To trzeba przeczytac
"The Conformist Test
Let's start with a test: Do you have any opinions that you would be reluctant to express in front of a group of your peers?
If the answer is no, you might want to stop and think about that. If everything you believe is something you're supposed to believe, could that possibly be a coincidence? Odds are it isn't. Odds are you just think whatever you're told.
The other alternative would be that you independently considered every question and came up with the exact same answers that are now considered acceptable. That seems unlikely, because you'd also have to make the same mistakes. Mapmakers deliberately put slight mistakes in their maps so they can tell when someone copies them. If another map has the same mistake, that's very convincing evidence.
Like every other era in history, our moral map almost certainly contains a few mistakes. And anyone who makes the same mistakes probably didn't do it by accident. It would be like someone claiming they had independently decided in 1972 that bell-bottom jeans were a good idea."
Prosty test jaki proponuje Paul w swoim doskonalym artykule : powiedzioce mi prosze ,czy jest jakis temat ,ktorego nie chielibyscie publicznie poruszyc w towarzystwie waszych rowniesnikow?
W takim razie :dlaczego nie ma?
Przeciez to nie mozliwe ,ze wszyscy myslicie podobnie i macie takie same poglady?
Praktycznie niemozliwa jest sytuacja gdzie grupa ludzi bedzie myslala to samo na dany temat lub popelniala dokladnie takie same bledy.
W zwiazku z tym moze to co myslimy to nie to do czego samodzielnie doszlismy ale to co POWINNISMY MYSLEC kierowani przez takie czy inne 'drogowskazy"?
Takich i wiecej pytan jest w tym artukule wiecej.Postaram sie przetlumaczyc chociaz wiekszosc po powrocie .