this post was submitted on 18 Mar 2025
53 points (93.4% liked)

Ask Lemmy

30215 readers
3155 users here now

A Fediverse community for open-ended, thought provoking questions


Rules: (interactive)


1) Be nice and; have funDoxxing, trolling, sealioning, racism, and toxicity are not welcomed in AskLemmy. Remember what your mother said: if you can't say something nice, don't say anything at all. In addition, the site-wide Lemmy.world terms of service also apply here. Please familiarize yourself with them


2) All posts must end with a '?'This is sort of like Jeopardy. Please phrase all post titles in the form of a proper question ending with ?


3) No spamPlease do not flood the community with nonsense. Actual suspected spammers will be banned on site. No astroturfing.


4) NSFW is okay, within reasonJust remember to tag posts with either a content warning or a [NSFW] tag. Overtly sexual posts are not allowed, please direct them to either !asklemmyafterdark@lemmy.world or !asklemmynsfw@lemmynsfw.com. NSFW comments should be restricted to posts tagged [NSFW].


5) This is not a support community.
It is not a place for 'how do I?', type questions. If you have any questions regarding the site itself or would like to report a community, please direct them to Lemmy.world Support or email info@lemmy.world. For other questions check our partnered communities list, or use the search function.


6) No US Politics.
Please don't post about current US Politics. If you need to do this, try !politicaldiscussion@lemmy.world or !askusa@discuss.online


Reminder: The terms of service apply here too.

Partnered Communities:

Tech Support

No Stupid Questions

You Should Know

Reddit

Jokes

Ask Ouija


Logo design credit goes to: tubbadu


founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
 

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.

top 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] PeteWheeler@lemmy.world 14 points 3 days ago (1 children)

That people's 'default' morality is 'good'.

It isn't. It is actually pure apathy and only do we get taught, groomed, learn, decide, etc. about morality.

If that is true, then some people are actually 'better' and 'worse' than others. If so, then my entire outlook on human life will need to change. Don't know to what, but that is the existential threat.

Recently had to come to the conclusion, that even though I have never 'tried' to learn, observe, or otherwise be smart, that I am well above average intelligence to those immediately around me. This is beyond infuriating. How can I be 'better' than everyone on average without even trying? It infuriates me to no end.

[–] Glent@lemmy.ca 3 points 3 days ago

Felt this in my gut. I couldve written it. Ive had to recalibrate my entire framework for humanity as of late. My best lense has been through developmental psychology. What you frame as morality, I have come to the conclusion that most folks never develop into full grown adults. Its a childs morality. When I realized I was surrounded by children in adult bodies all the pieces fell into place. Its quite isolating. Anyhoo, best of luck with it.

[–] TimewornTraveler@lemm.ee 6 points 3 days ago (1 children)

Probably the belief that there (isn't) some kind of omnipotent god interested in guiding our affairs. It's not like I'd ever be able to know. How would I cope? Pretty easily. It'd be comforting. That's a pretty good reason to doubt it, since I'm biased in favor of it.

The thing is, I'm not picking this one because it's the most likely one, but because all of the other "core" beliefs are either completely subjective judgments that can't be "wrong" or are flexible enough that it doesn't really matter.

[–] CanadaPlus 2 points 3 days ago* (last edited 3 days ago) (1 children)

And omnibenevolent? A god that's just screwing with us is feeling relatively more likely these days, and I'm not comforted.

[–] TimewornTraveler@lemm.ee 2 points 3 days ago (1 children)

that part is tautological. if the almighty is perfection, then benevolence is defined by it, not by us. so the only way one can consistently hold that belief is to admit that we are the imperfection. we are the disease, we are punished. i guess that's why i dont believe that shit lol

[–] CanadaPlus 1 points 3 days ago* (last edited 3 days ago) (1 children)

Yeah, that's often put forward, but I never really found the argument satisfactory. A deity can tell me starving children is benevolence all it wants, and that just means that it's using the word differently from me. I don't care how impressive it is.

[–] TimewornTraveler@lemm.ee 0 points 2 days ago

yeah the concepts of good and evil dont really make sense when addressing the divine.

[–] hperrin@lemmy.ca 10 points 4 days ago (1 children)

That climate change won’t wipe out humanity. I firmly believe we’ll survive, but it will be a massively devastating event, like 1/3 of the population will die. I think the equator will probably become uninhabitable, but more northern or southern land will become more like the equator. Maybe I’m wrong though, and we won’t survive. Maybe there’s a reason we don’t see any advanced space faring civilizations.

[–] Kolanaki@pawb.social 5 points 3 days ago

"Bullshit. There's no way the moon is actually made of cheese. That's just a stupid story you tell kids!"

