Confidence Spectrum
Confidence spectrum (ironically): 80%
Everyone has thoughts.
Those thoughts get pieced together to form our beliefs.
But all thoughts are not equal. I give little credence to some thoughts. Others, I scramble to write down before I forget.
Consequently, it seems that all beliefs should not be equal. Some deserve more confidence than other.
For example, I believe that the sun will rise in the morning and I believe that UBI is a positive step forward in civilization's evolution, but my confidence in those beliefs are very different. I'm quite certain of the former, but I am aware I could be completely wrong about the latter.
It may seem weird that you can believe something and not be 100% confident in it. But think about it. The confidence in our beliefs should vary. If they didn't vary, and belief was a binary yes-no, we'd end up lying to ourselves and over/under committing to ideas that belong in the middle. UBI is a good example of this. I like and support it, but I am nowhere near trying to announce this as a fundamental truth. If I turn out to be wrong, I won't be that surprised. It's a belief with sub 100% confidence.
When we view the world this way, the question is not 'Do I believe X?'. It's 'How confident am I in X'. This is the essence of the Confidence Spectrum.
Notice, this model doesn't have space for 100% confidence. For all I know, I may wake up tomorrow in the year 2070 from a very realistic 'relive-your-younger-years-for-a-day' virtual reality experience. Equally important, it only goes down to 50% confidence. After all, having 40% confidence a belief is true is really just another way of saying 60% confidence it's not true.
The majority of beliefs regarding large nuanced topics (i.e. the majority of all beliefs) should be firmly in the gray zone of the Confidence Spectrum. If we don't recognize this gray zone and only see beliefs as a yes-no option, we end up with a weird scenario where the having humility and admitting ambiguity is discouraged. Changing one's mind is seen as a fault, not a sign of a maturing belief. You are forced to pretend (and worse off - may actually believe) that you are undeniably are right about things that you cannot actually be certain of. After all you believe it, don't you? This is not a scenario that fosters growth; it fosters stagnation. How can we be smarter today if we can't change our beliefs of yesterday?
Everything up to now has been a set up for the actual point. When we express ideas, thoughts, beliefs... we should also be aware of (and maybe even express) our confidence in them. Doing so minimizes miscommunication and helps get rid of the expectation to always be 'right'. Its an antidote to perfectionism.
That is why I'm putting a Confidence status at the top of each post. What exactly it measures is hard to pinpoint. It's a blend of how firmly I think the subject matter is true, how well the point is portrayed, etc.
50% = I hope I never stoop this low and spend time writing something I literally don't back in any way.
60% = Pretty speculative, I don't have evidence to back it up nor can I even explain it well. But I think there's something here.
70% = Not going to die on a hill for it, but willing to fight for it.
80% = Definitely willing to support. Has flaws, but overall the idea has a substance to it that I find difficult to ignore or counter.
90% = I feel comfortable debating and defending this. Though still recognize my ability to get my perspective across isn't perfect and that I may be wrong.
99% = If you see this, I've been kidnapped and replaced by someone who is way too confident.
So the ratings are pretty subjective, but I promise they point towards something. To easily track the overall distribution of percentages, nearly all posts are tagged with their respective confidence level and organized as such on the left-hand sidebar.