrong these facts would be called into question. They would become merely human, not that superior at all. So they can never be wrong.

Also, people don't much like taking responsibility for their actions. Credit they like, it confirms their ego. Responsibility they don't like, it shows them to be less than the perfect people they believe themselves to be.

Shrugs. It's easier than thinking.

 

[Roxanne Appleby]

You have asked a very good question. There are lots of possible answers; some have been posted already, others will be.

One task is to divvy up the parts of life and ask whether your thesis applies equally to all of them, or applies in different ways: Philosophical tenets (metaphysical, epistemological, ethical), public policy, politics, relationships with other people (colleagues, relatives, loved ones, strangers), interpretations of actions taken by oneself or others, interpreations of motives of oneself or others, etc. Probably people can be wrong to different degrees depending on the which of these areas is involved, and it also may be that there is no one who cannot be wrong in one or more of these areas.

Here's what I really want to say though: "No one can be wrong" is a good working hypothesis to take through life. For example, how many times have you replayed an argument or disagreement in your head and thought, "I wish I'd said X," or "How can I make her see that she is wrong about Y?" Think of all the energy you could save if you never wasted any of it on such thoughts! Which you won't if your assumption is that nobody can be wrong. This is related to the "I accept my powerlessness to change the other person" thread I started a while back.

I mostly go through life using this hypothesis, for which there may be one rare exception: By using creative, indirect approaches it is sometimes possible to show someone they are wrong. I'm sorry that I can't be more specific than that; it completely depends on context and circumstances, and of course it's always hard to be creative. But when I am really serious about a situation like this I buckle down and look for that indirect approach, confident that it's the only way.

I've gone through life with another related thesis also: People don't change. There are lots of obvious qualifications to that, and a few times I may have been surprised, but with at most a tiny handful of exceptions (and maybe none) it's a thesis that has served me very well.

 

[Tuomas]

I disagree with you: it's not a recient tendency. People have always been like that... and they always will be. Deall with it.

Seriously; people believe what they believe because they think it's right. So you do you. You believe it's a good thing to admit you are wrong. Who are you to judge? Maybe other people think it's bad to admit you're wrong. Why is your way of thinking any better than the other's?

You say people twist themselves into corkscrews not to admit that they are wrong... how do you know that you are right? Maybe you have twisted yourself into a corkscrew, and because of that, they look like they have? Isn't it selfish on your part to think your life philosophy is better? That's what you said, isn't it? So, why should people admit to being wrong -because you think it's cool? Because it gives you an ego trip when you hear your opponent say, "sorry, I was wrong." Oh, it doesn't give you an ego trip?

Everyone likes to think that they are some special, unique snowflake. They like to think that what they know is true, they like to think they have made the right decisions. When, and if, you eventually "prove them wrong", that means every decision in their life that they have made based on that premise you have just destroyed, was wrong. And that is a very scary thought. Imagine if you convinced a Christian that his faith was wrong... look at all the money he wasted giving to the church, the time he could have spent with his friends, the sacrifices he made... they were all worthless. Of course he's not going to want to say he's wrong -and neither would you.

In fact, you don't. When you say "I am wrong", do you really change your way of thinking? You think you do. You really want to think you do, don't you? In fact, the agressive tone of this post has shut you into your way of thinking, so that you will automatically respond against it. Because, even if you say that you were wrong, you still don't change the way you think. A week, or a month later, you could get into the same discussion, and argue the same points ... because you are just cynical. No one ever really changes what they believe in because of some discussion. Not you. Not me. Not anyone. So, deal with it.

 

[oggbashan]

I don't know

I have found that my most useful phrase is 'I don't know'.

Admitting ignorance is easier than admitting that you are wrong. Admitting ignorace and adding '...but I'll find out' either overtly or just as a reminder to yourself is good.

At work I found that admitting that I didn't know made the situation far easier to retrieve than claiming a false knowledge.

Admitting 'I am/was wrong' is far more difficult. It is almost impossible if the error is a fundamental part of your belief structure. Admitting it on minor matters is a good ploy and helps you balance the greys in the world around you. So few things or ideas are clear cut and so much is a balance of probabilities.

So 'I used to think that the RangeRover was the most desirable form of transport - I was wrong' is easy to say because it isn't an essential belief. Admitting that democracy might not be the best form of government for all peoples - that might be impossible for me. To say that it is the least worst is closer to the truth. Even then I would have to modify the statement with caveats about various forms of democracy because some aspects of US or UK democracy are difficult to defend.

Convincing someone who has strongly held beliefs that they are wrong is almost impossible. Making them have some doubts is as much as rational argument can do. Beliefs are not necessarily rational therefore debate isn't going to change the believer.

