I know, you think I got it backwards from the famous book:
But seriously, how often do you look at something and conclude the other person is right and you are wrong?
I bring this up because I learn the most, and am the most open, when I consider the possibility.
For example, my bishop was doing something I categorically disagree with. Rather than having an argument, I listened and really benefited. He was right, I was wrong. Because I listened, I came away ahead of where I would have been if I had not listened.
I listened to him because I know he cares and is trying hard to do the best he can. But I’ve listened to many people, and changed my mind or learned from them, without always having that belief (that they care about me), it just makes it easier.
I’ve heard many things in my life, and said many things. But the thing I probably have not said enough of is “you are right and I am wrong.”
I remember the first time I really changed up my thinking. Of course that was a time I had a void, rather than an opinion, but it affected me strongly.
It had to do with feminism. I’d been reading feminists who insisted that no man could be a feminist unless he was castrated, though, honestly, the only good man was a dead one. Not too entrancing. They were convincing me to abandon anything that smacked of feminism.
Then I read Brigham Young. He preached sermons on how women could be as good of doctors, lawyers, accountants and business owners as men. The only thing Young felt that women did not do as well as men was dig ditches. It fit well with Joseph Smith’s sermon on how the difference between a Philadelphia doctor in a carriage and the slave digging the ditch it rides next to was only education and opportunity. From thinking about those sermons, I became converted to egalitarianism. The equality of all and the importance of letting people be judged on their merits, not their sex or skin color, and of giving all access to education.
Since then I’ve tried to be open to learning what is being taught, but seems hidden from me. I had read a number of sermons from the 40s and 50s about how women are not property, but should be equal partners. It was obvious from the context that the audiences were not getting the point. I started wondering just what sermons are being preached today that contained points I was just not getting. What was hidden from me because I was just too blind to see it.
I’m curious. In your life and learning, what are the times that you realized that you were wrong and others were right and how did that affect your thinking. Did it matter if the others were friendly or hostile and what other messages they combined with the core messages they were trying to communicate? How have you thought about things since? What do you think you were blind to, and now see? What am I blind to now?
Wheat & Tares 
I’m reminded of the first line from the Great Gatsby, “Whenever you feel like criticizing any one, just remember that all the people in this world haven’t had the advantages that you’ve had”
I think a more dangerous side of this is when people intentionally look for ways to show the person is wrong, as if it improves their own position. When no person or organization can possibly say something you agree with, you need to start listening better to what they are actually trying to say.
My problem is, I’m right so much of the time, statistics show I can confidently predict I’ll be right most of the time, with an acceptable degree of error.
(OK…just kidding…as I look over my shoulder to see if my wife saw me typing that 🙂 )
Good thoughts Stephen.
Seriously, I usually try to be open minded to think you are as right as I am. It makes me wonder if that is a positive way to look at things, or if that is just me still not wanting to say I’m wrong in a nice way.
Something for me to think about.
I’m having trouble coming up with anything. The question therefore is:
Am I simply always right? Am I too arrogant to ever realize I am wrong? Or am I open enough that I can allow people to be sort of right even if they don’t have my exact same opinions or do what I want….for instance I give people the benefit of the doubt. I am never angry at another driver, for instance.
Marriage is a different matter altogether and everyone has their own dynamic with it.
Great post, Stephen.
Specific instances don’t come to mind, no doubt because I’ve repressed them, but I’ve recently reflected how very much less I’m sure of at forty than I was at twenty. I cringe thinking how certain I was of ideas I had even five years ago that life has caused me to rethink–ideas about education, about parenting, about religion. I’m much more aware of how little I know than I used to be, and I’m sure not nearly aware enough. (Maybe at sixty?)
A closer way to say it is “you may be right” but when that is said the meta message does not include “and I am treating that as a significant probable outcome.”
Putting it this way communicates that I am really hearing and considering things (though I only say it out loud when I have concluded that you really are right).
Too often if the other person is right we do not really acknowledge it.
ZD Eve’s comment reminds me of one of my favorite quotes, by Will Durant – basically, that education is the progressive discovery of our own ignorance. I definitely feel “less smart” than I used to in some ways. I still need a lot of work on it though. One thing I’ve realized is that in my field (counseling), the more experienced clinicians feel a lot more comfortable with not knowing.
Stephen, I’ve found this concept especially useful in my personal relationships. Terry Warner couches in terms of “what if I might be wrong?” and it allows a softening in an interpersonal disagreement. Very, very effective.
Liked the comments — thank you.
I use this all the time. It is code with my husband that I am done arguing a point because I no longer care. I told the Bishop once he was right and he almost fell on the floor. I guess it doesn’t happen much for him. He was all excited until my husband let him know that all it really means is I am done talking about it, not that I really agree.
I agree with ZD Eve about feeling less sure in my ‘rightness’ as I get older. I look at it as an expansion of borders – as a child, one’s experiential borders are limited, and thus one’s awareness of how much is unknown is limited. As we get older, the borders of our experience grow dramatically, and so we begin to realize how much bigger the unknown is than we had previously thought.
Anyway, my beliefs and understandings have changed radically from when I was younger (from anti- to pro-evolution, opposed to feminism to pro-feminism), and even more recently regarding the issue of gay marriage (previously against, now for). Every one of the times I have been convinced I was wrong, it was because my experience became more, particularly in coming to know other people and seeing that much of what I believed about them was based on unfounded assertions that had no basis in fact.
It is often hard to admit that we are wrong, though, particularly as the investment of effort in defending a position increases.
I am currently reading “Krakatoa” by Stephen Winchester. In it, he mentions two scientists who were laughed out of the rooms when they first mentioned their theories. The first was Galileo who said (from the Winchester book) “You may force me to say what you wish; you may revile me for saying what I do. But it moves.” (Regarding the earth moving around the sun).
The second was Alfred Wegener, who came up with the theory of plate tectonics (sp), that the earth was one continent and then moved into the separate continents.
Both theories are now accepted by the scientific community. Shouldn’t theories and information stand on its own? Shouldn’t each person be able to go through a process to evaluate and accept or dismiss information?
I wonder if social and religious matters need to follow a different process than the scientific method (evaluating evidence, reproducing evidence, admitting bias, etc.)