The Wall Called "Correctness" - Why Can't Language Cross the Ocean? - 1/08/2026

Summary

The word "logical" we believe in is not, in fact, a universal truth. It is merely a way of "filtering information" developed over many years so that certain groups can live peacefully. This paper explores how different ways of "reasoning" around the world are not merely a matter of preference, but an inescapable survival wisdom. Facing the silent "battle of information processing" lurking beneath the illusion of comfortable mutual understanding, we must confront the silent "battle of information processing."

Keywords

Culture of inference, the cage of language, implicit boundaries, information selection, clash of correctness

The true nature of unshared "correct arguments"

Just as mathematical answers are the same everywhere, we believe that logical speaking is also a universal rule. If we debate thoroughly, we will eventually understand each other. This "faith in dialogue" reigns supreme as an unquestionable justice in modern society.

However, in reality, a disconnect occurs everywhere: "Even though your argument is sound, for some reason it just doesn't reach the other person." In some places, "stating your conclusion first" is considered a sign of intelligence, while in others, "not disrupting harmony with those around you" is considered the most logical behavior. This discrepancy isn't simply a difference in manners or values. It's a difference in how people in each place handle information, honed to live with the least friction and efficiency.

Those who cut words, those who cut context

Imagine, for example, making a deal with a stranger you meet in the desert. You share no shared memories, and you don't even know each other's parents. All you can rely on are the words you speak in this moment. In this situation, the safest and most rational approach is to put all information into words and define it as strictly as in a contract. This is the style seen in so-called Western countries, where words carry all information.

On the other hand, imagine a group of people who have lived in the same place for generations, sharing tomorrow's weather and their neighbors' health conditions. Here, there's no need to verbalize everything. In fact, verbalizing things that are obvious without being said is rude, casts doubt on the other person's intelligence, and serves as an unnecessary distraction that disrupts group harmony. Here, the most sophisticated logic is to rely on silence and the atmosphere to convey information and minimize words.

Logical persuasiveness = Density of shared information x Rate of verbal omission

Exclusion in the name of efficiency

If you live in a culture that values ​​"intuition" and apply Western-style "speaking clearly" logic, you'll likely be branded as "cold and insensitive." Conversely, if a person who values ​​silence finds themselves in a situation where they must verbalize everything, they'll be labeled "lacking logic and inarticulate."

The cruelty here isn't the debate over which logic is superior, but the structure in which, when two different logics meet, the side that holds the definition of information dominates the side that doesn't. Only words spoken within one's own sphere are considered "correct," while the other's silence is deemed "incompetent." There is no such thing as equal dialogue.

A Conclusion with No Escape

We tend to harbor the naive illusion that "if we accept diversity, we can overcome the barriers of logic." However, when one side believes that "words are everything" and the other believes that "the truth exists beyond words," reconciliation between the two is theoretically extremely difficult. This is because the very act of one side attempting to compromise would destroy the logical system that the other side has protected.

"Logic" is not a transparent tool for understanding the world. It is an "information cage" used to protect our own world and exclude dissenters. The more logical we speak, the thicker the walls of that cage become, alienating those with different ways of thinking.

The Limits of Mutual Understanding = The Cost of Maintaining One's Own Logical System

In the end, when we praise someone for being "logical," we are simply saying, "That person is perfectly adhering to the unspoken rules of the group to which they belong." There is currently no visible way out of this cage.