SeahorseTrebleWhat is the best way to respond to "You have an answer for everything", "You always have to be right", or "You always need to have the last word"?
fossilesqueLearning humility.
Start with first principles - who is saying this, and are they correct?
Well it’s correct that I (almost) always have an answer for everything they’re saying, am I supposed to feel bad about that? I don’t feel like it’s a valid criticism, but ironically I don’t know how best to respond to that because it just doesn’t make sense to me.
I don’t think it’s correct to say that I “have” to be right, I’m open to being wrong, in this case I’m usually not; again, why am I being blamed for something that doesn’t seem like a fault?
Having the last word is the most nonsensical one to me, since it’s often unclear when anyone’s word would end up being the last word or not depending on if another word is spoken afterward, and by them saying that technically their word is after mine, and I could just as easily say that any “word” they said was trying to be the last one. What if a word is just a word?
really depends on who is saying it.
my parents used to say shit like this to me, I ended up running away from home at 16 because they WERE always wrong about shit, were abusive, and used these kinds of phrases to shut down dissent so they could dominate me unreasonably.
If my wife is saying the same things I am going to take a hard look at why she is saying it because we don’t have a toxic relationship and it’s a sign that maybe I am not employing my empathy properly.
It really is going to come down to who is giving you these statements and why.
I don’t know you, or the people you’re talking to, but once you’re at the “you always have to be right about everything” point, the conversation is adversarial, and it’s mostly a moot point where it goes from here. The goal shouldn’t be “winning” the conversation at that point, the goal should be never getting there in the first place.
I do know people who act completely disinterested in any conversation that isn’t about them lecturing one or more people about something. If this is how you come across, that could be very irritating to people. They don’t want to feel inferior to their conversation partner, they want to have a discussion, not receive a lecture.
So back to the start. The goal should be figuring out how to stop the conversation from getting to that point in the first place, and since you have no control over how other people act, you’ll need to start paying closer attention to what you are saying, how you are saying it, and how to start engaging with people in topics that they are more knowledgeable about.
As they say, if you’re the smartest person in the room, then you’re in the wrong room.
JustEnoughDucksI don’t think it’s correct to say that I “have” to be right, I’m open to being wrong, in this case I’m usually not
Having the last word is the most nonsensical one to me, since it’s often unclear when anyone’s word would end up being the last word or not depending on if another word is spoken afterward
There is a very apt series of shorts for your behaviour:
www.youtube.com/watch?v=mdyHX8K1yfY& www.youtube.com/watch?v=mxSa-C92Wno&
It is ok to know someone isn’t 100% correct and not call them out for it. It is a huge social skill not yo be right all of the time, but to validate other peoples’ feelings and pursuit of learning new things. In short, just be quiet and don’t say anything like 75% of the time if you know someone is wrong.
Average Redditor goes to therapy
Lol that’s hilarious, thanks for this. Very funny skits that capture a particular kind of Redditor (maybe the average as the name implies?). I don’t feel like this really accurately represents my situation though, since this guy is just douchey and pretentious/arrogant about everything, and nitpicks and corrects people over every small and trivial detail.
At least from my point of view, I’m not the one that starts arguments or argues over things unless it’s particularly important, and even then I try to let it go unless I’m being actively confronted by it.
It probably makes a difference to know that only one person has ever said these things to me. I’ve just looked into the phenomenon happening with other people as well (on Reddit 😆), and often it is just a single person who does it. So it seems like either this one person is unreasonable, or the problem manifests only with them somehow.
I guess working from the position that I have reason to believe I’m in the right (not in the sense of “trying” to be right all the time, but about being genuinely stuck in a position where no matter what I do, I’ll be accused of things anyway).
If conversations with this one person are frequently reaching the point where things like that are being said, it seems pretty clear cut: you should honestly just avoid any of the topics that have resulted in debates with this person.
It doesn’t necessarily mean you can’t talk to them about other things or that you can’t be friends (although it might).
