Programming Error in Education: Debating Without Identity

Have you ever caught yourself tending to "pounce" to find a fault in the behavior of an individual presenting an argument, even if that fault has nothing to do with the core content of the dialogue? If so, congratulations; you have just identified a cognitive "virus" that the education system has inadvertently inserted into your way of thinking.

When you dare to put pen to paper, you perform the bravest act in the world: daring to reveal your own identity. The more you write, the more your identity is clearly revealed on the page, and that is a golden opportunity for you to reflect upon and adjust your own mental operating system. Conversely, those who never dare to write, never dare to shape their thoughts through words, are often the ones most easily influenced and swept away by waves of public opinion.

Therefore, I have a steel rule that I never waste time reading articles that speak ill of or personally attack anyone, especially leaders, whether in the past or present. Why? Because the moment a writer chooses to tear down a human being instead of analyzing the context or the system, they have revealed an identity riddled with serious logical errors. When you cannot use reason to illuminate a problem, turning to personal attacks is merely a confession that you have been completely defeated and are trying to cover up your weakness in intellect and thinking ability.

From a scientific perspective, identity is not just a static noun but a complex, dynamic process. Sociology defines identity as the interaction between the individual self and social structures. Studies in education and social psychology have shown that identity is the foundation of all learning processes. However, looking back at history, the lack of defining identity was a serious systemic error of 20th-century general education. During that period, education often focused on creating stereotyped products, inadvertently promoting a mindset of finding personal faults rather than understanding context. This way of thinking has ingrained itself in the subconscious, causing us to tend to attack people to quickly achieve the goal of winning arguments, rather than analyzing objective phenomena. It is this tendency to find personal faults that has blurred the logic and health of every dialogue, turning discussions into trials judging moral behavior instead of being a place for the intersection of diverse perspectives.

When you cannot determine your own identity and that of others, the debate falls into a stalemate because both sides are broadcasting on completely different frequencies. You say one thing, they understand another; every piece of data presented is bent through the lens of distorted understandings. The result is that the dialogue turns into an endless loop of criticism, where people no longer argue about ideas but struggle to attack straw men they have imagined themselves.

Let’s take a typical example of defining identity in historical perception. When you praise a King, you must clearly identify which era you are examining and what your position is in that picture. Are you standing in the position of a mandarin eternally grateful to the King, or are you an inner rebel, or are you standing on the front lines of an opponent across the border? Similarly, when discussing any war, you must consider which year’s data you are choosing and at what coordinates you are standing relative to the object being studied: ally, teammate, subordinate, superior, relative, etc. Even with philosophy, confusing the lens between the astronomical thinking of Kong Ming, the linear logic of Descartes, or other ideologies from different eras will lead to a deviation in thinking frequency, making dialogue impossible due to a phase shift in knowledge coordinates.

Only when you determine which lens you are looking through can you truly recognize your own identity and the identity of the related objects. When you lack this clarity of identity, you become extremely weak before misleading data streams. The brain then easily falls into speculative imagination and gets trapped in fabricated news scenarios left over from classic psychological warfare campaigns.

Many people mistakenly believe identity is what is written on papers, but in reality, it is a unique profile including both things you cannot choose and things you mold yourself from experience. Our biggest mistake is often trying to whittle down our identity to fit someone else's mold just because we are afraid of being judged. But remember that a perfect copy is never as valuable as a flawed original. When you do not respect your own identity, you are downgrading your self-worth to a permanent "trial version." Once you know how to love your distinct self through writing and revealing your thoughts, you will learn to respect phenomena. This means you accept that every object, event, and person appearing in this world has its own reason and context.

Particularly regarding leaders or historical figures, personally attacking them is an act of extreme cognitive immaturity. Every leader, in any era, is an individual with an identity bound by the context of the times, the pressures of power, and variables that we can hardly fully empathize with if we only look from afar. Instead of using emotion to abuse, a mature person will choose to observe them as a phenomenon to analyze what they achieved and what they did not. Respecting context helps you understand that people of the past cannot be judged crudely by the lens of the present without understanding the identity of the era.

The secret to not becoming tactless in the eyes of the world is the rule of asking "why" before giving a comment. We are not psychics, so instead of guessing and judging as if we know it all, learn to clarify information. Instead of exclaiming "Why does that person have such strange actions?", try asking "Why did the context at that time lead them to choose that way?" Asking "why" helps you open the door to the other person's private world, helping you understand that behind a strange action may be an entire identity system impacted by countless external factors. When you ask instead of judge, you not only score points for sophistication but also save yourself from deadly communication black holes, ensuring that every distinct perspective is considered fairly and multi-dimensionally.

In short, a wonderful society is not a place where everyone is exactly the same, but a place where distinct pieces of identity are placed next to each other to create a brilliant masterpiece. Respecting identity is the first step on the path of empathy. Before opening your mouth or offering any assessment, spend three seconds asking "why." May you always be bold in writing to sharpen yourself, remove faulty installations from the past, always be the most brilliant "limited edition," know how to love your own ego, and always be gentle with the differences of those next to you. Don't let life be a bland hotpot; let every identity and every phenomenon be a unique spice that makes this world more interesting than ever!

Read more in Vietnamese