The importance of being "not wrong"

superrific

Legend of ZZL
Messages
6,783
I often keep my eye out, in daily life, for small, almost unnoticeable cultural habits that might have an insidious but almost invisible effect on the national mood. I can't quantify the impact, or even prove that it exists. But I like to make people aware of them (I guess technically I'm raising awareness for my interpretations), to let people ponder. Maybe there's something there, and maybe not.

Today: the emergence of "you're not wrong" as a way of saying, "you're right." I didn't hear or see people saying "not wrong" fifteen years ago. I think it's a relatively new development. And I think it's not a very good one. Let's consider:

1. First, just imagine if school teachers talked that way. Or coaches. Or anyone training you. "Teacher, I finally solved this equation and got x = 4" shouldn't be met with "that's not wrong." It's right. We know that. And I don't think the average 12 year old wants to hear "not wrong" instead of "right." So let's keep that in the back of our minds when considering:

2. The focus on negativity. Let's assume that adults are more resilient to negative vibes than kids. Even so, "not wrong" is bad communication. It suggests that things are, by default, wrong. Saying "not wrong" once or ten times won't do anything, but if you start saying it all the time, if you're on your hundredth "not wrong," it might affect the way you think. It might subtly structure your thinking. You might start to assume, without thinking about it, that your interlocutor is just foolish or mistaken by default.

This is true even if the purpose of "not wrong" is simply to be cool, or to follow a fad, or to color language to make it more interesting to us. Maybe it's just slang. I don't think that changes much. Even if we argue that people using it for those reasons aren't likely to change their worldview, we can't say that about the listeners.

3. Saying "you're not wrong" is about the least assuring positive response a person can give. Imagine prepping for a fight of some sort -- a bar fight or an infantry battle -- and hearing the people around you saying, "I won't run in panic." Fuck that. You want to say, "I'm with you." "I've got your back." That's how you build trust.

If someone says something, and I say, "that's right," I'm implicitly building a bridge. I'm saying, "we're on the same side here." If you hear me say that, you would interpret it as a form of trust. "He thinks I'm right here, and he might also think I'm right about a few other things too. We can be friends."

By contrast, saying "you're not wrong" subtly undermines that trust. It's saying, "we're on the same side here for now, but I'm reserving the right to disagree with you even on this issue. You aren't wrong now but you might be tomorrow." It's also communicating, "I can barely give you credit for your stance here that I like; don't count on me agreeing with anything else." This is not a rhetoric of trust. It's a rhetoric of mistrust. And maybe you think things that subtle make no difference. I do not think that. I think these small things are big, disproportionate shapers of our worldviews, our current outlooks, our attitudes of happiness or frustration.

****
Thoughts? Other examples of similar things? I've talked before about people who say, "I lied" or "you lied" in lieu of "I/you was/were mistaken." I would put that into the same bucket, maybe. It's a rhetoric of mistrust.
 
Whatever this thread will become, it should not turn into the Monty Python argument sketch. That stands on its own, and we could never hope to rival it.

But anyway, not wrong.
 
This thread may actually be the peak of pedantry.
If that's your view, maybe you should read it again. It's not about pedantry at all. I'm not saying it because I'm complaining that a) it's incorrect grammar; or b) it's not sufficiently styled; or c) any other motivation implied by "pedantry."

Rather, I'm arguing that tiny little things, when taken together, can make a big difference in how we comprehend the world. This isn't a fringe view. It's pretty standard to assert that language affects thoughts.

Here's another example: the movie Cars 3 is practically Triumph of the Will for MAGAs. Virtually every aspect of the plot, tone and theme of the movie replicate MAGA obsessions with dangerous outsiders seeking to harm good old-fashioned American communities. I doubt the filmmakers intended it that way, but let's say you watch Fox News all day long and then in the evening you take your kids to see Cars 3. The movie reinforces everything you heard that day on Fox. I simply do not believe that makes no difference.

If you think I'm off base, you can say that but I don't think pedantry is an appropriate accusation. It's pretty much the opposite.
 
If that's your view, maybe you should read it again. It's not about pedantry at all. I'm not saying it because I'm complaining that a) it's incorrect grammar; or b) it's not sufficiently styled; or c) any other motivation implied by "pedantry."

Rather, I'm arguing that tiny little things, when taken together, can make a big difference in how we comprehend the world. This isn't a fringe view. It's pretty standard to assert that language affects thoughts.

Here's another example: the movie Cars 3 is practically Triumph of the Will for MAGAs. Virtually every aspect of the plot, tone and theme of the movie replicate MAGA obsessions with dangerous outsiders seeking to harm good old-fashioned American communities. I doubt the filmmakers intended it that way, but let's say you watch Fox News all day long and then in the evening you take your kids to see Cars 3. The movie reinforces everything you heard that day on Fox. I simply do not believe that makes no difference.

If you think I'm off base, you can say that but I don't think pedantry is an appropriate accusation. It's pretty much the opposite.
I'm reminded of a joke that George Carlin used to tell.

Every time you see a story about a serial killer on T.V, what do they do? They bring on the neighbor. And the neighbor says “Well, he was always very quiet.” And someone in the room says “It's the quiet ones you gotta watch." This sounds to me like a very dangerous assumption. I will bet you anything that while you're watching a quiet one, a noisy one will fucking kill you.

We have camels aplenty, and I don't feel the need to gag on your gnat.
 
I have been guilty of this, so you got me thinking about it.

I think when I’ve used it, it has been my way of saying, “you aren’t wrong in what you are saying, but there is more to it than just that but I don’t feel like getting into it.”
I think that's how I use it as well. It's probably commonly how it's used (or for closely related purposes). I just think it's a bit insidious.
 
You know, I admit that I was wrong.

Your attempt to argue the finer points of the definition of pedantry is peak pedantry. I underestimated you.
Why are you attacking me? Fine, you don't like the idea expressed. Is that a reason to be as dismissive and insulting as possible? It's not simply that you're addressing what I wrote (in fact, you're not, not at all). You're addressing me. And for what? Sharing thoughts?

It happens a lot when I start threads, people show up to attack me gratuitously. I guess there's no reason to share ideas if this is what is going to happen.
 
I have been guilty of this, so you got me thinking about it.

I think when I’ve used it, it has been my way of saying, “you aren’t wrong in what you are saying, but there is more to it than just that but I don’t feel like getting into it.”
This is how I feel about the statement, “You’re not wrong.”

My memory of its usage goes back many more years than fifteen; now, if you’re saying that recently it’s being used more frequently and/or being used more often to say, “You’re right,” I haven’t a clue.
 
Back
Top