On being good and bad, stupid and intelligent, and what am I fighting for
I overheard a conversation during lunch. Both people discussed some pressing social issue, when one of them said “it won’t work, because ninety percent of people are shit”. And the other one wholeheartedly agreed: “yes, in fact it’s probably ninety-nine percent”. This thought brought the argument to a weird agreement where the further conversations revolved mainly about people being shit, with some rare exceptions, to which of course both participants of the conversation belonged.
This made me think. This statistics – although intended as a joke – does not nearly correspond to my personal experience. My friends, colleagues, neighbours are good people: kind, compassionate, creative, and smart. Many times I have witnessed a proof of that – and not only by word, but by action. They helped the people less fortunate than themselves, donated blood, participated in social projects, went the extra mile to cover for someone else’s mistake at work. I only know a handful of people whom I genuinely consider to be “bad” – according to my moral compass at least. How come that our statistics are so different?
Clearly, our definitions of “good” and “bad” don’t match. These simple moral categories are subjective, therefore I want to define them for myself. How do I define a “good” and “bad” person? I never thought about it too much, and it’s about time that I do. Who knows, perhaps I’ll learn a thing or two about myself. Let’s call the definition that leads to “99% of people are shit” the Definition A, and meanwhile I’ll explore my own Definition B.
Naïve definition 1: Being wrong #
Some people think that the Earth is 2,000 years old. Some people think that aliens from space visited ancient Egypt. Some people even think you can divide by zero (and get “infinity”). Long story short, sometimes people can be wrong.
When wrong opinions concern social issues, it’s tempting to call a person holding the wrong opinion “a bad person”. That’s our Definition A. I want this to be about how I define things and not about specific social issues, so let me refrain from specific examples here.
I think being wrong is pretty normal. Moreover, I think that being wrong is unavoidable for anyone who doesn’t mindlessly stick to the conformist point of view. Discovery is made through exploration, and exploration is not possible without going to places where you shouldn’t be. My Definition B is that being wrong – and even holding that wrong point of view for a long time – is not making you a “bad person”.
Let’s move on to the next criterion.
Naïve definition 2: Defending your wrong point of view #
Okay, being wrong is cool because making mistakes is cool. But what about resisting a rational argument made against your wrong point of view? Surely, this could be seen as malice – how can you keep arguing and bring counter-arguments when your point of view is widely recognized as wrong?
In my Definition B I don’t consider this to be a problem either. I sincerely think that a human mind has to have some rigidity in order not to be continuously swayed in opposite directions. If our prior experience suggests a certain point of view, you can’t simply accept new arguments that suggest that you were wrong all along. First, you need to understand the evidence behind the new arguments. What if that evidence does not exist, or is not as strong as it initially seems? You need to “pressure-test” it first to see how well it holds against alternative interpretations. Second, you have to find a new system that explains both the new arguments and your prior experience, that integrates them in a logical whole that would become your new point of view. And only then you change.
I think that challenging new points of view and defending the conclusions you’ve made so far from your prior experience is completely normal. Therefore, my Definition B is that defending your point of view – even if in the end it turns out to be wrong – is not making you a “bad person”.
Naïve definition 3: Acting on your wrong point of view #
I’ll be brief about this one. Acting on your wrong point of view is called “making a mistake”. Most mistakes are actions based on a wrong point of view.
Someone thinks that bottle will make their problems go away. Turns out that it won’t, and that person not only suffers personally, but also does a lot of damage on the way. Does that make them “a bad person”? I think not – as long as the person eventually realises their mistake.
Someone thinks that voting for a radical populist will make the life easier for them and other people in their country. Turns out that after the initial euphoria, the situation turns to worse and everybody loses. Does that make the voter “a bad person”? I think not – as long as the person eventually realises their mistake.
What then? #
So what is “being bad” then according to this Definition B? Being wrong is acceptable, persisting in being wrong is acceptable, acting on a wrong premise is acceptable – so what isn’t?
I’ve thought about it for some time and I think I found my answer.
What isn’t OK in my book is not willing to perceive, understand, and adjust based on new information. This requires an explanation.
- It’s not “adjusting based on anything you hear”. Instead, I’d rather call it being gullible.
- It’s not “not being mentally capable of perceiving/understanding/adjusting”. Instead, I’d rather call it being ill.
- What I mean by this is being able to question your beliefs, line of thinking, and conclusions. I’ll call not willing to doubt yourself being a fanatic. And fanaticism I consider being the root of all evil in the modern world.
My enemy: Fanatic #
Questioning your beliefs is the single most important characteristic that for me is the best indicator of an intelligent person, and of “a good” person.
The fanatic mindset is the opposite of learning, curiosity, and exploration. It’s aggressive, arrogant, purposeful ignorance. It all begins with small steps. Proudly saying things like “you will never convince me otherwise”, “I will never change my point of view”, “it’s like this, period” or just using wording that does not foresee any room for [self-]doubt, are the first steps on the fanatic path.
Don’t go there. Being a fanatic is easier and more comfortable, but eventually I’m afraid that even the kindest deity will order their followers to kill – rich or poor, black people or white people, men or women, healthy or ill. And fanatics will follow – as they always do.
Questioning your beliefs is not weakness.
Questioning your beliefs is not being wrong.
Questioning your beliefs is not being indecisive.
Questioning your beliefs is not being stupid.
Questioning your beliefs is the only key to being a smart, intelligent, creative, ultimately a “good” person. ■