THE WRONGNESS ATLAS A FIELD GUIDE TO OPINIONS THAT ARE, IN FACT, WRONG · Bureau of Correct Opinions, Kurostan · Rev. 7 FIG. 1–4 peer-reviewed by a cat FIG. 1 — ANATOMY OF A WRONG OPINION 100% Unearned Confidence Core Cherry-Picked Evidence Gland Vibes Cortex (mistaken for reasoning) Blind Spot (cannot see own error) Gut-Feeling Root supplies 90% of the opinion Sunk-Cost Membrane FIG. 2 — THE WRONGNESS INDEX (% wrong) 50 70 90 100 "Birds aren't real" 100% "I'll read the docs later" 99% "Reply-all is fine" 97% "Pineapple ruins pizza" 94% "Cats are aloof & uncaring" 88% "Tabs vs spaces? Whatever" 71% "The customer is always right" 82% "It works on my machine" 96% terminal wrongness → Methodology: we asked the cat, then rounded up. Error bars omitted out of confidence. FIG. 3 — IS YOUR OPINION WRONG? A DIAGNOSTIC You have an opinion Based on actual evidence? NO YES Did you cherry- pick it? YES NO Would proof change your mind? NO YES WRONG ✕ WRONG ✕ WRONG ✕ Possibly correct (statistically improbable) Note: three of four paths lead to WRONG. This is not a bug in the chart. It is a feature of opinions. FIG. 4 — SELECTED CASE FILES CASE 001 — "Pineapple ruins pizza." Claim: a fruit on dough is an affront to civilisation. Refutation: sweet + salt + acid is a load-bearing pillar of every cuisine on Earth. The opinion mistakes personal dislike for a universal law. Category error. Verdict: taste is subjective; the claim of objective ruin is not. → wrong. WRONG CASE 002 — "Cats don't actually care about you." Claim: the aloofness is real; affection is projected by lonely humans. Refutation: slow-blinks, head-bumps, and the deliberate sitting-on-your-keyboard are documented bids for attention. Absence of a dog's enthusiasm ≠ absence of care. Verdict: conflates a communication style with a lack of feeling. → wrong. WRONG CASE 003 — "It works on my machine, so it works." Claim: a single successful local run proves the code is correct. Refutation: n=1 on one environment is anecdote, not proof. Dependencies, config, and state differ everywhere else. The universe of "not your machine" is very large. Verdict: sample size of one, generalised to all. Classic. → wrong. See also: Fig. 1, "Cherry-Picked Evidence Gland." WRONG

The Wrongness Atlas is a work of satire. Your opinions may vary. They are, statistically, still wrong.