
Beware of Being “Right” - joubert
https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/anger-in-the-age-entitlement/201401/beware-being-right
======
jackcosgrove
Being right in a relationship doesn't count for much. Even if you are
objectively correct, relationships are about helping the other person live
their life. All partners in a relationship compensate for the other's
shortcomings. That is one of the benefits of a relationship.

That doesn't mean you let your partner make bad choices, if in fact the
right/wrong dimension involves a meaningful choice (it usually does not). It
just means you gently guide them towards a not bad choice without hurting
their feelings.

Insisting on being right sets up the relationship as adversarial rather than
cooperative. An adversarial relationship is all about ME whereas a cooperative
relationship is all about YOU. Mutually cooperative relationships where each
partner helps the other are the best kind of relationship.

------
WrtCdEvrydy
Never Split the Difference is one of my favorite books.

There's a section in there about being right that basically sums it up as
"always be worried when someone says 'you're right' as can mean they just want
you to stop talking".

You probably want it to be something along the lines of "that's right" since
it implies they also think that's the right outcome regardless of whether it's
your or their idea.

~~~
ironic_ali
Great book, I'm on my third audiobook listen and use a number of the lessons
from it most days.

In regards to the article, it's great content, but the thing that has bugged
me for years about important information that will improve personal, work,
leadership/subordinate relationships is, the people that really need to read
them, never do...

------
fmitchell0
The single question that has helped me to remember the pitfalls highlighted in
this article that I constantly ask myself in every situation: "Am I focused on
being right or being successful?"

It inevitably walks me through the critical thinking process of what defines
success, what questions should I be asking, and am I standing in the way of
that.

------
dontknowwhatdo
I can attest to this. Being right means nothing in a relationship unless it is
combined with compassion. I've been married for 20 years, and life now sucks
as I am belittled or criticised on a regular basis. My children and I
constantly walk on egg shells around my wife. And of course she is always
right.

Having a partner who is always right is one of the worst things that can
happen to anyone. Each day feels like a challenge to live without setting off
the ticking time bomb that my wife is. Trouble is, I can't seem to find a way
to communicate with my wife. She doesn't want to see a therapist. I am an
immigrant in a foreign country and have no family or close friends I can turn
to.

I'm just waiting for my kid to leave for college and then hopefully I can find
a way out. I've reached a point where I detest people who are convinced they
are right. The best thing anyone ever said to me when I told them that as I
age I am less certain about everything and they said: "It means you are
growing up". I wish someone would tell my wife that. She is dead certain about
everything in life.

~~~
seattle_spring
I'm really sorry you're dealing with this. My father was similar to my mother,
me, and my siblings, and it's still fucking me up decades after moving out.

~~~
throwaway136466
Same here, except I'm not moved out yet. Here's hoping we're all able to get
past it.

------
jb775
> _Seeming to be right justifies disrespect, contempt, and other forms of
> emotional pollution, which spread like wildfire in our electronic age._

This explains Twitter behavior in a nutshell.

~~~
ncr100
> Covariant with the substitution of power for value is the persistent need to
> be right while making others wrong. Seeming to be right justifies
> disrespect, contempt, and other forms of emotional pollution, which spread
> like wildfire in our electronic age. In addition, they suffer an illusion of
> certainty. High adrenaline emotions, particularly anger, create the
> profoundest illusions of certainty, due to their amphetamine effects. The
> amphetamine effect creates a temporary sense of confidence and certainty,
> while narrowing mental focus and eliminating most variables from
> consideration. That's why you feel more confident after a cup of coffee (a
> mild amphetamine effect) than before it, and it’s why you’re convinced that
> you’re right and everyone else is wrong when you're angry.

Feels good to be right.

However being sad or afraid and correct could be healthier.

