Assumptions Are Positively Correlated With Losing

At some point in life, one realizes that what is being said and what is understood are two completely different things. We believe that what we utter from our inherited lexicon should convey an exact replica of the meaning that has been crafted in our brains. This is not the case since language is limited by our own assumptions about the world.

One might try to convey the importance of being a free individual while another will assume that they are speaking of a dystopian anarchic world. In matters of religion, one might try to explain how they understand God, only for them to be labeled as heretics. In politics, a personal belief about how one wishes to have their culture kept homogenic might label them as xenophobic and racist.

We all lose from these assumptions because only a small amount of information is being processed. Most often we neglect to take into account the context up which something has been expressed or the details that make-up one's position. This happens because the brain is not by any means a perfect record machine. It barely keeps the "gist" of someone's meaning and then trims it even more when the information is passed along even further down the social chain. The broken-telephone analogy applies.

I have had quite a few users complain that some of my posts are contradictory but upon hearing their complaints, I realized that they were lost in their own assumptions. For example, in some posts I appear as an atheist, while in others I defend religion's effect on humanity and explain how everyone carries in some respect attributes of religiosity. I also critisize heavily the neo-atheist social justice warrioring. For someone that has never examined the subject of atheism closely, an atheist is more likely a left-wing communist that corrupts the right-wing nation from its fundamentals values and morals. There is no middle ground, no gray zones. Like aforementioned above, the brain can retain only that much and thus gets lost in assumptions.

Similarly, I might choose to quote Jesus (whether he existed or not), Richard Dawkins, Michio Kaku, Ayn Rand, Mises, Rothbard or any other person without endorsing them as individuals. Once again, people lose when they assume that if one quotes a person, one might agree with everything that person sais or does. I embrace ideas under specific contexts, not people. Individuals that worship celebrities are resorting to idolatry no different that those who blindly follow religious figures, politicians, economic gurus or any other person that just seems to be acting like a trump card in their intellectualism.

One can disagree with multiculturalism but also support open borders. One can protest against the Church for decimating an archaeological site while disagreeing that the government should intervene in any way. Human societies are complex entities with innumerable intricacies that can pretty much render hundreds of political combinations. Sooner or later, each individual inevitably turns to be their own heresy whether the subject is political, economic or cultural.

Groupies seemingly gain support with assumptions since there is a common ground upon which everybody agrees. Nonetheless they lose in the long term. What elevated them in the social circle is bound to bring their own demise. At some point the same "Losers of Assumption" will try to become unique and distinguish themselves from the crowd. This is human nature after all. They will be put down by the same logic that has elevated them. This is how someone becomes a nobody. This is how most people are rendered into reposts of other people.