being right... or wrong

http://beingwrongbook.com/excerpt

"Freedom is not worth having if it does not include the freedom to make mistakes.

—Gandhi

... Most of us go through life assuming that we are basically right, basically all the time, about basically everything: about
our political and intellectual convictions, our religious and moral
beliefs, our assessment of other people, our memories, our grasp of
facts. As absurd as it sounds when we stop to think about it, our steady
state seems to be one of unconsciously assuming that we are very close
to omniscient."

-- to retrieve David Whyte's theme of being lost. Weirdly enough, I am interested in a new way lately, in 'worst case scenarios' [of the mild, socially questionable sort, as opposed to actual Doomsday]

The following comes to mind in response to that, Kate, and in response to an article I read recently.

It seems sometimes like people (self included) mostly have opinions that revolve around being special, better than, superior to, etc.

There's a fascinating article on the history of eating white bread in the US, and how often the choice between white and whole wheat was tied to "let's eat x, unlike the dirty/uneducated fools who eat y". Issues of "moral hygiene" and separation of ourselves or our friends from others permeate our tastes in politics, foods, clothing, where we live, which bar or cafe we prefer.

I think it's just a human thing. I've never been anywhere it wasn't true, and people historically have been pretty good at doing similar things. It's why there are those stories in many religions about the ghastly pathetic beggar who whines for a handout, and turns out to have been the prophet or a god in disguise, so hopefully you overcame your disgust and felt compassion and helped the guy.

This was the bread article:
http://www.slate.com/articles/double_x/doublex/2012/04/a_review_of_white_bread_a_new_book_about_our_nation_s_fear_of_flour_.html

PS - a few weeks ago I had a minor chat with someone who was into a method for being less wrong:

http://lesswrong.com/lw/hp/feeling_rational/

It was a little geekier than I was interested in, but it made me ponder how one even determines being wrong. As my nephew would say "What does that even mean???"

The whole discussion also reminds me of Florian's saying something like "Being awake is not fooling yourself."

It is interesting, for me, on this level: what's the problem the method is proposing to solve?

It seems like the problem is largely that people tend to be easily misled by others into believing things that aren't scientifically true, like the scare stories that make up most of the nightly news, or the simplistic interpretations of political issues that can rile people up and lead to witch hunts and so on.

The other right vs wrong problem which I can't tell if they address, but seems relevant to the thread, is the "problem" of being attached to or averse to being right or wrong. This seems to lead to a huge mess, such as when someone says something on a forum, and someone else thinks they are wrong and procedes to insult them, and then the first person feels hurt and gets defensive, and so on.

This is such a huge part of being right/wrong, and it seems to me like (in the context of developing one's dharma practice and such) the solution lies not in being right more often but in letting go of the clinging and such, so if someone is wrong and you were right you don't have that nasty surge of victorious glee that you "won". Or if you were wrong, not getting caught up in stories of shame or overly bothered by the behavior others might demonstrate.

If I could "Like" that comment Ona, I would.

This "victorious glee" thing is one of those things that once you see it is just *everywhere*. You can see it clearly in the teasing and playful arguing that teenage boys and men often use - workplace banter, oneupmanship, etc. It's got an element of competition for rank in it. Being wittier, telling a better joke, coming up with a funnier insult, etc. Or in the laughs we get from stupid humor videos, where we see other people have accidents. In this context it is a bit of a stress-release mechanism while navigating social rank and power, I suspect. There's a oneupmanship, but it's not overtly hostile, and often among equals.

And then there's the more serious version of it, the humorless version, where there's really a nastiness to it. One sees this in younger kids sometimes, who haven't learned the art of diverting it into humor; or among bullies or anti-social types, who love the glimmer of power and the moment of feeling like a winner. There's always a play of power going on, I think, whether it's the sniping and insults in a family (criticizing each other, insulting each other's choices, etc.) or among colleagues or in public conversations. It stakes territory, it defends boundaries, it creates a sense of power. The more there's an existing power difference, the nastier it is.

That is, I think among peers who respect each other (but slip up and say something hurtful) it causes less damage than when one person is weaker and gets the nastiness from a parent, teacher, boss. Or when one person in an equal situation has made themselves vulnerable by confiding something sensitive, and the other person responds with something hurtful and enjoys the moment of power. That right there truly undermines the relationship, revealing how unequal it really was all along.

