> Personal accountability is something that is socially learned.
But the problem arises, when you then need to take things into account which you simply can't anticipate.
Consider this (overly simplified) exampe: I have to choose one out of A, B and C. I know that A is ruled out because of this and this. So I only have B and C as realistic options. I choose C, as it is furthest away from A and I could use this as an reasoning for it to be the safest bet. So, C it is. But then it just happens that for whatever reason C is ruled out too for whatever reason. Thus, by choosing C out of the three, I make no mistake. I had solid reasoning, for all I knew C should have been the safest bet. The fault is not mine, the fault is external.
How can someone ever just suck it up, when they follow a precise, definite and convincing procedure to come to a situation in which external influence just makes it all fail for them? How could there be any personal accountability in an example described above? There is none, the reasons for failure are absolutely out of my control. I can not be held personally accountable (in a philosophical sense, world out there doesn't give a fuck) for things I have had absolutely no way to anticipate.
How could you just go all "Oh well, you should have picked B instead, because had you done so, your choice wouldn't have failed!". Yeah, that's true, but there's nothing to learn about personal accountability there.
Personal Accountability is about more than just admitting you were wrong. Sometimes it's about admitting that you didn't have enough information to make a definite choice. In you hypothetical situation while you didn't do anything wrong you still had something to learn.
If you don't look back and see what information would have allowed you to pick B and instead go oh well, there was nothing I could have done differently. Guess it was just inevitable. You will miss an opportunity to learn and possibly do better next time. That missed opportunity is an example of arrogance in action.
I also think it's ok to look back and believe you made the best decision you could have given the information, and that you simply got it wrong (and that it's ok and understandable). And that while you may have gotten it wrong, going another route still wouldn't have necessarily been the best decision due to risks vs rewards.
But the problem arises, when you then need to take things into account which you simply can't anticipate.
Consider this (overly simplified) exampe: I have to choose one out of A, B and C. I know that A is ruled out because of this and this. So I only have B and C as realistic options. I choose C, as it is furthest away from A and I could use this as an reasoning for it to be the safest bet. So, C it is. But then it just happens that for whatever reason C is ruled out too for whatever reason. Thus, by choosing C out of the three, I make no mistake. I had solid reasoning, for all I knew C should have been the safest bet. The fault is not mine, the fault is external.
How can someone ever just suck it up, when they follow a precise, definite and convincing procedure to come to a situation in which external influence just makes it all fail for them? How could there be any personal accountability in an example described above? There is none, the reasons for failure are absolutely out of my control. I can not be held personally accountable (in a philosophical sense, world out there doesn't give a fuck) for things I have had absolutely no way to anticipate.
How could you just go all "Oh well, you should have picked B instead, because had you done so, your choice wouldn't have failed!". Yeah, that's true, but there's nothing to learn about personal accountability there.