Musings on why (not) all thoughts are equal.
A person who judges is always biased. He will either think “what a stupid thought” or “what a brilliant thought!”. If, like me, you are onto him, you wonder if this says something about the judge’s thought or about the thought the judge is judging. When we add our own thought to the series of thoughts, we get three linked thoughts, two of which depend on the first – original – thought. At least, that is what we think.
All these thoughts have a certain quality that is partly intrinsic and partly judgmental. If 99% of the world appreciates or agrees with a thought, it is easier to assume that the thought is valuable. Can there actually be a truly objective judgment about this?
A single judge
When we consider what the judge thinks about the thought with which we began these musings, we must consider the percentage lost in translation. If the judge’s thought is flawed, then we ourselves will never be able to reach a good judgment. If both the original thought and the judge’s thought are flawed, then we must conclude that the judge is mistaken when he assumes brilliance. Unless we have misunderstood something fundamental. On this scale, it is quite easy to fix.
The original thought originated elsewhere and morphed many times as people passed the thought on to whomever they know. The thought we end up thinking is unique. Should we compare this thought to the other unique thoughts or to the thought from which it originated?
A superspreader
Some people have the power to spread their thoughts much further than others. If what they spread is ultimately what 99% of people are told – suppressing all other thoughts – then some people will know no alternative. Does the power of the masses mean that this version of the thought is more powerful? After all, it is what the world believes. Doesn’t this make you worry about the genius of the thought that started it all?
The person who judges will regard the thought he heard as having its own identity. It does not matter how many other thoughts this one thought is connected with, for he can easily evaluate it without the others. The result of the consideration will reveal whether the evolved thought is worth thinking about.
Whatever happened?
As I ponder this thought process, my mind wanders to the chain of thoughts I am reconstructing in my mind. I am building a replica of the thoughts that came before. As I do so from my perspective, I may be making them a little better than they were before. As a result, I cannot deny the genius of the superspreader; it seems that person was right in creating value for this thought. The other people judging agree with me. The fact that we all think this way must be meaningful because now 99% of people agree with us.
I cannot imagine being wrong about this: if I were wrong, it would mean that everyone else’s thoughts are equally wrong. Even if it is because something was lost in translation, I would not dare to judge objectively the original thought which I should not make better than it is lest it be equal to the erroneous thoughts I perhaps think myself.
If I am wrong, there is a thought that is superior to mine. Although all thoughts are equally important, an unknown thought that preceded all of this can always be better. The mystery surrounding it made superspreaders elevate it to unprecedented heights. Or were they the cause of the mystery? Perhaps they came up with the original thought.
 all thoughts are equal.){kind=link}