Just some ponders. Anyone agree? Disagree?

I've been considering your post for a while now, Ona. I wasn't quite sure how to respond; I'm still not. It's thought provoking.



I think what I find triggering about this is that I engage in some form of this process quite often. I like being right, and I always knew it was a way to feel good about myself. What I haven't always picked up on was the power dynamic. Of course, now I can't help but notice it!



This behavior seems like a way to put someone in their place, so to speak. Whether by being "right" objectively, or being "right" by getting more laughs from one's peers when picking on someone else in the group. In both cases, it is - as you noted - about "winning." Really, I find it hard to think of a time when the desire to win isn't inherently narcissistic. It depends on the stakes, I guess. Will "winning" make me look super awesome? Or, will winning mean something else; e.g. winning a game show may give me the money I need to pay my wife's medical bills.



Actually, perhaps one key to determining the style of winning one seeks is their response to having won. People who win with less selfish motives usually respond with more gratitude and deep emotion. When people win the awesomeness contest, there's more hand slapping and posturing, and "we're number One" chanting. There's the winning that says, "I'm so thankful for this opportunity!" and that which says, "Ha! I told you we were better than those other people, and look - I was right! In your FACE!"



There's another aspect to this that makes things tricky, and that's the notion of hierarchy. I have no problem with hierarchy. Some people are better than others at certain skills. Some are smarter, or wiser, etc. In certain contexts, there's no reason why hierarchy shouldn't carry a power dynamic that is not egalitarian, but is still very helpful. Teacher-student relationships work this way. However, it becomes very problematic when the student is never allowed to be acknowledged as one of the teacher's peers. In other words, this should be a temporary condition, not a permanent one.



Not sure where to go from here, but you sure got me thinking, Ona Thank you for that!

Actually, perhaps one key to determining the style of winning one seeks is their response to having won. People who win with less selfish motives usually respond with more gratitude and deep emotion. When people win the awesomeness contest, there's more hand slapping and posturing, and "we're number One" chanting. There's the winning that says, "I'm so thankful for this opportunity!" and that which says, "Ha! I told you we were better than those other people, and look - I was right! In your FACE!"

-awouldbehipster

I think that's a very good indicator. I think in general terms it tends to be called humility and good manners. It is very interesting to watch this sort of thing play out - it's just another place where we can learn a lot about ourselves, whether we are directly involved, or watching (because in the latter case it will tend to trigger responses in us as we feel like taking sides, for example).

There's another aspect to this that makes things tricky, and that's the notion of hierarchy. I have no problem with hierarchy. Some people are better than others at certain skills. Some are smarter, or wiser, etc. In certain contexts, there's no reason why hierarchy shouldn't carry a power dynamic that is not egalitarian, but is still very helpful. Teacher-student relationships work this way. However, it becomes very problematic when the student is never allowed to be acknowledged as one of the teacher's peers. In other words, this should be a temporary condition, not a permanent one.



-awouldbehipster

I guess I was thinking that even if we deeply believe that all people are equal in the eyes of God, or however we like to phrase it, society itself contains rank and hierarchy. We don't have to accept it or like it, but it's there. Just basic socio-economic hierarchy, for example, not necessarily skill based or job-position based. I simply have a different access to resources and power on a basic social level than a very wealthy guy or celebrity, or than a very poor person. I think this is simply factual. Where things are flexible is in how we each choose to deal with that fact. Would you, for example, feel totally comfortable spending an afternoon at a cookout at the home of a very poor family? Maybe. Would you feel equally comfortable spending an afternoon at a cookout at the home of a very wealthy family? Maybe. Often the answer is actually "no." Not that one necessarily feels people at either end of the spectrum are less (or more) valuable as people, but there are huge numbers of expectations, assumptions, cultural values, manners, etc. that come with the territory. It takes a certain flexibility to do something like that and not feel judged, or outcast, or awkward. We might express that by mocking cultural attributes of groups we don't belong to....

Please continue with any comment. I'm just thinking this stuff through, and enjoying exploring the subject.

Funny what deep roots this dichotomy has into our individual and collective psyches. What hasn't been addressed is the basic, simple [relatively] meaning of the word as factually correct or incorrect-- this can become charged, too, because there's nothing human beings think, say, or do, that is without the subjective component and doesn't involve social relations.