Not every relationship has to allow for talking about all topics.
Sometimes being right isn’t actually important and can actually be counterproductive with certain people/topics.
Dude, what stakes are there in this conversation? If someone says red M&Ms tastes better, do you argue with them? Ideally not.
Not every statement has to be a debate.
If you’re finding people don’t want to hang out with you… This is why.
OwenEverbindeOn the chance that you’re a fellow neurodivergent, I’m going to share something I discovered after moving back in with my mom. We neurodivergents think of information like one might think of rock collecting. We collect information, compare its shininess and smoothness to other pieces of information, roll it over in our hands. We’re eager to show information to people, and eager when someone shows us a new piece of information. Anyone enlightening us has our full attention and enthusiasm. And when we get corrected? That is the smoothest, shiniest stone. We collect that voraciously.
But 1) not everyone shares our information-collecting obsession. And 2) everyone has a weakness to their own special kind of rock – their own, private kryptonite. And we neurodivergents tend to ignore the pain when we pick up our own kryptonite because we figure "information is always good (even if it hurts)."
But it’s not good to expose a person to the information that is their kryptonite. Even our fellow neurodivergents, who will be begging us, “please, bring it closer! Knowledge is power! I must grow!”
As a neurodivergent, you must learn which rocks are kryptonite to which people. You must learn to withhold extremely relevant information in the exact conversations when it’s most pertinent – and do so precisely because its pertinence is why it’s kryptonite to the person. And you must learn to do so even with fellow neurodivergents.
Acceptable:
- ✅ - the social behavior of bonobos
- ✅ - the Flynn Effect
- ✅ - the origin of the name of various open source software projects
- ✅ - the economic argument against slavery (that’s Roman history)
- ✅ - the fact that the McDonald’s coffee lawsuit was actually justified, and the whole story was twisted by corporate propaganda
Unacceptable:
- 🚫 - “Tucker Carlson has been caught lying” >> [this logic here] >> “Tucker Carlson is probably not trustworthy, going forward.” (people hate that logical bridge!)
- 🚫 - the damage that you see a person’s religion of choice doing to their psyche (people really hate that)
- 🚫 - most of the situations in which someone’s beliefs are incorrect
If you want to discuss the “unacceptable” topics with people, you must look up street epistemology. But keep in mind as you learn it: discussing these topics productively will actually be painful for you if you’re a neurodivergent. As you perform street epistemology, you will be asking questions, and the person answering you will be espousing an unbearable symphony of incorrect beliefs. And you have to hold back your urge to say, “well, actually” several times per second as they do.
𝕸𝖔𝖘𝖘Huh… Didn’t know that. But it explains so much.
As a neurodivergent, you must learn which rocks are kryptonite to which people. You must learn to withhold extremely relevant information in the exact conversations when it’s most pertinent
One of the hardest things I’ve ever had to do.
I know, right? It’s so uncomfortable!
Indeed. Almost every single day, I find myself stopping myself from blurting out a “shiny rock” to share. It’s disheartening sometimes.
I mean, the real answer is for us to get around people who are tolerant of neurodivergents. But it’s hard for anyone to choose their social circles.
paraphrandI hang out in a space full of neurodivergent people who are constantly sharing their shiny rocks. In the first few years it was pretty awesome, I was learning a lot. Lots of practical things relating to the scene.
Now it’s become this thing where I can see it happening almost before it starts. And it’s exhausting in part because I know the information now. But more so, it’s exhausting because it’s so clear how it’s shallow social interaction. It’s not the deeper discussion or human connection I’m after.
The nature of the space, the scene, means there will be lots of people like that all the time. Sharing their shiny rocks instead of themselves.
It’s not so bad one on one, at all, I can manage it and I can help encourage them. But when there is a gaggle of people exchanging all their shiny rocks I just don’t know what to do.
Yeeeeaaaaah… I can see that. All of it.
