Deductive rigidity refers to the strict application of fixed premises to reach conclusions, often stifling inquiry by treating those premises as unchallengeable, leading to inflexible and potentially flawed outcomes. In contrast, abductive reasoning offers flexibility by inferring the best explanation from observed facts, adapting to new evidence and context to align further with truth.
The maxim “You can be dead sure and dead wrong” exposes a fundamental flaw in human cognition: the tendency to conflate certainty with truth. Certainty, a subjective state of unwavering belief, often mimics reason by projecting an aura of unassailable truth, yet it stands apart from truth, which is rooted in reality, evidence, and rational inquiry—someone might, for instance, be utterly convinced the sun revolves around the Earth due to flawed reasoning or incomplete evidence. This distinction highlights a critical reality: confidence alone does not guarantee correctness, and reliance on rigid deductive systems (deductive rigidity) that prioritize certainty over open exploration can steer individuals far from the truth.
[The Dunning-Kruger Effect, is] where a person believes themselves to be smarter and more competent than they actually are. […] In essence, it shows how people with low ability do not have the necessary critical ability and self-awareness to recognize how low their ability actually is. This leads to them having a superior view of their own competence and knowledge. In simple words, it is “when people are too stupid to know how stupid they are”. ~Kirstie Pursey
The Dunning-Kruger effect is a cognitive bias where individuals with low competence in a domain overestimate their abilities, exuding unwarranted confidence. This occurs because their lack of knowledge prevents them from recognizing their own errors or the expertise of others.
The word “authority” derives from the Latin “auctoritas,” originally meaning “growth,” “influence,” and, crucially, “authorship” – referring to someone who originates or brings something into being. This etymological root reveals how attributing authority to another implies granting them the power to “author” our actions, beliefs, or even our life’s direction, essentially ceding control over our own narrative to their will or judgment.
This cognitive misstep is vividly illustrated by the Dunning-Kruger effect, where those with limited knowledge overestimate their competence, exuding a confidence that exceeds their grasp. Such unearned certainty becomes a social tool, exploited by narcissists who project resolute conviction to sway others, particularly those conditioned to doubt their own perceptions. This creates a dangerous cycle where the confidently wrong lead the uncertain, undermining independent reasoning and amplifying the appeal to authority fallacy—accepting a claim as true merely because an authority endorses it, regardless of evidence—which gaslit individuals, already distrustful of their own judgment, readily embrace as they defer to perceived expertise.
Gaslighting is a manipulative tactic where an individual or group causes another to doubt their own perceptions, memories, or sanity, often to gain control or obscure truth. It erodes trust in one’s senses and reason, fostering dependency on the manipulator’s narrative. Narcissists use gaslighting to harvest attention (narcissistic supply) from those around them.
Collectivism is a philosophy or social system that prioritizes the goals and identity of the group over individual autonomy and judgment. It often demands conformity, subordinating personal reason and interests to collective consensus or authority.
At the heart of this cycle lies gaslighting, a deliberate or systemic effort to erode trust in one’s own perceptions and reasoning. Those ensnared by this manipulation become obedient to external voices, dismissing their sensory evidence—sight, sound, touch—as unreliable compared to an authority’s pronouncements, a process that severs them from reality since the senses, paired with reason, are the primary tools for discerning truth. This conditioning often begins early, as individuals raised in environments steeped in gaslighting from childhood are primed to doubt their own experiences, fostering a vulnerability to collectivism that elevates group consensus over individual judgment and leaves them seeking validation from external sources like crowds or leaders.
The followers of these authoritative figures—those who willfully ignore reason, evidence, and truth—perpetuate this dynamic by surrendering their judgment to “authorities” whose certainty is mistaken for wisdom. This societal bias toward compliance over skepticism encourages distrust in personal senses, favoring parroted slogans or talking points instead, which leaves individuals unable to make decisions aligned with their rational self-interest and ripe for manipulation by those projecting baseless confidence. Deductive rigidity fuels this susceptibility, relying on the strict application of fixed, unchallengeable premises to derive conclusions, stifling inquiry and producing outcomes that may be logically consistent yet disconnected from reality if those premises are flawed—unlike abductive reasoning, which adapts to new evidence.
The Purpose of Force: Force, when rightly understood, serves as a corrective mechanism to realign subjective perceptions with objective truth by disrupting illusions that obscure reality. It acts not as a weapon of control, but as a firm guide, nudging individuals away from self-deception and toward a clearer recognition of what is, rather than what they wish to see. In this role, force is a tool of restoration, applied with precision and restraint, to break through the noise of personal bias and conform the mind to the unyielding contours of truth.
The inversion of force occurs when force, intended as a precise tool to realign subjective perceptions with objective truth, is misused to impose control and perpetuate illusions rather than dispel them. Instead of guiding individuals toward reality, it becomes a mechanism of coercion, entrenching false narratives and undermining autonomous reasoning.
