In most settings be it politics or even corporate life, the downside risk of saying "I did wrong. I'm sorry" is high

Rationalizing missteps pays off better than acknowledging mistakes - the latter is seen as a weakness

Yet few people cogitate on how to reduce this downside risk
One counter-argument to this is -

Rationalization and non-admission of supposed "mistakes" is a good thing, as it contributes to intellectual diversity

Else we sort of acknowledge there is one "right" course - and all other courses are "mistakes" that ought to be shunned
So one can make a conservative case for the status-quo by arguing that greater introspection is merely a cover for supporting the idea of "progress", and a means of suppressing the many varied forms of prejudices that contribute to intellectual diversity
E.g. Parts of the scientific establishment, steeped in "Enlightenment" principles, may complain that religious people have not "reformed" - they have not accepted their mistakes, and still refuse to accept the scientific "truth"
But hang on...if everyone were to toe the "scientific truth" and acknowledge that that whatever was embraced in the past was an "error", then science becomes a new religion of its own

It contributes to a certain ideological totalitarianism
So maybe what seems to us as "pig-headed obstinacy" is a good thing

By refusing to acknowledge error, but rather making a case for our own ideological distinctiveness, we are guarding ourselves against group-think and moral homogeneity
But yes, things can be taken to an extreme, when obstinacy becomes a virtue in itself, and any acknowledgment of error on the part of one's tribe becomes politically unacceptable
There's a point when the benefits of diversity are not sufficient to outweigh the costs of stupidity

So it's a fine balance
This reminds me of a statistical concept - ANOVA - where we often analyze two types of variances -

Within-group variance
Variance across groups
Now tribal unity, and championing of different types of prejudices, ensures against universal group-think.

And it helps increase variance in views across groups

But it comes at the cost of reducing variance within a group - where everyone is supposed to be loyal
In contrast the liberal championing of individualism and individual conscience increases diversity within groups

But by championing the idea of progress and the notion of "objective truth" - it's susceptible to groupthink across groups

It tends to reduce variance across groups
So the framework of ANOVA helps us understand the shortcomings of Scientism, liberal individualism on one hand, but also the blindspots of tribalism, conservative championing of group-level diversity on the other
Missing some Tweet in this thread?
You can try to force a refresh.

Like this thread? Get email updates or save it to PDF!

Subscribe to Śrīkānta Kṛṣṇamācārya
Profile picture

Get real-time email alerts when new unrolls are available from this author!

This content may be removed anytime!

Twitter may remove this content at anytime, convert it as a PDF, save and print for later use!

Try unrolling a thread yourself!

how to unroll video

1) Follow Thread Reader App on Twitter so you can easily mention us!

2) Go to a Twitter thread (series of Tweets by the same owner) and mention us with a keyword "unroll" @threadreaderapp unroll

You can practice here first or read more on our help page!

Follow Us on Twitter!

Did Thread Reader help you today?

Support us! We are indie developers!

This site is made by just three indie developers on a laptop doing marketing, support and development! Read more about the story.

Become a Premium Member ($3.00/month or $30.00/year) and get exclusive features!

Become Premium

Too expensive? Make a small donation by buying us coffee ($5) or help with server cost ($10)

Donate via Paypal Become our Patreon

Thank you for your support!