> Frequently ask yourself: do I want to be right, or do I want to be happy?
I always felt that people giving this advice assume the latter is preferable. Is there something defective about me if I prefer the former?
I always felt that people giving this advice assume the latter is preferable. Is there something defective about me if I prefer the former?
So the context is the important thing. You probably want to be "right" not "happy" in some circumstances. But in the case of most social activities, attempting to get to "truth" is usually playing the wrong game. You may think you are having a discussion on, say, the causes of the collapse of the Roman Empire. And you may really believe there is a "right" answer and that you have it. But if you are at most parties and socializing with most people, no one is trying to get to the root cause of historical facts.
So it is really an optimization problem. You just have to ask yourself: in this moment, in this context, with these people - are we optimizing for "truth"? Or should I be optimizing for enjoyment/amusement/happiness? This is sometimes referred to as "being on the same wavelength". If you are optimizing for "truth" and everyone else is optimizing for "happiness", you might find yourself optimized out of the equation.
When this happens to me, the "optimizing out" is usually mutual, and when it is unilateral it is as often from my side as theirs.
Kind of the point of "wisdom" though is the judgement to know when it applies and when it doesn't. Being on guard for common cognitive mistakes is a healthy part of self-reflection. It doesn't suggest that at all times and in all moments that you are in breach of some universal moral imperatives.
And so "being on the same wavelength" goes both ways. Although, if you find that you are always requiring others to always be on your wavelength and you are never willing to match theirs, that might be another thing to self-reflect on.
> And so "being on the same wavelength" goes both ways. Although, if you find that you are always requiring others to always be on your wavelength and you are never willing to match theirs, that might be another thing to self-reflect on.
Very true. I'll give an analogy: I really don't like the game Ticket to Ride. If I'm going to a weekly game group I'll sometimes play Ticket to Ride because playing games are a social activity, which requires compromise. However if the group is playing Ticket to Ride a majority of the time, we are all happier if I just find a different gaming group.
This is exponentially more true on the internet. You have trolls who will never admit you're right because they feed off the argument itself. Eventually, as well you will find yourself fighting against someone just like you in a zero sum game that will drive both of you to anger and frustration.
But I could be wrong. :)
The problem is that the issue is phrased too crudely.
I don't want to be ignorantly happy and wrong. My definition of being right implies me being happy or at least at peace with myself.
It may mean disengaging with a pointless discussion, letting somebody wrong have the final say, etc. Because that means I'd made a "right" decision.
The false dichotomy is really unnecessary.