This post is a response to a question posed in its complete format: “What do you do if you’re just a lost cause and there’s nothing anyone or you could say or do to change that?”
Stop believing that’s true about you, or resign yourself to a long and slow death while proving you are a lost cause.
Everyone can change, and it always boils down to desire and the effort one makes toward change.
Without a desire to change, neither you nor anyone else can do anything to change that.
First and foremost, you have to want it because that allows you to find the motivation to develop the discipline you need to change to prove to yourself that you’re not a lost cause.
You otherwise are and will always be what you believe yourself to be.
Robert Anton Wilson described the dynamic in simple and entertaining terms that might help, “Within each of us is the thinker and the prover. Whatever the thinker thinks, the prover proves.”
One can only be a lost cause by giving up one’s responsibility to oneself to live one’s best life. No matter how lousy the cards you’re dealt are, you still can make the best of them. Wallowing in defeat is a living a death. Use other people’s disparaging views of you as fuel to change.
Allow those unjust views to anger you justifiably. Convert them into a giant act of rejection and prove them wrong.
The first place to start is to give up the notion that being “right” or “wrong” matters more than being accurate, informed, and knowledgeable.
“Right” and “wrong” are egotistical expressions that either stroke one’s sense of self or dismantle one’s self-confidence. Neither is helpful to oneself, others, or the issues at play.
As I often find myself checking out profiles to gain context into the querent’s mind, I did so with yours and am pleased to discover that you’re already on the right track.
Fundamentally, we’re all fumbling about in the dark and clueless, even about things we think we know. The worst thing we can do is believe we are “right” because that perspective contributes nothing to one’s growth and kills one’s ability to explore beyond that point.
No matter how “right” we might feel about something or how complete we think our knowledge of something, there is always something to learn about it that will be new to us. There is always a different perspective on that thing that we have not yet encountered.
If we could all adopt the perspective of being clueless, our world would experience far fewer conflicts because people would be more open to the perspectives of others.
Unfortunately, we live in a world built upon the foundation of exploiting insecurity at all levels throughout society — whether selling hair products or climbing corporate ladders. Insecurity has been weaponized as a tool of manipulation for personal gain over and above benefiting society as a whole.
We have never been more fortunate than we are today when confronted by the limits of our knowledge and understanding. Solving the problem of being unsure about one’s position means simply whipping out one’s means of accessing a comprehensive knowledge base to conduct basic research to verify if one’s position contradicts facts.
There is no real point in engaging with others to determine if one’s compass setting on knowledge is on true north by triangulating it with the settings of others because one is just engaging in an egotistical fencing match at that point. Online “debates” are often more about egotistical masturbation than they are about deriving an objective apprehension of issues to determine pragmatic resolutions.
Sharing information obtained through research efforts is far more rewarding and less prone to conflict over subjectively defined notions of being “right” or “wrong.”
One can still certainly derive flawed conclusions on matters, but that’s also a function of incomplete information that may be deemed “wrong.” Adding to one’s information base is less about determining “right” or “wrong” and more about ensuring the completeness of knowledge in a subject domain.
Knowing the difference in a dynamic with someone else on this level is essentially determined by whether or not the critic of one’s knowledge adds to one’s information base or disparages one’s person as a reaction to the information conveyed.
To directly answer your question, after all the verbiage I packed into this long-winded answer, is that you will know by the content of your critics’ arguments.
You can always deem yourself “not wrong” if the other party adds nothing to your position. If they can add valuable information to expand your knowledge base, you can still consider yourself “not wrong” while learning to be “more right” by their contribution.
This is how you can preserve your superior perspective of evolved humility by remaining confident in being clueless.
Congratulations on achieving a higher level of awareness than most of us monkeys ever attain throughout our very challenging lives.
thotbag 