Managing one's life without awareness one is really transitively managing
one's feelings can lead to disappointment and frustration when the world works
differently than how one's feelings need the world to work.

~~~
cutemonster
> being sad or afraid and correct could be healthier

At the same time, can be problematic at the workplace, when people listen to
your sad/anxious voice, and disregard the actual words you speak, instead,
based on your voice feel convinced you're wrong

------
11thEarlOfMar
One test when in these situations is, "Can we agree to disagree?"

If that's a tactic that is successful when there is contention, it shows a
pretty high level of trust in a relationship. It says that you both believe
you are right, and you're ok just leaving it without agreeing, you still get
along in general and still love each other.

In places where this doesn't work, I find that it's a matter of confidence. If
they cannot agree to disagree, and won't let go until you agree with them, it
may point to their lack of confidence in your general thought processes. I.e.,
if you can't see it their way in this situation, there are likely many
situations that you wouldn't see it their way and in aggregate, you'll behave
in ways they cannot accept.

Depending on the specific topic, maybe that's understandable. Perhaps, for
example, you repeatedly make bad investments and they want you to start
getting their assent first. But if the matter is not of such significance,
there is likely something else going on. It may be that they cannot bear the
uncertainty of when and where you'll make choices they'd disagree with and
they have a need to get alignment.

~~~
unchocked
Pedantically, that phrase chafes. No agreement is required to disagree. You
can just let a thing go.

~~~
thaumasiotes
An agreement to disagree consists of each party agreeing to let it go. You can
just let it go unilaterally, but that means the other party continues to
harass you over whatever it is.

------
alexandercrohde
When I read this type of thing, I try my best to look for some basis to decide
if it's fortune-cookie-nonsense or great advice.

It's obvious to me that a person can care _too much_ about being/seeming
right. But can a person also care too little about it? What is the exact right
amount, and how do you know?

~~~
nordsieck
> It's obvious to me that a person can care too much about being/seeming
> right. But can a person also care too little about it? What is the exact
> right amount, and how do you know?

I think it's best to ignore the original article which is mostly vacuous
slogans and just think about the problem in general.

Here are some examples in ascending order of serious consequences:

0\. Your partner put dishes away in a different drawer than they are normally
stored.

1\. Your partner did mental math to calculate a tip incorrectly; however, the
result was still an adequate tip.

2\. Your partner remembered the time to meet at a restaurant incorrectly
causing them to be late.

3\. Your partner wants to book a trip. You're worried that you may need to
cancel, but your partner assures you that the trip can be canceled at no cost.
When it comes time to cancel, it turns out, the trip is not refundable at all,
and both of you are out a lot of money.

4\. You and your partner agreed early on in the relationship that you would
not live with or support either of your parents in their old age. Now your
partner wants to move their parents into your shared house.

The more you are on the trivial side of the gradient, I think the better it is
to be kind. IMO, it's still a bit worrisome if someone is consistently wrong
in trivial things, as that could be a sign that they are wrong in more
meaningful things as well.

However, the further you are on the serious side of the gradient, the less
reasonable it is to be kind over being right. This is where people become
doormats - when they value being nice over being right to their own serious
detriment.

~~~
analog31
>>> The more you are on the trivial side of the gradient, I think the better
it is to be kind. IMO, it's still a bit worrisome if someone is consistently
wrong in trivial things, as that could be a sign that they are wrong in more
meaningful things as well.

I'm not sure this is a foregone conclusion. It may just mean that they're
mildly absent minded, or even just human. I'm that person in my household.

~~~
nordsieck
> I'm not sure this is a foregone conclusion. It may just mean that they're
> mildly absent minded, or even just human.

That's a fair point. I think it really depends on the specifics of the
situation.

I've known a fair number of compulsive liars and bullshitters, so it certainly
can be a red flag, but like you say - it doesn't have to be.

------
alextheparrot
Ted Chiang’s “The Truth of Fact, or Truth of Feeling” explores this concept
directly as well. The narrative is split between two stories, one in the past
where a missionary was helping transition a tribe from an oral to a written
language and another in the near-future where a device records every moment in
a searchable, reviewable way. This is a super cool parallel because many of
the problems are the same, but the reader (us! modern day people) is in each
part familiar with only one side of the transition.

The story defends all sides, so you might leave being convinced that the way
we do things today is better, but in the end it is just the familiarity.

The reason I thought of this story was due to each “upgrade” making it harder
to be unprovably wrong. In an oral tradition, the words are only as good as
our memories — written language takes that away. But we can still be wrong
about things we do or say — the constant recording of memories (I guess we’re
partially there already with video cameras) takes that away as well. There is
aesthetic value to be found in being able to not know the truth, to not have
to be right to not be wrong.

~~~
raybb
I think this is the link for anyone interested:
[https://web.archive.org/web/20130901215055/https://subterran...](https://web.archive.org/web/20130901215055/https://subterraneanpress.com/magazine/fall_2013/the_truth_of_fact_the_truth_of_feeling_by_ted_chiang)

Wow it's long

------
afpx
“The curse of our times is that so many people have developed the habit of
seeking to feel temporarily more powerful when they feel devalued.”

This isn’t a curse of our times; it’s just how the brain works. It’s well
documented that Humans get a chemical rush when they are in a position of
power over someone else. I think the curse of our times is that so many modern
Humans don’t try to be better than mammals.