"I'm wrong. You're right." is possible if the matter is peripheral or is just about a fact and not essential to my conception of myself.

I can be wrong. I can admit that I am or have been wrong. But there will always be some things about which I cannot admit being wrong without changing myself fundamentally. At that point almost all of us cannot afford to be wrong.

Og

 

[Pure]

Hi Luc,

Those are interesting thoughts and questions.

Several posters have given good ideas. I'd like to add that many beliefs are essentially irrefutable (if you a good at tap dancing).

Suppose someone says, "The best way to live life is to be very independent; find your own way; accept no 'gifts'; make equal 'trades' only; and pay attention to your own interests above all (recognizing that others play a part in satisfying them), but subject to rational calculations."

If I say, well, "Jane Rosenbaum did that, and look how miserable she is; she has a marriage in name only, an affair that ended badly, and many fights with associates."

Replies: 1) "Well, the independent person always becomes a target of the envious; they try, and sometime succeed in bringing her down."

2) "Well, JR made a number of 'less than rational' and less that egoistic choices. Indeed she *sacrificed* for her lover, which is simply wrong.

3) The Independent person flourishes in a 'free environment.' That simply does not exist yet, so JR's apparent failure merey reflects the inhospitable context.

---
There are similar examples around all other religous-type beliefs, e.g. that "God will provide." I need not elaborate the 'reasons' given for the apparent failures of this hypothesis.

--
In science this is the problem of protecting of central parts of a theory through ad hoc measures-- the famous 'epicycles' added to Ptolemaic astronomy. Lakatos has written extensively on the role of 'auxilliary hypotheses' and how they are modified to protect the central ones.

 

[Explaura]

I have a feeling that some people who are never wrong have a lot of trouble with forgiving themselves. Or.. that's my speculation anyway. If holding a 'wrong' opinion makes someone a wrong bad person in their own eyes, they would wriggle and twist to keep their okayness. I don't know if thats the same as ego. I just know that in various times past stuff has happned where I have felt "wrong" and i wanted to bash my head against a wall and never come out of my house again, almost as a self-punishment.

Now, generally I don't get this worked up over political opinions or whatnot.. And I really am much better than I have been. But for this reason, I try not to pin anyone against a wall or make them admit anything. I generally argue until I am satisfied that my point has come across. When I can pinpoint the site of the disagreement, usualy I will feel like either we agree to disagree or that they have something to teach me. And I don't take things past there even if I feel I could, except maybe to ask questions. (eep or at least I think I try)

so.. don't be too harsh.. annoying people are out there and there is nothing to do with them but patience or refusal to interact sometimes.

 

[Stella_Omega]

In my business, once in a while, a customer just can't be satisfied. A craftsman can fuck up, it's not unknown!

One such wrangle came up recently, and when the client listed all of my wrongs, I agreed and apologized, and offered her her money back.

She wrote back and said; "Thank you. It's difficult to stay angry at someone as abjectly sorry as yourself"

A simple and sincere apology came off as "abject"

And it made me wonder- how long has it been since anyone has apologized freely to anyone?

 

[Dr_Strabismus]

I apologize, all the time. It's something one tends to learn after 21 years of marriage.

In some rare situations it's important NOT to apologize. It takes a few tough life-lessons to recognize when those rare situations arise.

 

[Roxanne Appleby]

In my business, once in a while, a customer just can't be satisfied. A craftsman can fuck up, it's not unknown!

One such wrangle came up recently, and when the client listed all of my wrongs, I agreed and apologized, and offered her her money back.

She wrote back and said; "Thank you. It's difficult to stay angry at someone as abjectly sorry as yourself"

A simple and sincere apology came off as "abject"

And it made me wonder- how long has it been since anyone has apologized freely to anyone?

I did yesterday. I opened my car door in a tight parking space and it barely touched the car next door. The lady opened her window and said, "The least you can do is say you're sorry." I said, "I'm sorry," and meant it.

During the Divorce from Hell I popped into other courtrooms to watch other civil cases. Some of the deadbeat tenant ones were classics. The mental gymnastics displayed by people who had for years been running their lives into to the ground in every possible way were wonderous to see. Byzantine palaces of rationalization for why they hadn't paid rent in six months were laid out in as much detail as the judge had patience for (not all that much). You could sense the way the unbalanced wheels had been spinning for months over these narratives, polishing and fine-tuning every chapter and verse with minute attention. If one-tenth of the energy that had gone into the stories had gone into gathering funds to pay the rent, the lives of the narrators would have been much better. But you could see that it was much, much too late for that. It was sad to see these wasted lives.