- The "sharing shiny rocks instead of themselves,"
- The shiny rocks getting exhausting
- The sharing of them getting repetitive
- The pushing away other people.
That does sound tiring, man. Sorry you’ve found yourself in such a situation.
But also… what’s one random, interesting thing you learned from the group? (sorry)
Oh, no worries. I just hope my description is relatable to someone and extends what you said. I think it’s an interesting framing, especially for someone new to conceptualizing this sort of thing, giving it a framework.
I’ve frankly learned a lot about game engines, 3D modeling, and coding via these groups. The illumination of all the systems behind the scenes is what has been most valuable and interesting. I’m having trouble pinpointing one thing. 😅 There is a lot of “trivia” or arbitrary facts to learn when dealing with game engines.
Ah…
Well yes, your response did extend things quite nicely. I, for one, found it fascinating.
I think it’s an interesting framing,
Thanks!
I’ve frankly learned a lot about game engines, 3D modeling, and coding via these groups. The illumination of all the systems behind the scenes is what has been most valuable and interesting. I’m having trouble pinpointing one thing. 😅 There is a lot of “trivia” or arbitrary facts to learn when dealing with game engines.
Yeah, game design does sound like a pretty vast and complex topic. I can see it being tricky to just grab one thing without needing to explain a dozen other things.
NightLilyLetting them have the last word by leaving. Well unless you are their parental figure in which case it’s I’m your X I’m legally required to have the last word.
KerfuffleThere are basically two main possibilities:
If it’s the first one, it doesn’t really matter how you respond. The best policy is to avoid dealing with people like that as much as possible.
If it’s the second one then you should work on trying to fix it. That’s the best way to respond.
I feel like I’m the reasonable one, but I understand how I might come across as pompous by maintaining that position. I like to think about a hypothetical situation where a person was right all the time, and whether they would be penalised for that somehow. I’m not saying that’s the case, but it’s like these people leave no room for the possibility that maybe, just maybe, they could be 100% wrong about everything
There’s nothing wrong with being right all the time, but relationships need more than just the exchange of facts. If all people know you for is the guy who is right all the time (or needs to be right all the time), then maybe you’re neglecting the other aspects of those relationships. There needs to be other things people remember you for.
Being right feels good no? Imagine being told your wrong all the time by the same person. Thats how they feel. Unless its a matter of life or limb, just let people be wrong sometimes.
Just because you are right, doesn’t mean you are relevant or the other person is wrong.
Take the Keane Reeves approach to having a relaxed life - don’t have any arguments, to paraphrase him “Two plus two equals five? OK great, have a nice day, see you around!”
pancakeWhen a person says this, sometimes even if they do it in a positive tone, it’s usually a way to verbalize more concrete concerns that you should address. For example, they might feel that you are always dismissing their opinions, that you don’t listen to them in general, or they would simply like to get support when they express their views in a group so they get some recognition. In any case, they feel like you can do something to help but may not feel comfortable to express it or may not have fully identified it. If that person is important to you, you should be able to see what they want and take action.
They do think I’m dismissing their opinions and don’t listen to them, it’s interesting you say that. But I don’t feel like that’s true, and I make an effort to clearly acknowledge what they’re saying (not just internalise it). Again, I feel like no matter what I do, they’ll accuse me of these things anyway.
What usually happens is this:
▪︎ They make a point of some kind, expecting a reply from me.
▪︎ I acknowledge the point, and if it’s something I haven’t heard, I try to give it some thoughtful consideration. If it’s something I’m already familiar with, I’ll tell them what I know about it. Either way, sometimes this results in me recognising the merits of their point without any kind of objection or criticism. But, often it’s something I either determine or already know is flawed in some way that should be noted to avoid things going any further; while if that’s the case, I still recognise what they said, so I don’t see how I’m dimissing it or not listening to them. I took what they said seriously and assessed it, gave it thought, but I also found it to have problems that needed addressing. What else could they want?
