Being Right Is Not Enough

Advocating for a Cause or Losing It

Imagine an argument you are dying to have. You are sure your point of view is correct, and you would love to browbeat anyone with your thoughts if they disagree. In this fantasy, you dazzle your opponent (and self) with your wit, delivering incontrovertible evidence of you being oh-so-right, then walk away to triumphant music (and maybe a standing ovation from onlookers).

Has that ever happened in reality?

As humans, we have a peculiar tendency to believe that our own logic is highly persuasive while rarely being convinced by anyone else’s. 

The human brain is capable of incredible levels of critical thinking. Through it, we have built complex societies, astonishing inventions, global connections, so how does this intelligence backfire so badly in interpersonal communication?

The brain’s intelligence allows us to rationalize our beliefs and feel 100% correct in our thoughts. Once we’ve convinced ourselves, we believe that simply telling our views to others will convince them. And if that doesn’t work, we say it louder. And if that doesn’t work, we accuse others of being incompetent, short-sighted, and mean-spirited in their willful neglect of “reality.” 

This journey is understandable–it is frustrating to feel misunderstood and downright scary to think our assumptions about reality might be wrong. We inherently believe our views are the natural consequence of facts. If we reach a conclusion based on the “facts,” anyone else should be able to follow the same path, or they must be incompetent or hopelessly stubborn.

Our attachment to our assumptions and our reaction to challenges will dramatically impact how others hear us.

The Righteous Path

Most people are not actively confrontational (at least until they get on the internet), and there are only so many causes that make them truly heated. Often when people get passionate in person, they genuinely care about the topic. Ironically, the way people advocate for their interests can do more damage than good to the cause.

When the focus shifts from informing others to being seen as right or making sure the other party feels wrong, the inferred shame overshadows any information. 

As Dave Barry (in his 2021 Year In Review) quipped about the Covid vaccine debate:

The problem is that many Americans have declined to be vaccinated, despite the efforts of pro-vaccine voices to change the minds of the skeptics by informing them that they are stupid idiots, which is usually a persuasive argument. 

Becoming angry, prescriptive, or sanctimonious will deflate or reverse goodwill towards a cause, regardless of the facts.

We are all guilty of wanting to feel righteous more than wanting to find common ground. This generally shows up as dismissive or shaming comments, looking to cut off any debate and get to “shared” understanding. Think of the parent who insists their child should wear a jacket “because I said so.” Or the boss that will answer no questions about a new process. Or maybe yourself, tweeting out that Beyoncé is the greatest artist - and maybe human - who has ever lived. Even if the audience is somewhat receptive, the delivery is bound to generate defiant responses.

The Right Path

Rather than pouring cement around heels that are already dug in, how can we genuinely advocate for a cause?

First, fortify our views with research. This means answering the question, “What makes me think this is true?” We may find our beliefs are more shallow than we thought. How often have we actually “done the research” rather than created our understanding from a compilation of headlines?

In researching our beliefs, we need to be wary of confirmation bias (i.e., reading only sources that agree with what we want to believe). As a historical example, Darwin’s Theory of Evolution is among the more evidence-based theories in science, and much of its success comes from the way Darwin approached his thoughts. When he would come up with any hypothesis, he would shift his thinking to search for as many exceptions as he could find. In this constant challenge of his own thoughts, he generated a more holistic theory ready to stand up to rigorous scrutiny. 

In our day-to-day lives, it’s easier to find supporting evidence than to be challenged by other voices. This is especially true on social media where algorithms provide us a comfortable bubble of agreeable voices which creates the feeling of social proof with no regard to reality.

After taking the time to more fully bake our ideas, we will have a better foundation to build the next step: deciding what outcome we want. 

Take, for example, the idea of going vegetarian. You’ve assembled the pros and cons - plant-based eating is much easier on the environment, you want to see animal cruelty reduced, and you know the health benefits of a plant-rich diet. You also know there is a machismo around eating meat, a general feeling that plants don’t taste as good, and eating a complete protein profile requires more diligence than simply including meat in your diet. Overall, you’re going vegetarian and want to share your enthusiasm and discoveries with others. 

Now you have options. When someone says, “But real men eat meat,” do you tell them they are exhibiting toxic masculinity and should be shunned or that you don’t see it that way and enjoy the challenge? When challenged with “plants don’t taste as good,” do you chastise them for not knowing about flavorful vegetarian diets like Indian food or shrug and say you’ve found tasty recipes and would be happy to share them (or even make some for them)? When someone shrugs about animal cruelty, do you label them a sociopath who clearly lacks any semblance of empathy or calmly state that it feels important enough to you to make a change personally? 

Which options are going to create curiosity and which will create animosity?

One common theme in non-antagonistic responses is keeping the information personal rather than tearing down others. Even if our point of view is factually correct, shaming others never inspires followers (though it will inspire opponents). On the other hand, providing a calm example of our ideas allows for honest discussion where both parties can express curiosity. As humans, not wanting to feel wrong easily trumps wanting to be right, and this is doubly true when the opposing party looks down their nose at us.

We all have a choice to make: is it more important for us to be seen as right or to further our cause? As Brené Brown says, is it better to be right or get it right? Our choice will either let us do both or increasingly force the paths to diverge.