(It wasn't sad to see justice delivered in those cases, though, because these losers were dishonestly trying to impose the price of their dsyfunctions on innocent others. What was sad were the criminal trials - watching the system roll over some underclass "ute" or working class stoner for "crimes" that weren't even really crimes.)

 

[FallingToFly]

I'm always wrong, about something.

I just don't give a whore's two-penny fuck anymore.

 

[Stella_Omega]

I'm always wrong, about something.

I just don't give a whore's two-penny fuck anymore.

The cheapest I've found lately is twenty bucks...

 

[damppanties]

How people will twist themselves so that they weren't "wrong" or "in the wrong" is simply staggering. An ex-boyfriend of my SO famously seduced, nearly raping her at a party while intoxicated. He later blamed her entirely for the affair under his own volition when asked by his SO of the time to my SO's detriment and manipulated her to accept it. He let himself off the guilt for that affair because "my SO was the only one who seemed to still mark that affair so how could he have been in the wrong".

Wow. This is just too close to what I am going through right now. And I've been thinking about the 'why' bit for a while when dwelling and feeling sorry for myself and I think it's basically the insecurity and male pride of the person that is hurt. It's their image to the outside world that they project that has simply been blown away. Then there's the image they have of themselves, of being holier-than-thou and 'I can never touch a girl without her consent or if she hadn't enticed me into it' being snatched away. Being exposed for something like this is never easy because it is so uniformly unacceptable to society. There's no wriggle room in here, so what they do is twist their perception around. I am amazed at how many normal people would do this. Forget rapists and criminals; everyday people people around you and me would do an about face about this when confronted.

As I said, it's the image that they're protecting, however false it may be. They tend to believe it and will move facts and incidents around, reinterpreting them so that it falls into their perceived reality. It's not really all that uncommon. They cannot think themselves as bad, and if a bad incident has occured, then it must be her fault for enticing him or leading him on. Immaturity and lack of understanding of oneself, superficial behaviour, blaming others and misleading yourself is too easy and all too common in this world. Most people are petty and selfish and will lie through their teeth to protect their fragile egos. That's just how it is.

I am probably biased while answering this as I singled out an incident and replied on the basis of that, but it was just too close to what I am going through right now.

 

[Roxanne Appleby]

Primacy of Consciousness is the Objectivist term for the mistaken idea that consciousness has primacy over existence, that existence can be molded by consciousness as such, independent of action. This idea has its roots in Plato, who told that the gods tried to mold matter in their image, but matter took the image only so far and then resisted any further efforts to perfect it. The primacy of consciousness is at the root of the belief in God, the belief that existence cannot be the starting point of philosophy but has to be explained by some form of consciousness that created it. The idea of the primacy of consciousness reached its apex in Kant. According to Kant, reason can only grasp reality as it appears to us. To know true reality, one must transcend reason.

from http://wiki.objectivismonline.net/wiki/Primacy_of_Consciousness

Taking this down from that airy philosophical ivory tower, Primacy of Consciousness is seen every day in people who delude themselves and evade realilty in aspects of their economic and personal life. I described one example of it in my previous post, the deadbeat renters who fill their minds with rationizations justifying not paying rent. No doubt every person who reads this can think of many examples from people in your own life.


PS. Here's an inconsequential example of it I see all the time in my Midwest locale: High school kids who wear shorts and t-shirts long after the weather has made that a really bad idea. I feel kind of sorry for them - they so want to live someplace cool where it is warm, like in the L.A. ghettos whose inhabitants define some of these trends. Rather than look cool they look ridiculous, of course, shivering, hands in pockets, arms tight against their sides.

 

[Liar]

Fing is, what people always seems to forget...

You may be wrong or you may be right. You may hold the universal truth in your hand or you may have pulled your opinion out of your delirious ass.

It doesn't matter. I repeat: It doesn't matter.

For two reasons:

Reason #1: Because nobody has all the data. So if you're right it's merely a coincidence, a lucky guess. I've been called a wishy washy relativist. And not only by a certain parton of this forum, but in many places. But what they fail to realize is: I don't claim there is not true and false, right and wrong, black and white. I just don't know for sure which is which. And anyone who claim to know, is either God, or has hubris.

Reason #2: And even if you're God, it doesn't matter. Because in order to do something with your absolute knowledge, you'll have to convince other people (who are not God) that you're right. And every word you say pass thrpough ther filter of whateer culture and decorum you are in, as well as every individual's personal prejudices and comceptions or misconceptions. (Which is which? Again, I don't know.)

So you make more-or-less qualified guesses based on the data you have. Not perfect but well enough to get you by. And communicare your opiion. Not perfectly, but well enough to mostly get the point across.

And that's all, I repeat, all, we can ever do.

