Why I Always Want to be Right

“For all serious intellectual progress depends upon a certain kind of independence of outside opinion.” – Bertrand Russell 1940

On a few occasions, some people whom I’m having conversations with have suggested that I can’t stand being wrong (read as “incorrect”, thus not in a moral sense). But I quickly respond and mention that nothing could be farther from the truth. In fact, I love being shown where I’ve failed, or where I’ve missed something. Why, you ask? Because I then have learned something whereby I am then in a position to be more correct. I enjoy being proved (shown) wrong, so that I can then be right. ☺

Then I got to thinking, that this seems kind of snobbish. It would beg the response: “You always have to be right, don’t you?!?!” But I ask what else would one desire in matters such as these? Who would want to be wrong, for the sake of being wrong? I’m not discussing matters such as romantic relationships or morality, which receive their “rightness” from somewhere else. I’m discussing intellectual correctness in public discourse, which leads to personal development.

This is what I’m concerned with: development and growth. It is about a “winning”, only there should not be a loser. Both parties should gain and grow. The leading quote by Russell references the “outside opinion” which is necessary for growth. And there is nothing snobbish about wanting, and being proud of, progression.

Democracy

A more general example of this is democracy. I’m no political science guru of any type but here are my two cents. Democracy is also about being right, for its constituents; it is about the growth, progress, and development of its citizens. Now what makes democracy unique is its methods in achieving such goals. Democracy believes voices should be heard. Not that we should find or reach a majority voice and then base our truth off of it; rather that through the work of rational discourse between a multitude (not solely the democrat/republican dichotomy we currently seem to have fallen into) of views, we then discover (discern) a more “correct” (right) view.

This is what Russell is talking about. If you want progress, you cannot have a majority voice, whether political or other, judge the value of the other opinions, and thus dominate and determine truth. Democracy is reliant upon debate and genuine debate requires an independence of opinions, a suspension of a determination of truth. Listening to the minority voice (or just the other side of a given topic), while never being prepared to change your own position, is not a genuine, or rational stance to take. Part of what it is to be rational is the willingness to change (progress), to no longer remain dogmatic, or what Russell would call “rigid”.

My discussion of truth may sound very relativistic, but that is not what I mean. A relativistic truth would say that no side is more right/correct than the other. What I am trying to express is that you need the openness first, as a foundation, to then, in rational discourse, be better prepared to see which view is more correct. Relativism, on the other hand, never gets off the ground. It never makes the decision; it always remains at the opposition (if you can call it that) and as such, can never have genuine discourse.

Democracy is also predicated on the fact that we can be wrong. That is why the majority view cannot be seen as truth. We cannot dogmatically hold on to the majority view, for the fallibility of people is a foundational part of democracy. The “independence of outside opinion” must always exist to keep us honest.

Conclusions

To tie this back into my original points, I want to get back to the individual being right or wrong. Those people have said that I can’t stand being wrong because I freely attempt to support my side, or the devil’s advocate side, with as much argumentation as possible. It is not that I discredit (dis-value) the other side, but that if we are to ever progress, we must be fair to both sides and must have them both be argued for as such. A big benefit to being able to argue coherently for your opponent is that you are forced to focus on the rational discourse (which requires multiple views), rather than merely your conviction for one side of a given topic. So actually, it isn't about me being right, but about all of the parties involved learning from the discourse.

Perhaps, it is less about individuals (and democratic discourse) being “right”, and more about the progressing.

“The world needs open hearts and open minds, and it is not through rigid systems, whether old or new, that these can be derived.” – Bertrand Russell 1957