Robert Pirsig, the prickly, generally reclusive author of that 1970s classic Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance, wrote in that book that people never shout that the sun will rise tomorrow. His point was a psychological one: when you're absolutely sure of something—as sure as someone who knows he'll be drawing his next breath—you don't argue the point. You're so sure, so confident, that there's no need to convince anyone else of your rightness. It's when we're unsure about things that we get loud and sound off with great conviction: Socialism is better than capitalism! Capitalism is better than socialism! Allah is the greatest! Trump's gonna rock the house! Hillary for the win! We betray our insecurity when we bluster with apparent confidence. I'm guilty of this; you're guilty of this. It's a very human predicament. If you're absolutely convinced of something's truth, why say anything?
Thursday, September 01, 2016
the psychology of the unsure
10 comments:
READ THIS BEFORE COMMENTING!
All comments are subject to approval before they are published, so they will not appear immediately. Comments should be civil, relevant, and substantive. Anonymous comments are not allowed and will be unceremoniously deleted. For more on my comments policy, please see this entry on my other blog.
AND A NEW RULE (per this post): comments critical of Trump's lying must include criticism of Biden's or Kamala's or some prominent leftie's lying on a one-for-one basis! Failure to be balanced means your comment will not be published.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
I'm confused by the last line: "Better to keep our mouths shut when we're absolutely sure of something." Shouldn't that be: "Better to keep our mouths shut so people believe that we're absolutely sure of something"? Because if we're already absolutely sure, we're already not saying anything. And keeping our mouths shut is not necessarily going to lead to surety. (If the original statement is "people who are absolutely sure of something (S) do not bluster about that something (~B)," logically we can say that the contrapositive is true: People who bluster about something (B) are not absolutely sure of that something (~S). However, the converse (people who do not bluster about something (~B) are absolutely sure of that something (S)) is not necessarily true. There are many reasons why people might choose not to bluster, even if they lack absolute surety.)
ReplyDeleteUnless, of course, you're just telling everyone to shut up... in which case, carry on.
Shouldn't that be: "Better to keep our mouths shut so people believe that we're absolutely sure of something"?
ReplyDeleteI would say no because that's as confusing to me as my locution was to you. If I'm keeping my mouth shut, it's because I'm already sure, not because I feel a need to convince others that I'm sure. "So people believe that" adds an unnecessary layer of subtext.
What I was trying to say was something more along the lines of, "If you're truly convinced of something's truth, why say anything?" Maybe I should've just written that. In fact, I may go back and rewrite that last part. Thanks.
Making the world a better place, one locution at a time!
ReplyDeleteBy your own logic, this is a rather unsure post. Ergo, I question whether your premise actually holds.
ReplyDeleteBasically, all I said was that I agree with Pirsig.
ReplyDeleteThere are people (I am one of them) who are reluctant to shout regardless of their own confidence. If I am very confident, I don't want to shout about it because I am superstitiously fearful I will jinx it. If I am not at all confident, I don't want to shout about it for fear of being made to look foolish when proven wrong.
ReplyDeleteHenry,
ReplyDeleteWhat you're describing sounds perfectly normal to me. I think a lot of us are in the same boat. That's a wiser course than to bray overconfidently.
Kevin,
ReplyDeleteThe verb "bray" is an excellent application for those who choose to proclaim their confidence loudly.
People don't proclaim that the sun will rise on the morrow because no one else needs to be convinced otherwise, not because they are sure as to whether the sun will rise. In general, no children are killed by sunrise-deniers; nor do old ladies or the working poor starve to death because of them. It seems to me that the example does not support the argument because the variable--the fact that all universally agree that the sun will rise tomorrow--was not taken into account.
ReplyDeleteOn the other hand, if one lived next door to a cult like the Branch Davidians, I could see someone really trying to convince a cult member that the world would *not* end the next day. The comment would arise precisely because our hero or heroine knows that the world will go on, and that tragedy will strike if someone actually believes that it will not.
I don't really believe this claim of universal self-doubt in general. For what it's worth, though, C.S. Lewis had a similar thought when he said "no one who says 'I'm as good as you' actually believes it. If he believed it, it would not be necessary for him to say so.'"
The above quote is from a memory more than 20 years old, and so is really a paraphrase rather than a quote.
That said, if we were to say that *many* people who openly say some things with apparent sureness secretly doubt the thought that they are expressing, then I would very much agree with the sentiment.
I think Lewis and I are on the same wavelength, here. What Pirsig said (and I agreed with) is psychologically valid: the things we take for granted don't require mention or fanfare. That said, I think your point about convincing others is also psychologically valid, but the two points of view aren't mutually exclusive.
ReplyDelete