How we lose by being right

I’m sure the title seems paradoxical, but I promise you that if you grant me enough time to explain my point, you might find yourself agreeing with me towards the end.

The intention of this philosophical reflection is to ask ourselves two questions:

1. What is the purpose of debates, or let’s say intellectual confrontations
   and
2. How does a victory look like?

The Victories

Maybe it’s mostly due to the way we use social media, and more so the way that we approach the very concept of “the battle of ideas” that defining a victory is not simple. As a matter of fact, it's quite revealing that we use the word battle to begin with, and that is before we even get to our somewhat comical way of summing up the confrontations.

Demolishing someone with facts and logic, eviscerating a snowflake, or destroying a troll, seem more like descriptions belonging to events that took place in the Roman Colosseum, than conversations in the public square. But, it’s not entirely unreasonable that we enjoy these so called battles, because, psychologically speaking of course, they are not that different from the Gladiatorial fights of years past.

You see, it comes down to projection, and we humans, tribal social creatures as we undeniably are, have evolved to recognize our tribe as a priority for our safety and survival. But the very idea of “our tribe” is quite malleable.

I’m sure you’ve met a sports fan who is a little too passionate for his team, In turn, ironically enough, said team is completely unaware of his existence, but nonetheless the affinity of the fan, the notion that “he is part of the team too” is incredibly strong, irrationally so at times.

img src

The relevant detail to keep in mind is that there is a reward for this behavior, and thus there is no chance it will ever completely go away. A fan celebrating victory, experiencing a euphoric moment, is physically being rewarded with dopamine, and other neurotransmitters, and boy does our brain love the feeling.

The Loses

img src

First we must admit that there is absolutely no way we can always be right, and yes, this is regardless of the mental capabilities we may possess.

All of us without exception, at some point in time held ideas in our head that proved to be very wrong. Whether we are talking about outdated scientific facts, spores of antiquated social bigotry, or unrealistic political dogma. We all experience a shift as we age, and if we are really lucky come out better people on the other side.
So, to admit that we’ve lost discussions is not me trying to insult anyone, but more so admitting that we are human, we are flawed, and there’s always an opportunity to be better just around the corner.

That being said, the way that we handle loses, the way that we process them, is very different from the victories we love, but the inconsistency more often times than not, passes completely unperceived by us.

To continue the sports fan example, and to bring this point home, let’s talk about how our language changes when our team loses. All of the sudden the fan of my example will create distance from the team, and begin to find excuses, or people who are responsible for the loss. A bad player, a referee, a terrible coach, etc. The language changes from “we won” to “they lost”.

The one thing that is key to understanding our psyche here, is that even when we lose, we try not to “really lose”, and we will deploy whatever mental power we can spare to protect ourselves from anything resembling acceptance of defeat.

We might move the goal post, redress the original point we tried to make, and practice what I like to call logical contortionism. There’s a list of common fallacies we tend to deploy when we are cornered into a loss, but for the sake of not making this mental exploration too long, I won’t dive into the specifics of them.

What is winning?

Unlike sports or games where it’s very easy to tell the winners from losers, when it comes to the so called battle of ideas, everybody likes to claim victory. This can be easily observed since when these battles happen, often in the political space, both sides claim to be right, to have the higher moral ground, and yet they both experienced the same events.

So to say that winning is demolishing the other side, destroying their arguments, and making those who are intellectually inferior bend a knee, is to deny reality.

The actor, comedian and writer of many more hats, Stephen Fry once said something that should give us a clue.

“I believe one of the greatest human failings is to prefer to be right than to be effective” - Stephen Fry

And it’s precisely here where one key word makes its debut: Effective

So, What does it mean to be effective? Well, to sum it up, to find a way to get things done. That means sometimes compromise, that means sometimes changing our mind about a position we may hold on to, that means being ok with being uncomfortable.

The truth is that sometimes when we are defending our position, we are not defending it for the sake of truth, at least not exclusively, but we are defending it because it’s attached to the hip of our ego, and of course, we need to protect it, right?

Well, maybe the question we should be asking ourselves is: How important is it, to protect our ego that is? What is the consequence of an ego that lacks the proper defenses? Who will suffer is our ego is abandoned as a casualty of intellectual war?

I think the answer becomes clearer and clearer as we ponder on these questions, and it truly holds a mirror in front of us, forcing us to be critical of our current and past behaviors.

So, just to be clear, because we’ve sunk deep into abstracts, winning, if such a thing is actually a thing to begin with, is more about how effective we can be, if our intention is to solve a problem, if our motivation is truly noble. The circus act may be fun, but it can also be counter productive to a noble goal, and that’s the point I’m trying to make.

The centrist Traitor

Be prepared to be ousted as a traitor, if you do decide to walk the path of reason. The truth that tribalism is easier for people to understand, but a daywalker, someone who is willing to compromise with the opposition, that is dangerous.

I hope that it’s crystal clear that I’m being a little ridiculous, but not because there’s no truth to my previous statement, but more so because “the danger” of a daywalker is heavily exaggerated. This is not to say that there is no such thing is ideological grifters, because we know better, but more to point out that not everyone who is willing to listen to nuance, and to learn the specifics of the counter argument is necessarily an enemy.

You would be surprised how many times you’ll find both sides of an argument recognizing the challenge, and even understanding the desired outcome, but at odds, at war, because they disagree on the method to get there.

That being said, I believe that building bridges of communication when it’s possible, and understanding that for the most part, most people want good things, because it benefits them too, allows you to have enough emotional fortitude to deal with the tribal scrutiny. If you see the bigger picture, and believe to be up to the task, you could be part of the solution.

So to answer the questions I proposed at the beginning of this exploration regarding purpose and outcome. Well, that depends on what you want to do, what you want to be part of. Do you want to be part of the circus? Or do you actually want to help? If you can answer those, then the answers are revealed.

MenO