~~~
ncr100
A journey, hypothetical:

Power over others. "Big I. Little you."

Power over other's suffering.

Power over what we get out our relationship with another person who may be
being made to suffer.

Accepting one's own suffering relating to the limited and poisonous benefit of
needing to relate to another person through making them suffer, and realizing
healthy practices to mitigate that dysfunctional need.

Learning how to help others with their suffering, and seeing the roundabout
positive impact on oneself.

Power over one's own suffering.

~~~
crawfordcomeaux
I am living this art. I'm printing it out to sit on the pump organ living in
the living room. I think it'll help me ground in conflict. Looking forward to
experimenting with it. Thank you for this useful reminder of my journey.

------
arnon
In a relationship - sure. But in businesses compassion only goes so far before
the other side exploits it.

Being right all the time is dangerous, but where's the balance? How do you
balance?

Does anyone have good resources for this?

~~~
mcguire
"There is no limit to what you can accomplish if you don't care who gets the
credit."

~~~
petra
What's the point of accomplishing stuff without any rewards ?

~~~
asveikau
People have all sorts of reasons to do things. Why are you reading this right
now? Is it because someone will reward you for doing it?

If you are going to define purposes and motivations in life so narrowly, then
I may as well take it to its extreme, get existential or nihilist and say
nothing has any intrinsic value at all, so why do it? Of course we still do
these things.

~~~
petra
Sure, I agree, there are many useful rewards in life. And it's nice to pursue
them.

But contributing, in the context of work, without getting some real reward,
over time ? Just seems really unfair, and I don't like that feeling.

------
vinceguidry
There's a difference between being right and being relevant. If you insist on
being right at the cost of being relevant, then people will simply stop
listening to you, because whatever you're saying isn't going to be interesting
to them.

It sometimes appears to be a fundamental desire of ours for what we feel is
relevant, our ability to be right about something, is the same as what other
people want to be relevant.

It's what I've observed to be the crux of privilege. Those with privilege
think that just because they think something is relevant, it is. They're just
_right_ , not necessarily relevant.

In the context of a relationship, constant demands for someone's rightness to
be their relevance breeds contempt, which undermines the whole foundation of
the relationship. Over time, love is replaced with contempt.

~~~
cutemonster
This is too abstract for me, what about an example?

------
r0b05
This explains part of the reason for massive egos in large organisations. I am
referring to toxic environments where management has little positive influence
and people don't feel valued, e.g Banks.

In response for not feeling valued or by hiding in the organisation due to
their lack of skills, these people resort to building up a massive ego to
compensate. Often, many of these individuals are not valued at home either -
they tend to be divorced/living alone or with little personal value from
another person. Pair that with no appreciation or value from work and you have
a recipe for disaster.

------
redbar0n
"Do I want to be right, or do I want to have a relationship?"

~~~
kofejnik
if you're often afraid to speak your mind, you don't have a great relationship

~~~
travmatt
There’s a world of difference between speaking your mind and needing to be
right.

~~~
bch
I think the point is (and maybe these are just other words for your same-
point), it cuts both ways - it takes two to disagree. But of course ideally
both parties have only a loose grip on their egos...

------
ggm
Pet peeve: people who respond to true statements with "correct" \- you are not
my teacher and you are not the arbiter of right or wrong

~~~
bluepnume
I actually don't mind this too much -- because "Yeah", "Right", "OK" and so on
are often just used as passive acknowledgements that I've said something,
rather than an assertion that what I've said makes sense, is agreeable, and is
fundamentally correct.

------
psim1
I'll acknowledge the psych aspect with a nod but otherwise want to move on and
say this:

The value of truth is more important today than ever before, and modern
society's interest in it seems to be lower than ever before.

