If Two Of Three
He who knows his stupidity is not very stupid;
he who knows that he is under a delusion is not greatly deluded.
He who is greatly deluded will never shake the delusion off;
he who is very stupid will all his life not become intelligent.
If three men be walking together, and (only) one of them be under a delusion (as to their way), they may yet reach their goal, the deluded being the fewer; but if two of them be under the delusion, they will not do so, the deluded being the majority.
At the present time, when the whole world is under a delusion,
though I pray men to go in the right direction, I cannot make them do so;
-– is it not a sad case?
—Zhuangzi, Heaven and Earth, by Zhuang Zhou, trans. James Leggi
If two of three are deluded, well…
And what of coercing the three to go in the right direction? Does “right direction” retain definition? Does not language itself evaporate into swirling confetti, never settling?
Best always remember. — I am partly deluded.
2 thoughts on “If Two Of Three”
In the early 1960s Stanley Milgram carried out a number of experiments based around volunteers following the instructions provided by an authority figure. His most famous experiment was about asking people to give increasingly strong shocks to someone in another room. But one of his other experiments is much more along the lines of what you have described above. There were nine student, all but one of them were “in” on the experiment. All nine students were shown cards one by one with several shapes or lines on each card. They would verbally state which of the several designs on a single card contained the shortest line or the smallest circle. In the first five cards, the students who were in on the experiment noted the correct answer. On the remainder of the cards, they all chose an incorrect shape. The student who was unaware that the others knew to do this hesitated, but then went along with the others so as not to seem out of step. He or she was willing to forego their own senses to be able to fit in with the group.
I mention this because it may seem like someone may be delusional for choosing something that is clearly incorrect, yet they may also be influenced by the choices of others and therefore begin to have serious doubt about their own sense of reality. How much are we all influenced by the notions of others as to which path we choose?
It is certain that “choices” are greatly influenced by the “thumbs up” or the “thumbs down” shown by others. The very linguistic building blocks of reason, entail the biases of those parents, teachers, and older siblings in whose association we learned the referents to audible symbols, as well as the context of their application. I wonder if I have ever made a single choice that was not affected at root, by others in my past,or by those around me now. I reflect often of the importance of exercising care with respect to those with whom I chose to associate.
And one more dimension to the social construction of knowledge is offered by the rigor which science affords in it’s method of practice. It is not enough for a scientist to be convinced him or herself of what they have discovered. The context of the new discovery must be presented so that other qualified practitioners can observe for themselves and then agree or disconfirm a hypothesis. This works only when a majority are unconditionally obliged to the “truth.”