Why is it so difficult to admit mistakes? Even so when we know that most, or probably all great inventions in the world were finally made after dozens or hundreds of failed trials and tests, sometimes even small or big accidents. So, the most common experience of a great man or woman who has really achieved something new, is that he or she first and for a long time made countless mistakes, yet, without giving up, believing in one more test, one more experiment, one deeper thought and hypothesis, one more and new angle an approach to the problem - and then eventually, success or failure.

Mistakes and failures are typical characteristics of great inventors, such as those of the last centuries when so many groundbreaking inventions were made for electricity, transport, medicine, engineering, and also the beginning of new approaches in social sciences and the humanities. We recall names like Benjamin Franklin, Thomas Edison, Alexander Graham Bell, Albert Einstein, Madam Curie, and many others. Typical traits of them all were that they were stubborn and one-eyed, in certain ways arrogant, or at least with a deep belief that what they were doing might bring great results and good for humanity.

Stubbornness and arrogance wouldn’t be all; the great inventors must also have been uncertain and humble, having suffered from making so many mistakes and being unsuccessful, and  many times, they were ridiculed, I am sure because people around them wouldn’t quite understand what they were doing – and, sometimes, they may not quite have done so themselves either. And considering what we know today, many inventors might also have had Asperger’s Syndrome, which is very common in inventors and people with extraordinary intelligence in specific fields; hence, it is also called the ‘disease of the genius’.

I believe we hardly find a chess champion, a mathematics expert, or a bitcoin millionaire without some form and degree of Asperger’s. It is claimed that Albert Einstein had Asperger’s, and today, they include Bill Gates, Elon Musk, Greta Thunberg, Magnus Carlsen, and other unique and unusual people. True, they are geniuses in their fields of specialization, on which most of their brain constantly works, sometimes repetitively, sheltering out irrelevant things. They may be ignorant and helpless in other fields, especially in the social fields. Let me add that Asperger’s was first described as recently as in 1944 by the Austrian pediatrician Hans Asperger (1906-1980). It is only in recent decades that more attention has been given to the disorder, and we have also begun seeing positive aspects to it, even to the related disease of Autism.

Let me get back to the main topic of my article today, namely our reluctance and unwillingness to admit mistakes and correct wrongs. We all want to be rich and famous, beautiful and clever, but then the fact is that we all make mistakes and are rather average, not all that special. And that is good, too, perhaps better than being geniuses. The Norwegian professor in social medicine, Per Fugeli (1943-2017), stressed this, saying that we should know that we all are quite average and at the same time unique. He said that we should accept that good enough is indeed good enough; we should not try to be Number One in everything or anything. But we should always make sure that we belong to a group, a community, a herd, as he called it. Life does not only have sunny days – not even in Pakistan’s climate – but cloudy, rainy, and semi-sunny days, too. Besides, we know that in constant sun nothing grows. And if we accept all this, it would also be easier to accept mistakes and correct them – together with others.

To some extent, we all want to beautify ourselves with borrowed feathers, and we should allow for, too, if it doesn’t go too far and harm others. But we should learn to be modest and accept our shortcomings, and admit mistakes when we make mistakes – as our religions also teach us. We should learn to live with mistakes and shortcomings as they are part of life – yours and mine.

As a specialist in education myself, with studies in individual, psychological, social, philosophical, political, and economic aspects of pedagogy, and fieldwork in different cultures and countries, I still miss one important field in my own field of knowledge, namely ‘de-learning pedagogy’. Hardly anything exists that can be called science in that field; how we can learn to change old and bad habits, behaviour, and opinions. Good and well to learn new things, but how can we learn to get rid of all the wrong ideas we have, listen more to others, and change for the better? How can we learn to see and admit that some of the things we believe, say, and do are wrong?

This week is particularly exciting in politics in several countries, including general elections in France and the UK, and the recent presidential TV debate in the USA, again bringing to the forefront questions about the candidates’ suitability for the highest office in the country. In Germany, the right-wing wind is quite strong, according to opinion polls, and the AfD party seems to be even more extreme that other European right-wingers. The recent EU elections a month ago had signals about a strong right-wing wind in many countries; the first round of France’s elections last Sunday indicates the same. In the UK, it seems to be the opposite since the moderate, but sometimes populist right-wingers, have been in power for as long as fourteen years, and people want change.

In all these cases, there is a wish for change since the ruling parties, the general political establishment, have often become self-complacent and short of new ideas, not being willing to see own shortcomings and go for new ways. It seems to be a fact that the decent and good social democratic parties in many ways are to be blamed for the current situation. If they had been less certain of themselves, been better listeners and analyse new trends, including from the right wing, even the far-right, but also from the left and the far left, things would have been different. Alas, it means that the European and American politicians have failed and they should admit mistakes and correct the wrongs.

The current situations have important messages to us all about the ways our democracies work and that we must be willing to analyse deeper what goes on, and from there plan better future ways in new times. To build too much on old conventions, as we seem to have done, is short-sighted and not good enough. We must realize that the democratic institutions and political parties must be renewed constantly, at least by every generation. We must be willing to admit mistakes and realize that what is right is not constant. The solid old centrist parties must cooperate with and learn from the new right and the new left. That will prevent the extremes from gaining power alone, but still have some influence over the future, changing and renewing old parties and old thinking.

Atle Hetland
The writer is a senior Norwegian social scientist with experience from university, diplomacy and development aid. He can be reached at atlehetland@yahoo.com