Of course, I may be wrong. Cause I don't have all the data.

 

[Stella_Omega]

...

PS. Here's an inconsequential example of it I see all the time in my Midwest locale: High school kids who wear shorts and t-shirts long after the weather has made that a really bad idea. I feel kind of sorry for them - they so want to live someplace cool where it is warm, like in the L.A. ghettos whose inhabitants define some of these trends. Rather than look cool they look ridiculous, of course, shivering, hands in pockets, arms tight against their sides.

What else do you expect from kids? It's not their brains talking, it's their hormones.

I am reminded of the platform shoes I wore in highschool, even though I knew I would be walking two miles uphill at the end of a long day...

 

[Roxanne Appleby]

What else do you expect from kids? It's not their brains talking, it's their hormones.

I am reminded of the platform shoes I wore in highschool, even though I knew I would be walking two miles uphill at the end of a long day...

Primacy of hormones?

 

[cloudy]

And it made me wonder- how long has it been since anyone has apologized freely to anyone?

I've learned that a sincere apology will often garner me much more respect than trying to rationalize whatever mistake I've made.

My boss told me, after several years of a close working relationship, that I was one of the few people he'd run into that had no difficulty saying "I'm sorry, I was wrong" or "I really screwed up, but I've figured out how to fix it. It won't happen again."

When someone is big enough to say those things, and be sincere when they do, my respect for them grows immeasurably....probably because there are so few that are willing to admit to a mistake.

 

[TheEarl]

There's actually a name for it in psychology. It's called 'cognitive dissonance' and relates to people deciding what they believe and then constructing elaborate reasoning to justify that belief. It allows the human brain to adapt to new information by changing the reasoning, rather than the belief.

Presumably it served some evolutionary advantage.

The Earl

 

[rgraham666]

There's actually a name for it in psychology. It's called 'cognitive dissonance' and relates to people deciding what they believe and then constructing elaborate reasoning to justify that belief. It allows the human brain to adapt to new information by changing the reasoning, rather than the belief.

Presumably it served some evolutionary advantage.

The Earl

It's the flip side of imagination. Imagination allows you to imagine things is another way. Cognitive dissonance allows you to ignore reality and avoid responsibility.

 

[Antfarmer77]

I find myself acknowlegeing my errors but apologizing less and less as I get older.

 

[amicus]

Luc: ".... But as a life-long introvert and scientist, I like to admit when the facts and evidence prove me to be wrong. I like to apologize and correct myself because otherwise I'm fooling nobody but myself...."

Luc and I have had many previous encounters, so most likely anything I say will be taken as an afront, it is not intended that way.

I was surprised that Roxanne waffled on an answer; the most important statement was by The Earl, concerning cognitive dissonance.

If one, such as Luc, were to approach the emotional side of man's existence with the same integrity Luc displays concerning the 'scientist' side of his life, the rational side, it would be much easier to comprehend the dissonance of conflicting emotions and beliefs that on gathers over the years.

A recent program on 'Charlie Rose' featured two analytical psychological practioners who addressed the subject quite thoroughly. They noted that 96 to 98 percent of the decisions made by individuals were made either unconsciously or subconsciously, that is to say, without objective reason and rationality as a guide to decisions.

A relative or subjective moral and ethical system, full of contradictions and half truths, all somewhat in limbo as the human mind can not accept and file away as complete concepts and abstracts, that input that is non absolute. Thus most of our psyche is cluttered with floating abstractions and concepts that can not attach to any firm foundation and are tied together only by the dis-simularities and of and by themselves, form a foundation of sorts for emotional responses.

Luc's question, as I see it, can be understood by noting that although these 'floating abstractions' do not form a workable foundation for an ethical or moral system, they are called upon to do just that, lacking anything better.

And again, although this hodgepodge of belief has no rational, reasonable or logical structure, is does in fact function as a 'default' system to assist the individual to at least place one foot in front of the other to attempt to walk in a straight line.

But the construction of that default system is so very fragile that not a single portion of it can be removed without the entire structure failing.

Which is why most of all humanity can never say, "I am sorry, I made a mistake."

That simply is not an option as the individual 'feels' that to do so they would crumble away into babbling insanity and it is very likely that they would.

It has been perhaps thirty-five years since I read the Objectivist Newsletter that contained the very complex and meticulous explanation of that which I have tried in law terms to communicate.

For luc and others who wish to perhaps understand the issue Luc brought out, I suggest a visit to the Ayn Rand Institute, or your local library and a search of her non fiction titles.

amicus...

 

[Pure]

or the fiction ones. either serves equally well.

--
Am I suggest a visit to the Ayn Rand Institute, or your local library and a search of her non fiction titles.