▪︎ They accuse me of not listening to them or being interested in what they say and dismissing everything.
They seem to conveniently forget all of the times when I only respond completely positively to what they say, or the fact that even when it’s not completely positive, I always try to make them feel heard and point out the positives in what they said.
But, it’s often the case that there is something wrong with what they said and it’s important and can’t just be left unclear/in a position that doesn’t work as it relates to things. From my point of view, this comes from a combination of the person just simply not understanding what I’m saying, and choosing to pursue subjects that I’ve already stated are complex or problematic.
Even if you often try to make that person feel understood and empowered to express their views, everyone’s needs are different. For example, if they tend to feel inadequate or are self-conscious about their achievements/intelligence/etc., you may need to go the extra mile here.
Try to identify all the positive and negative interaetions with them (i.e., those in which they get the impression that they are right versus those in which they don’t) and make sure that positive ones greatly outnumber negative ones. If you need, you can try to acknowledge more situations wherein their contribution to a conversation deserves praise, or even simply not point out their mistakes if the question at hand is not critical for you (easiest imo).
Is it valid criticism? Do you focus more on winning the argument than finding the truth?
Well that’s another thing I was wondering. What if you already know what the truth is? I’m open to having my beliefs challenged or reassessing my conclusions about what the truth is, but if that’s not happening, and you’re still confident that your position is correct, then is maintaining your position really such a bad thing? And, what would the alternative be; surely not to pretend to admit defeat when you don’t really believe that? (I feel like that sets a bad precedent)
You don’t know what the true truth is, no one does; you only have your own. You need the truth of others to focus your views closer to the real truth. Say you already know what the truth is closes you off to the possibility of growth regardless of what you say, and makes it pointless to have a debate.
As a hypothetical then. Costco hands out “freebies”. Who pays for the freebies?
The members, Costco, the businesses manufacturing the items being sampled, or a combination of these?
Or would you claim Costco pays for this completely, and that the money that pays for this is completely unrelated to the members, the money just comes from somewhere?
…I encountered someone who made the latter claim. Perhaps the truth is some other third option I have not considered (which I would appreciate you pointing out, I need more practice thinking outside the box), but I highly doubt there is some money box that pays for customer “freebies” that isn’t somehow funded from customer revenue.
but I highly doubt there is some money box that pays for customer “freebies” that isn’t somehow funded from customer revenue.
Marketing budgets funded by venture capitalists who made the wrong bet
Yeah, possibly. Not sure how often they are involved with funding Costco samples haha.
(And there are definitely no VC involved in the discussion I had with the person, as we were discussing small family owned businesses that only have one location)
So lets make it simpler. Coke spends more on marketing than it does production. Does this make coke more expensive for the average joe? No it makes it cheaper. Why? Because they can sell more coke, and selling larger quantities of things can mean better pricing by either production scale or better deals on ingredients. Back to Costco, samples are a rounding error level of cost for massive gains in sales.
And where did the money come from on the first place? I get that advertising increases sales (literally why anyone would do samples), but it’s not like that money isn’t from previous sales.
Efficiency, its not a closed ecosystem. The world is not static like an econ 101 textbook question. There is so many factors like credits, seasonal pushes during peak supply, producers offers for floor space. A lot of factors go into pricing a product, the amount sampling is not really one of them, thats just to push sales and is done at a completely different level of management.
That’s interesting, but I feel like that means we can’t make any kind of assessments or conclusions about anything, when it also seems like we have to in order to live our lives in the absence of 100% knowing something definitively. I also think some things can be known to be objectively true, such as the number of people inside a building (as an example).
For example, if we’ve been able to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that something is true or most likely true, but a person is arguing with us that it’s not (you might say “arguing that black is white”), we can be open to being proven wrong despite doubting that it will happen, but should we really not pursue a line of dialogue just because we think we’re probably correct?