[–] CanadaPlus 5 points 3 days ago* (last edited 3 days ago)

The cream does, in fact, rise to the top. All the rich idiots I've met were brilliant in a subtle way I couldn't appreciate, and I myself am just being lead on by the people I know about having redeeming qualities of any kind. All the studies showing social mobility is small both upwards and downwards had some kind of fatal flaw built into their assumptions.

Stuff about moral decline is another candidate. In both cases, I'm actually pretty sure everyone in every time, place and walk of life has roughly the same capacities on average, but narratives suggesting otherwise are so damn pervasive I have to wonder if I'm missing something.

[–] MagicShel@lemmy.zip 28 points 4 days ago* (last edited 4 days ago) (1 children)

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 10 points 4 days ago (2 children)

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 8 points 4 days ago (8 children)

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.

load more comments (8 replies)
[–] MagicShel@lemmy.zip 6 points 4 days ago

It was intentional irony.

[–] thespcicifcocean@lemmy.world 3 points 3 days ago

I'm actually good at what I do, and everyone actually likes me and doesn't think I'm just dead weight.

[–] DelightfullyDivisive@discuss.online 16 points 4 days ago (2 children)

That we can build a sane, rational society.

[–] CanadaPlus 2 points 3 days ago* (last edited 3 days ago) (1 children)

One could argue by historical standards that we're closer than not already. How sane would you say sane is?

[–] DelightfullyDivisive@discuss.online 1 points 3 days ago (1 children)

I thought that Western style Democratic republics were leading the world toward purely secular forms of government, but yet another group of sociopaths has managed to take power. They have distracted the science-illiterate majority into petty conflicts based on different versions of magical thinking.

So, "sane" would mean that we don't elevate the least sane among us (sociopaths) into positions of power. "Rational" would mean that public policy decisions are mostly made based on evidence, rather than fundamentally irrational belief systems.

I fear that we are barely-sentient primates doomed to repeat the same awful mistakes, when simple, obvious solutions are within our grasp.

[–] CanadaPlus 2 points 3 days ago

Yes, that's fair. I worry about similar things - we had 5000 years of all dictatorships in the historical record, with randomly varying types and levels of intolerance and brutality, and then real progress for 200. How do we know it's here to stay?

I haven't given up hope yet, because we're so far ahead of where we were. Even with the US down the forces of enlightenment lead the world. There's also the question of how much longer humans are going to be solely in charge, anyway. Do we really expect no AGI for another 100 years, or that we wouldn't use it to make the big decisions as well?

[–] SoftestSapphic@lemmy.world 5 points 3 days ago (1 children)

That there's no such thing as too much inclusivity in LGBTQ.

I don't think people who want to pretend to be dogs or cars or whatever inanimate object they fixated on as a child are harmful to society, but they have proven to only delegitamize actually real gender identities that are being actively erased in the real world.

I don't care if people want to wear collars and shit in litter boxes because that makes their brains happy, but I do care when those people show up in public places wanting to be treated with the same seriousness as actually marginalized minorities and get LGBTQ movements laughed out of the room.

[–] CarbonatedPastaSauce@lemmy.world 6 points 3 days ago (1 children)

I tend to agree with you, but this same line of thought is used by many in the queer community to 'other' bisexuals and trans people, for example. Everyone draws the line in a slightly different place. I don't know what the right answer is. For me I would probably draw the line between 'sexuality' and 'fetish'. Your sexuality should be protected from discrimination and persecution, but in my mind a fetish is more akin to a hobby or sport you enjoy and wouldn't deserve the same level of protections or attention.

You can easily choose not to walk around in a dog collar on a leash in a rubber suit in public, because you're just doing it for kicks. You can't choose not to be queer.

[–] WhatYouNeed@lemmy.world 12 points 4 days 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 12 points 4 days ago (2 children)

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

[–] cynar@lemmy.world 11 points 4 days ago (2 children)

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.

[–] AtHeartEngineer@lemmy.world 2 points 3 days ago

What do you think the ratio is there? And how much does it vary culture to culture?

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] Opinionhaver@feddit.uk 9 points 4 days ago (1 children)

People or beliefs?

I've changed my mind many times based on online discussions.

[–] TokenBoomer@lemmy.world 6 points 4 days ago

Beliefs. I’ve changed my mind too, but it seems to be the exception.

[–] PugJesus@lemmy.world 7 points 4 days ago

I can't think of any that I'd be particularly surprised by at this point.

[–] Uranus_Hz@lemm.ee 1 points 3 days ago

That I live in a constitutional democratic republic

[–] JackGreenEarth@lemm.ee 4 points 4 days 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.

[–] MoreFPSmorebetter@lemmy.zip 4 points 4 days 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 4 points 4 days 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.

load more comments
view more: next ›