This misplaced certainty gains further traction through the power wielded by gaslighters and their supporters, often rooted in force—social coercion, institutional authority, or systemic intimidation—rather than reason or consent. This force-based power cloaks their claims in invincibility, enhancing the allure of their certainty and providing a false sense of security for those gaslit, who, distrustful of their own senses, yield to predatory ideologies or groupthink. For gaslighters, this authority dominates discourse, while supporters bask in its reflected strength, and the appeal to authority fallacy deepens the cycle, as those worshiping power accept these claims without scrutiny, mistaking force for legitimacy.
Abductive reasoning is a form of logical inference that starts with observations and seeks the simplest, most likely explanation, embracing uncertainty and iteration. It thrives on generating and refining hypotheses, often leading to surprising yet plausible conclusions, as seen in Sherlock Holmes’ investigative approach.
Fallibilism is the intellectual character trait that acknowledges all beliefs and knowledge are subject to error and open to revision based on new evidence. It fosters humility and critical inquiry, encouraging individuals to question assumptions while pursuing truth through reason.
Socratic humility is the intellectual virtue of recognizing and embracing the limits of one’s knowledge, fostering openness to learning and growth. It counters arrogance by encouraging a continuous quest for truth without diminishing self-worth.
Healthy doubt, stemming from skepticism, fallibilism, and Socratic humility, arises from an internal locus of identity where individuals question their beliefs with an open mind, trusting their senses and reasoning while remaining open to revision based on evidence. Unhealthy doubt, driven by an external identity, manifests as a lack of confidence in one’s own perceptions and rational faculties, leading individuals to overly rely on others’ opinions and authority, often at the expense of their own truth-seeking capacity.
Confidence In Reason is the confidence that, in the long run, one’s own higher interests and those of humankind at large will be best served by giving the freest play to reason, by encouraging people to come to their own conclusions by developing their own rational faculties; faith that, with proper encouragement and cultivation, people can learn to think for themselves, to form rational viewpoints, draw reasonable conclusions, think coherently and logically, persuade each other by reason and become reasonable persons, despite the deep-seated obstacles in the native character of the human mind and in society as we know it. ~Richard Paul
The appeal of certainty as a marker of truth heightens this vulnerability, as individuals adopt the resolute stance of their “authorities” to emulate perceived intelligence, mirroring the Dunning-Kruger effect with a false confidence they mistake for depth. They overlook that true understanding requires questioning, evidence, and adaptability, instead fueling a feedback loop that amplifies the influence of the confidently wrong. This rigidity and reliance on force contrast sharply with a healthier approach, where abductive reasoning and fallibilism, underpinned by Socratic humility, offer a path to autonomy by forming hypotheses from incomplete data, testing them deductively, and embracing the possibility of error without self-doubt.
Embracing this approach cultivates autonomy, empowering individuals to trust their observations while remaining skeptical, using healthy doubt as a strength to challenge platitudes, authorities, and force-based power. Socratic humility promotes inquiry over dogma, and true certainty emerges not from rigid convictions or external validation but from confidence in reason—the belief that through abductive processes, deductive testing, and relentless questioning, one can approach truth. This intellectual trait liberates individuals from manipulation, grounding their autonomy in a pursuit of reality over illusion.
Ultimately, the maxim “You can be dead sure and dead wrong” serves as a caution against the seductive power of certainty divorced from truth, especially when propped up by force, deductive rigidity, or the appeal to authority fallacy. It calls for a commitment to independent reasoning, bolstered by abductive processes and confidence in reason, urging us to trust our senses with rigorous scrutiny and reject gaslighting that distorts reality. In a world where narcissists and their followers wield force-backed certainty, embracing healthy doubt and autonomous inquiry enables individuals to resist predatory ideologies, reclaim their agency, and pursue truth free from the confidently wrong.
Rick Mayall’s last film, ‘One by One’, about trusting your own senses and reason above what we’re told by so-called ‘authority’:
Did you enjoy the article? Show your appreciation and buy me a coffee:
Bitcoin: bc1q0dr3t3qxs70zl0y5ccz7zesdepek3hs8mq9q76
Doge: DBLkU7R4fd9VsMKimi7X8EtMnDJPUdnWrZ
XRP: r4pwVyTu2UwpcM7ZXavt98AgFXRLre52aj
MATIC: 0xEf62e7C4Eaf72504de70f28CDf43D1b382c8263F
THE UNITY PROCESS: I’ve created an integrative methodology called the Unity Process, which combines the philosophy of Natural Law, the Trivium Method, Socratic Questioning, Jungian shadow work, and Meridian Tapping—into an easy to use system that allows people to process their emotional upsets, work through trauma, correct poor thinking, discover meaning, set healthy boundaries, refine their viewpoints, and to achieve a positive focus. You can give it a try by contacting me for a private session.
