4 ms·

> 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 t

> 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?

chrisbrandow 3y ago
No. The important thing is to understand that the two outcomes may not be identical.
brazzledazzle 3y ago
I don’t think anything is “wrong” with you but experience and observation suggests it’s hard to prioritize that exclusively without becoming miserable or lonely. My father always said “are you more interested in being right or winning?” and I tell my kids “Are you more interested in being in the right or achieving your goals?” That framing was always more appealing to me since happiness or winning isn’t always a key consideration. It makes you ask what it is you really want. And if what you really want is to be in the right, well, your best course or action is pretty clear.
- aidenn0 3y ago
  I like your wording because it reveals that I generally (but not always) lack goals that are more important to me than being right, and it explains the situations in which being right takes the back-seat.
dmckeon 3y ago
"Well, for years I was smart. I recommend pleasant." Elwood P. Dowd, _Harvey_
zoogeny 3y ago
One thing that changed this for me (I agree the saying is a bit trite) was a comment by Joscha Bach in some podcast where he mentions realizing that he had a totally wrong conception of conversation when he was a kid. To paraphrase his idea, he had previously seen discussion as an opportunity to share facts and engage in a mutual exploration of the truth. But in reality, most conversation is negotiating social status. 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.
- dudinax 3y ago
  I work with scientists and most of my conversations are about facts. Young Joscha Bach would have liked it here.
- aidenn0 3y ago
  > 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.
  - zoogeny 3y ago
    That is totally possible. One thing to watch out for is the fable of the fox and the grapes. The fox is unable to get the grapes from a high branch and so wanders away thinking "they are probably sour". It is just a reminder that sometimes when we can't get something we want we use a defense mechanism to protect our ego. 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.
    - aidenn0 3y ago
      Your point about sour grapes is well taken; indeed I think about 50% of human brainpower is used to rationalize why the choices we have already made (or are likely to make in the future) can't be wrong. > 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.
zeroxfe 3y ago
It's instant vs. delayed gratification. Being right is seductive, and immediately rewarding. You are perfectly normal.
- noirbot 3y ago
  I'm not even sure that's always the case. There's plenty of cases where you can be right, but not seen to be right for years, and be miserable for all of that time, and still be miserable even when you're seen to be right at the end of it. If everyone you're working with is pursuing a poor plan that may fail, is it better to fight them about how you may be smarter than them over the next few years, or just be along for the ride, hope for the best, and then be courteous about it if it does go wrong and not rub in your foresight?
davidham 3y ago
In any case, I’m one of you.
shrubble 3y ago
I'd rather my surgeon be 'right' than happy...
TheCleric 3y ago
I used to be in that camp, but one thing I realized over time was I didn't want to be right: I wanted everyone to admit I was right. And eventually I (mostly) realized that I can be both "right" (in my own head at least) and happy because I no longer was basing my feelings of happiness on the beliefs and actions of others. 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. :)
hnfong 3y ago
I'm with you. 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.
- aidenn0 3y ago
  I think you may be overly hung-up on the wording (not that the wording isn't important; another reply to my comment suggested a wording I like better); I'm trying to engage the statement with the sentiment I believe it is trying to convey, which I think is different from the sentiment in the statement "ignorance is bliss" and is more of a sentiment against pedantry.

chrisbrandow 3y ago

No. The important thing is to understand that the two outcomes may not be identical.

brazzledazzle 3y ago

I don’t think anything is “wrong” with you but experience and observation suggests it’s hard to prioritize that exclusively without becoming miserable or lonely. My father always said “are you more interested in being right or winning?” and I tell my kids “Are you more interested in being in the right or achieving your goals?” That framing was always more appealing to me since happiness or winning isn’t always a key consideration. It makes you ask what it is you really want. And if what you really want is to be in the right, well, your best course or action is pretty clear.

aidenn0 3y ago
I like your wording because it reveals that I generally (but not always) lack goals that are more important to me than being right, and it explains the situations in which being right takes the back-seat.

dmckeon 3y ago

"Well, for years I was smart. I recommend pleasant." Elwood P. Dowd, _Harvey_

zoogeny 3y ago

One thing that changed this for me (I agree the saying is a bit trite) was a comment by Joscha Bach in some podcast where he mentions realizing that he had a totally wrong conception of conversation when he was a kid. To paraphrase his idea, he had previously seen discussion as an opportunity to share facts and engage in a mutual exploration of the truth. But in reality, most conversation is negotiating social status. 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.

dudinax 3y ago
I work with scientists and most of my conversations are about facts. Young Joscha Bach would have liked it here.
aidenn0 3y ago
> 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.
- zoogeny 3y ago
  That is totally possible. One thing to watch out for is the fable of the fox and the grapes. The fox is unable to get the grapes from a high branch and so wanders away thinking "they are probably sour". It is just a reminder that sometimes when we can't get something we want we use a defense mechanism to protect our ego. 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.
  - aidenn0 3y ago
    Your point about sour grapes is well taken; indeed I think about 50% of human brainpower is used to rationalize why the choices we have already made (or are likely to make in the future) can't be wrong. > 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.

zeroxfe 3y ago

It's instant vs. delayed gratification. Being right is seductive, and immediately rewarding. You are perfectly normal.

noirbot 3y ago
I'm not even sure that's always the case. There's plenty of cases where you can be right, but not seen to be right for years, and be miserable for all of that time, and still be miserable even when you're seen to be right at the end of it. If everyone you're working with is pursuing a poor plan that may fail, is it better to fight them about how you may be smarter than them over the next few years, or just be along for the ride, hope for the best, and then be courteous about it if it does go wrong and not rub in your foresight?

davidham 3y ago

In any case, I’m one of you.

shrubble 3y ago

I'd rather my surgeon be 'right' than happy...

TheCleric 3y ago

I used to be in that camp, but one thing I realized over time was I didn't want to be right: I wanted everyone to admit I was right. And eventually I (mostly) realized that I can be both "right" (in my own head at least) and happy because I no longer was basing my feelings of happiness on the beliefs and actions of others. 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. :)

hnfong 3y ago

I'm with you. 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.

aidenn0 3y ago
I think you may be overly hung-up on the wording (not that the wording isn't important; another reply to my comment suggested a wording I like better); I'm trying to engage the statement with the sentiment I believe it is trying to convey, which I think is different from the sentiment in the statement "ignorance is bliss" and is more of a sentiment against pedantry.