The Majority is Wrong

The Majority is Wrong

The following is true in a way that can't be untrue. The Majority of humans are wrong = super interesting. Worth the time to think about and if you catch it, the output is functional = shifts perspective.

The Majority can't be right

It's impossible. A mental visual of momentum and speed is. Speed = movement. Movement = time delay. Time delay = inconsistencies and variance.

What's universally accepted is old information. Old information is outdated and doesn't include new information or its dependent implications.

The Majority is using Old info

Picture a bell curve of all human understanding. Doesn't matter if we're talking science, culture, history... etc. It's the same conclusion regardless of where I apply this logic. The majority has to be wrong. No way around it and it's a bit of a letdown.

It's wrong if everyone agrees

Interesting to think about. Now that I know the majority has to be wrong (impossible to not be true), the next step outputs a perspective shift. Example: if the majority agrees = it's wrong. Kicker: if the minority agrees = it's wrong.

The Minority is wrong too

The minority doesn't have enough confirmation to reach a conclusion that should be accepted by the majority. The measure or the delta between minority and majority is logistical and strategic = not a measure of correctness. Example: email campaign > understanding.

This is interesting x10

If the majority and minority are both wrong at all times and in super easy-to-prove ways, why do humans naturally skew toward a majority opinion = free up brain cycles = it's just easier. It's not a proof of correctness or incorrectness.

Why do we follow majorities?

Because it's easier. Humans skew toward the path of least resistance and if a bunch of people sound confident, we skew toward it by default. Any other path = more resistance (example: new learning, experience, resources..etc).

Those with kids and 60-hour-a-week jobs are less likely to search the Cosmos for answers to little, not immediately important questions, "looks like they know what they're talking about = good enough" = is actually, factually good enough.

Correctness of the Majority is not required.

Benjamin Nims

aka glassBead. LangChain specialist / Dev & co-founder @ Soapstone / Building community @ LangGraph Unofficial

5 个月

One obvious exception, at least as far as any given person’s optimal heuristics are concerned, are things like physical/logical laws that have withstood many repeated, reproducible attempts to disprove them. They might still be erroneous, of course (Einstein’s physics replaced Newton’s, etc.), but even if the Pythagorean Theorum was verifiably wrong, I don’t have much interest in trying to prove that to the extend that I would make money decisions based on it. To the point: there are important, unpopular truths and important, popular falsehoods out there, and 1. Some of them are more worth the energy and time needed to meaningfully question them than others, 2. The set containing the truths that would be optimal for one person to discover is not necessarily fully or partially shared with another person, and 3. By definition, all but a specialized few will initially resist important, unpopular truths and important, popular falsehoods until they have withstood repeated, reproducible attempts to disprove them. To finally answer your question, it doesn’t mean much of anything when a majority of people agree, but that cuts both ways: a commonly-held view may be false as much as a seldom-held view may be true.

要查看或添加评论,请登录

Jonathon Guyer的更多文章

  • High Speed Broadband

    High Speed Broadband

    This week's episode of Easy to read Deep Thoughts (High-Speed Broadband) speaks to a topic we all should take…

    2 条评论
  • Government Contracting

    Government Contracting

    This week on Easy to read Deep Thoughts ughts is our special guest Randal Wimmer. I joined Randal's school Government…

    4 条评论
  • Coaching Best Practices

    Coaching Best Practices

    Our Easy to read Deep Thoughts guest this week is someone I trust and take advice from. Sandy Hansen-Wolff is an…

    3 条评论
  • Hidden Helpers

    Hidden Helpers

    This week's episode of Easy to read Deep Thoughts is special and my special guest Dr (Professor?) Geri Lynn Maples is a…

    3 条评论
  • Why Inflammation

    Why Inflammation

    I met my special guest Mike Maunu this week in the business community Eliances, Where Entrepreneurs Align, I've seen…

    5 条评论
  • Near Death

    Near Death

    Near Death is a great Deep topic! Trish Kane, MBA is a great person to discuss it with. Trish described her origin…

    2 条评论
  • Doing Scary Things

    Doing Scary Things

    I've known Robbie for nearly 20 years. I'm not positive on the actual timeline.

    1 条评论
  • Engines & Business

    Engines & Business

    This week's newsletter and LinkedIn Live is special. I picked this topic and our special guest Jack J.

    4 条评论
  • Music and Mental Health

    Music and Mental Health

    Music and Mental Health My special guest this week on ‘Easy to read Deep Thoughts’ is Lilly Goyah. Lilly is a student…

    3 条评论
  • The Power of Politics

    The Power of Politics

    The Power of Politics with special guest Dion Powell, MPA . Dion and I met through a mutual government contracting…

    2 条评论

社区洞察

其他会员也浏览了