That scares me, and I'm not willing to let truth be devalued. I will step on
toes and be "right" if I am pushing truth, especially when pushing it on
"deniers" and other politically- or otherwise-motivated falsehood peddlers.

~~~
themodelplumber
Some questions to ask about truth:

\- What if someone claims that your truth is based on different data or
perspectives than their own?

\- How can you reliably expect to cement truth when data or educated
perspectives may change with time, especially if they are based on news or new
events/research?

\- Who gets to decide what truth is? Do you? Why? Is it because you're
convinced that you're a "truthful" person as a subjective-experiential
observation?

\- How do you identify a liar? What is to be done with them? Who gets to
decide?

My subjective experience is that the establishment of truth, or reconciliation
with such questions, is a deeper topic than many are willing to credit.

I'll be controversial and offer that it may be helpful to view "truth" as just
one more mental model; broken in some ways, just like any other mental model.
(If this leads to fears of e.g. rampant dishonesty, maybe that also points to
the fragility of the model)

If interest in truth is really lower than ever before, it may be related to
aspects like these.

~~~
psim1
Thoughtful questions like these, and the thoughtful people who ask them, do
indeed lead to truth.

My concern is more with intellectual dishonesty and naive, shallow
understanding.

An uneducated person who knows he is uneducated has more truth to him than an
uneducated person who thinks he knows a lot and holds forth with BS.

~~~
cglace
An uneducated person doesn’t think of themself as “uneducated”. They view it
as having a different set of experiences that has led them to a different
truth. A truth that you won’t be able to understand because of all of your
“education”.

------
pixl97
I've had a saying for a long time that goes

"You can't convince a right person"

Once someone believes they are right it is rare to change their mind.

------
friendlybus
This article feels manipulative. Invalidating feelings by associating them
with drugs and subordinating them to mental focus is missing the mark.
Psychologists are not supposed to invalidate feelings. Stating in broad
sweeping terms that Certainty derived from mental focus is going to lead you
to out of context results is at best a challenge to healthy mental functioning
and in reality a pretty solid idea to undermine yourself.

~~~
foobar_
I found the argument to be profound as opposed to being manipulative. The
amphetamine effect is something you can observe after a few drinks of coffee.
Alcohol obviously and even sugar (diabetes) shows these changes in human
cognition and common expressions like frenzy / pumped seem to line up. Love
has been known to show psychotic qualities. It is important to revisit things
with a sober mind as opposed to frenzy of a fight.

~~~
friendlybus
Certainty is defined as an intellectual thing. It is an epistemic property of
beliefs closely related to knowledge. The author is wrong, not that he minds.

The author is trying to move knowledge off facts of things and intellectual
processes and into the realm of emotion and kind compassion. A kind compassion
is simply a mask which hides a different form of power seeking. Which is on-
point for the current cultural shifts we are going through, he mirrors the
nature of humans at this very moment.

The author seeks to replace existing knowledge in the reader, destroying all
the knowledge of facts and feelings in an attempt to keep relationships on
track. It is a mistake.

You can disagree and be right in a calm manner and also in an angry manner
without changing the content or aim of your speech. The article aims too low
at a reader who is willing to accept what is written without thinking
critically or taking a higher perspective gleaned from education. Like most
psychologists he risks undermining those that are experiencing these mental
processes as a function of striving to achieve a goal. The undermining of
useful definitions is supposedly necessary for maintaining a relationship
without looking at other solutions first.

~~~
foobar_
I don't think the author is trying to destroy anything. Even in maths you find
people taking extremely arrogant positions on things. Newton vs Leibnitz,
Intuitionism vs Logic ... If any the author is warning how passion overrides
reason and the biochemical approach is quite empirical.

------
cvhashim
Some people have issues of not wanting to be wrong rather than being right.

------
sdegutis
The first half of this article explains some physiological reasons behind
something I've noticed often: the more someone feels defensive and
defenseless, the more arrogant they become, and the more hardened they become
in their thoughts and opinions, no matter how wrong. So that if someone is
worked up enough and feeling cornered emotionally, they will die on the hill
that grass is not green if need be. This is why it's especially important for
parents and spouses to be kind, calm, rational, patient, and loving at all
times.

The second half has valuable advice for more than just spouses, although it's
mostly talking about divorce. But also employee/employer relationships,
friendships, and any other type: if you are not actually trying to make sure
you fully understand the other person's position, you are working against
unity with them.

