If someone makes a grammatical error, that is simply a fact. If another person corrects it, that too is a fact. And if the person who made the mistake learns from the correction, his writing improves; if everyone learns from their mistakes, the overall standard of writing in the forum improves. On this, I believe we can agree.
The next question is whether the deacon corrects someone’s grammar out of a desire for a 0.99 cm increase in self-esteem, or in expectation of gratitude. Yet once we shift from examining outcomes to questioning the motives of the person who brings about a positive outcome, we inevitably enter the realm of speculation.
And speculation is rarely neutral. It is shaped by our prior perceptions of the person in question. If we regard him favorably, we tend to affirm the value of his actions; if we regard him unfavorably,
the outcome remains the same, but the credit is withheld.
But then another question arises: why does the person being corrected sometimes refuse to grant even this modest 0.99 cm increase in the corrector’s self-esteem?
Is it because he feels his own self-esteem has been diminished by the same measure or because recognition itself has become something to withhold, as though it were a scarce resource rather than a simple acknowledgment of fact?
