The Perils of Being Right All the Time | I’d Rather Be Happy
There is a very big difference between two people talking at each other, and two people engaged in a good conversation. The former can be accomplished by anybody who has a closed mind, an open mouth, and a pathological need for validation. The latter, however, is achieved when two people open their ears, hearts and minds — before they open their mouths. I like to remind myself that I have two ears, and only one mouth. In other words, I have better conversations when I listen twice as much as I speak.
Conversations that are qualitatively rich happen when two people hear and say things that resonate with each other. The rhythm of their words develops a sort of momentum between them. There is reciprocity in the give-and-take of information. Whether or not they agree with each other, they feel they are being both heard and understood. They avoid interrupting each other; they avoid accusations, blame and insults. They ask questions when they need verification. They use each other’s names.
The hallmarks of a good conversation are also expressed physically. I can feel it when I am engaged in a good conversation. My body language and tone of voice will confirm it for any observer. I use the other person’s name, and ask questions when I need clarification. I make eye contact. It feels good to be heard and understood, after all.
Sometimes, of course, that doesn’t happen. Maybe one person is doing most of the talking (or none of the listening). Perhaps both people are more concerned about being right — or, worse — proving the other wrong. There is seldom a need for one to be pedantic and argumentative in a good conversation. Heck, even debate teams follow good conversational protocols, by listening to and addressing the other team’s arguments.
The qualitative elements of any dialogue begin to break down when tensions start rising. Voices tend to rise along with it. Nods and smiles give way to defensive body language — crossed arms, more emphatic gesticulation — perhaps even outright contempt. You may notice in your own life that certain people find themselves in these situations more often than others. If that person is you, I have a question for you. Would you rather be right, or would you rather be happy?
One of the drawbacks of the Age of Information is that we live in a world where the layperson can speak just as loudly as the expert. This has created an arena for arguments that can defy knowledge and belief. While I will not make excuses for willful ignorance, there are plenty of people who will. We live in a day and age where there is so much information out there, that people are essentially able to write their own narrative. They can construct their beliefs based on what they think sounds good, and rationalize the rest to fit their own personal narrative. When there is no way to disprove an assertion, no matter how outlandish, there are people who will defend it vehemently. This is a recipe for conversational disaster, unless one takes some steps to change its direction.
There is a very simple explanation for why some people keep finding themselves in argumentative conversations. They would much rather be right than be happy. They are usually insecure and emotionally stunted. They likely derive a large part of their self-worth from being factually correct, which often leads to them being overly pedantic. Their identity and self-worth are attached to being right. Perhaps they take themselves too seriously. This is unfortunate, because the cost is often their mood, and potentially the moods of those around them. When they are standing on a soapbox, they aren’t looking for conversation. They want to be heard. They want to be right, and they want everyone listening to acknowledge it.
Folks who would rather be right are seldom happy at all. Most conversational roads with these sorts of people lead to anger, annoyance, or frustration. They have already made up their mind that they are right, and nobody will convince them otherwise. I have never had one of these conversations elicit anything enlightening.
Personally, I am not a professional debater. I am not a pundit, nor a talking head. It is not my goal to convince you that I am right, even as far as this article is concerned. I only wish to convince you that if I am forced to decide between being happy and being right, I am going to pick happy. I would also like to posit that everybody can and ought to do this.
By being happy, I mean living in the moment and choosing to appreciate the positive things about it. Some folks conflate happiness with pleasure. Those two sentiments are far from the same realm. Pleasure-seeking as a way of life is a path to certain destruction of happiness.
In most of the everyday conversations that I have, I would much rather share a pleasant exchange of information with someone. It is not my job to convince someone they are mistaken, but it is my job to decide to be happy. I would much rather find a mutually agreeable subject of conversation than spend my day angry or upset. After all, I do not believe anyone wants to spend their life in misery.
It is important to note that letting the pedantic, shoddy conversationalist be “right” does not make the happy person wrong. It does, however, save the good conversationalist lots of frustration. Conceding has the effect of providing an opportunity to either a) change the subject, or, b) make an exit from the conversation altogether. So, whenever I am faced with the decision of being right or being happy, I will gladly pick the latter. If I notice voices and tension rising, I don’t have to succumb to someone else’s sour disposition — especially someone as emotionally stunted as the person who must always be right.
For many of us, it is so easy to fall into the trap of always needing to be right. Most politically-charged talk shows these days feature that very sort of television personalities. They yell over one another about disparate ideas, one opinion, or a logical fallacy until a commercial break. If you would like an idea of how much that has changed over the past 50+ years, here is a clip of John Kerry on the Dick Cavett Show, and here is a clip of John Kerry arguing with Bill O’Reilly. The first clip is far older than I am. Regardless, I think it illustrates the merits of respectful discourse and conversation. Things have really degraded. But, I have hope that our society can improve.
Bottom line, if you ever have to choose between being right and being happy, do yourself a favor and be happy! Life is too fleeting to spend all your time worried about being right. I firmly believe that happiness is a decision. It is not something that just happens to us. Nobody else can choose it for us. It is certainly not something we achieve by being right all the time, nor even any of the time. To be incorrect about something is to make a mistake. Mistakes are how we learn, and it is important to be secure enough in ourselves to embrace our mistakes.