But I have to disagree with the article's final word of advice:

> Spend less effort trying to control your partner's thinking and more trying
> to understand and appreciate differences in your perspectives.

Not that this is wrong, but that there's another step after it which must
carefully be practiced: when you know for sure that you're right, and that the
other person is objectively wrong in this situation, it's important to stand
firm on what you must do, and not waver. All without losing kindness,
compassion, patience, an attentive ear and everything else the article
mentions.

St. Edith Stein once said something like without truth, there is no charity,
and without charity, there is no truth. I see time and time again people make
this very simple mistake: forfeit truth in order to preserve charity. But the
two are not incompatible and never can be.

A person will say, "well in order to be accepting to this person, I must be
willing to accept that maybe they are correct and I am incorrect," and they
will stray from their objective certainty. That's why I'm not a fan of the
quote in this article, "Certainty itself is an emotional state, not an
intellectual one." It either states or strongly implies that there is no
objective truth, depending on the author's meaning. But there is objective
truth, truth that is true no matter if nobody is alive to perceive it or not.

And when we stray from that truth, we abandon our only hope of helping people
out of their own self-deceit and delusions. I have seen many people join in
the delusions of others in order to comfort them or calm them down or give
them hope in a false reality. This is not truly charitable behavior.

True charity, true selfless and sacrificial love for another, always wants to
help them out of their self-destruction, which always comes from self-deceit.
And this requires that we remain in the truth. A tree cannot help birds of the
air if it uproots itself and tries to follow them, it needs to stand firmly
planted.

~~~
watwut
> This is why it's especially important for parents and spouses to be kind,
> calm, rational, patient, and loving at all times.

Both spouses and parents are human and being like that all the time is not
possible.

Dealing with someone you just described, arrogant and defensive focused on
being right is highly stressful and tiring. Loved one being constantly
arrogant to you lowers you self esteem and your self perception too. At some
point, ressentment over conceding yet another hill while being nice and calm
while getting arrogance thrown at you boils over.

Or it all turns onto one sided abusive relationship if you fail to set
boundaries. You can't have one sided good relationship.

------
Chiba-City
This is nonsense. Fools "debating" and babbling "what the TV said" are
liabilities. What's more, what 7.7B fools "like" and "don't like" never
matters. Simpler facticities, such as design and organic anatomies, are all
documented. Probabilistic functional consequential facticities are also mostly
Globally Credible Consensus Narratives (GCCN). Now, we can finger jerks
selling something at expense of others. They must be silenced. Same for "bar
drunks" and "team seekers" and attention seeking "2-sides debaters." All
wastes of time. All noise, no signal. In any case, written narratives with
some pretenses to formal completeness dominate babblers and texters. Focus on
sets of propositions worth writing down. Ignore restaurant reviews. Focus
laserlike on recipes.

~~~
crawfordcomeaux
Any examples of such propositions to share?

~~~
Chiba-City
HN itself is full of wonderful "counter-intuitive" narratives. College is the
road to riches? We've heard Peter Thiel and others explain otherwise. "Health
food bars" aren't just candybars? Whey protein doesn't just ruin kidneys?
Daiquiri mix isn't just (overpriced) kool aid? DNC/GOP (partisans) correlates
to "conservative/liberal" and also "right/left." Journalists stringing
together "southern, conservative, Christians" seem to forget MLK and his
kindred churches (I worked for Unitarians at Harvard). Might we consult George
Lemaitre (Big Bang) and Gregor Mendel (Genetics) (both Christians monks) about
the "Science vs. Religion" conflict? We can go on and on about "what everyone
knows" that was never and shall never be the case. And Darwin himself wrote
that Herbert Spencer's fictitious "Social Darwinism" was pure idiocy. I wish I
could red pen correct all of TV and old wives tale "common sense" here, but I
can't :/

------
carapace
I almost flagged this just for being from psychologytoday. This is to
psychology as astrology is to astronomy. It's tabloid-level pop-psych drivel.

~~~
valuearb
To be fair, psychology is to science as astrology is to science. It’s been
defrocked by the reproducibility crisis.

~~~
dang
" _Please don 't post shallow dismissals, especially of other people's work. A
good critical comment teaches us something._"

[https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html](https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html)

The reproducibility crisis is a thing, but there's no information here.
Shallow dismissals that are also grandiose are particularly low-quality.

