He confuses “focusing on being right above all else” with “signaling that you are always right.” The two are completely different; the former is essential to rationality while the latter is merely obnoxious.
While this is a distinction that deserves to be made more, I don’t think it’s a valid criticism of the article in question. Here’s the explanation given after the phrase “focusing on being right above all else”:
Many smart people act as if being right trumps all else, and go around bluntly letting people know when they are wrong, as if this will somehow endear others to them. They also believe that they can change other people’s minds through argument and facts, ignoring how emotional and irrational people actually are when it comes to making decisions or adopting beliefs.
You must be reading that paragraph very differently to me. The point he’s making isn’t about wanting to appear right at all. It’s about the impression that some people give that being right is enough, and that diplomacy and the ability to present ones (correct) ideas are unimportant skills. There is nothing in that paragraph about how smart people behave on those occasions when they are not right.
bluntly letting people know when they are wrong, as if this will somehow endear others to them.
This sounds like it’s definitely about signaling that you are right. The second sentence, though I do agree with it, doesn’t seem like it’s the main point of the paragraph because of the “also.”
Like I said, you’re reading that very differently to the way I read it. To me, it’s about people not sugar-coating the truth, and not being diplomatic about the fact when they are right. In other words, it’s all well and good knowing that, say, homeopathy is nonsense, but you don’t get anywhere by insulting homeopaths (although it can be fun..)
I can (a) present my recollections and try to collaborate to find an agreement; (b) just nod and accept X as the agreed-upon finding; (c) insist that !X, using all the art of persuasion I possess; I will choose the course of action which I believe will lead to a better marital life (this includes long-term consequences and personal stress as factors). [Sidenote: I do have a preference for relationships in which (a) tends to be the best choice]
In any of these cases, I keep track of my own estimate of P(X), adjusting it as appropriate during and after the exchange, on the evidence provided by the spouse’s testimony and behaviour.
You are confusing “being right” with “being believed to be right”. Making the right calculations is always the correct course of action (tautology), but that doesn’t imply that you should necessarily say them.
I can (a) present my recollections and try to collaborate to find an agreement; (b) just nod and accept X as the agreed-upon finding; (c) insist that !X, using all the art of persuasion I possess;
None of these things allow the possibility of not arguing while also not conceding.
I agree that in many cases we don’t need to agree upon a finding at all, and in those cases I can accept X as one of several positions on an unresolved question. I consider that a special case of (b), but I can see believing otherwise.
It obviously depends on whether the expected utility of both people having the correct answer exceeds the disutility of spending the time and energy (physical and emotional) to locate/confirm it.
One way to view scope neglect is behaving deontologically instead of consequentially- “I will help birds” vs. “2000 birds will be helped.” In this context, I bring it up because the behavior “focusing on being right above all else” is a deontological rule, which is unlikely to maximize your preferences.
The answer is, unless X is important enough to divorce them over, drop the issue or change your mind. The rule to focus on being right above all else is far too strong to be good advice.
He confuses “focusing on being right above all else” with “signaling that you are always right.” The two are completely different; the former is essential to rationality while the latter is merely obnoxious.
Sometimes I say to myself that I want to be right so badly that I’m even willing to change my mind to do it.
A distinction that deserves to be made more of, I think.
While this is a distinction that deserves to be made more, I don’t think it’s a valid criticism of the article in question. Here’s the explanation given after the phrase “focusing on being right above all else”:
You must be reading that paragraph very differently to me. The point he’s making isn’t about wanting to appear right at all. It’s about the impression that some people give that being right is enough, and that diplomacy and the ability to present ones (correct) ideas are unimportant skills. There is nothing in that paragraph about how smart people behave on those occasions when they are not right.
The key phrase for me is this one:
This sounds like it’s definitely about signaling that you are right. The second sentence, though I do agree with it, doesn’t seem like it’s the main point of the paragraph because of the “also.”
Like I said, you’re reading that very differently to the way I read it. To me, it’s about people not sugar-coating the truth, and not being diplomatic about the fact when they are right. In other words, it’s all well and good knowing that, say, homeopathy is nonsense, but you don’t get anywhere by insulting homeopaths (although it can be fun..)
Your spouse insists X. You remember !X. What is the rational course of action?
(Hint: it does not involve scope neglect.)
I can (a) present my recollections and try to collaborate to find an agreement; (b) just nod and accept X as the agreed-upon finding; (c) insist that !X, using all the art of persuasion I possess; I will choose the course of action which I believe will lead to a better marital life (this includes long-term consequences and personal stress as factors). [Sidenote: I do have a preference for relationships in which (a) tends to be the best choice]
In any of these cases, I keep track of my own estimate of P(X), adjusting it as appropriate during and after the exchange, on the evidence provided by the spouse’s testimony and behaviour.
You are confusing “being right” with “being believed to be right”. Making the right calculations is always the correct course of action (tautology), but that doesn’t imply that you should necessarily say them.
None of these things allow the possibility of not arguing while also not conceding.
I agree that in many cases we don’t need to agree upon a finding at all, and in those cases I can accept X as one of several positions on an unresolved question. I consider that a special case of (b), but I can see believing otherwise.
It obviously depends on whether the expected utility of both people having the correct answer exceeds the disutility of spending the time and energy (physical and emotional) to locate/confirm it.
If X matters, look for further evidence beyond your and your spouse’s recollections, at least one of which is known to be wrong, but not which.
Um, what point were you making?
It depends on my preferences.
Also, what does scope neglect have to do with this?
One way to view scope neglect is behaving deontologically instead of consequentially- “I will help birds” vs. “2000 birds will be helped.” In this context, I bring it up because the behavior “focusing on being right above all else” is a deontological rule, which is unlikely to maximize your preferences.
The answer is, unless X is important enough to divorce them over, drop the issue or change your mind. The rule to focus on being right above all else is far too strong to be good advice.
You’re confusing “being right” with “being believed to be right”.