I can see how saying I know what the truth is might turn people off more than just conversing about it, so I probably wouldn’t say that to them, but is being fairly confident in what you’re saying a reason not to say it?
There has been one constant in my life: the older I get the more I understand that few things are objectively true/scientifically proven and (while I do hope that number grows) the more I realize the importance of being comfortable with uncertainty. Not only uncertainty about particular facts, but about my positions on stuff being right.
Let me ask you, how often are you wrong? And of those, how often do you admit it and quit talking? How often do you admit it to yourself but keep the fight going? How often do you make excuses?
Whether you answer me or not doesn’t matter, you need to truly, honestly answer it for yourself. Think about it. A person who can’t admit they’re wrong is done learning, a person who is done learning is done growing, and a person who is done growing is dead already.
You really only need to state your case once and then don’t belabor it. People are not going to always agree with you, but it’s not because you haven’t sufficiently and thoroughly overwhelmed them with facts and logic.
Considering they’re asking us how to win at such a dialogue, I’ve got to say, probably.
Somewhat related…
For people that say they do stupid stuff simply because they have the right to, I say this in return:
“Well I have the right to wipe my ass with a pinecone, but that doesn’t mean it’s the right thing to do.”
Take their concerns seriously, but not necessarily literally.
Maybe they’re accurately describing something you do. Maybe not.
Do you try to continue conversations when the other person is trying to disengage? That’s an actual thing that many people do; maybe that includes you. Try different approaches, like “Hmm, I still disagree, but I don’t need to continue talking about this either” — or just noticing whether it’s really important to you to press the subject, and whether the other person is receptive.
Pay attention to the other person’s discomfort there. Even if you’re right and even if it’s important, if someone is tired of hearing your opinion, they’re not going to change their mind.
Even if they’re not accurately describing you, they’re still describing what you seem like to them, at that moment. They may be insecure about their own understanding or judgment, and feel like you have more power than them in the situation, and that you’re using it poorly. (But the one thing not to do to an insecure person is to call them insecure.)
One thing they’re almost certainly not trying to do, is to escalate the argument to the meta-level of arguing about how good or bad you are at arguing.
If it’s a loved one, maybe they don’t want an argument; maybe they want a hug. (Ask.)
Yep, 90+% of any conversation is about how you’re making the other person feel, not about any actual content of the words being said.
And if anyone just read that and thought “bullshit, that’s stupid and illogical,” I have some bad news for you about how brains work. (Also: I used to think like that too.)
Our ancestors used their mouths to make emotional noises long before they used their mouths to express logical propositions.
We can never do just one thing with language. Every time we’re making a factual statement, we’re also saying something about our mood, and our relationship to our audience, and so on. That’s just part of what language does.
Say nothing. You just beat their argument. Also, relax, let people be wrong. It’s kind of funny when people come up to you weeks or months later and admit you were right. If you’re right most of the time, but don’t argue about it, it kind of fucks with people after a while.
NaNQuestionable motives for choosing not to be an asshole, but they will likely benefit from being a more pleasant person to be around anyway.
“Really?”
“What makes you say that?”
JWBananascorrect
relative_iteratorMaybe you don’t always have to be right? Is this coming from people just trying to have a casual conversation? When I’m in that situation I usually just say something basic like “oh interesting!” then move the conversation in a different direction.
oh interesting!
I think what a lot of people mean by that is “you always have to make other people feel as if they’re wrong”
Pretty much, if you are like the “average redditor” guy’s videos, then people aren’t going to like you, even if you are technically correct.
Call me Lenny/Leni“That makes one of us.”
zeppoI got that from someone as projection - as in, if I didn’t let her say some insulting and inaccurate things and then stomp away, it was supposedly because I had to have the last word.
As far as “you have to be right” I point out that being correct is objective and yes, I’d like to have conversations that make sense. If I’m wrong, tell me how and I’m fine with that. Otherwise, I will indeed say things that I believe are correct and true.
Yeah, the only person who has said it to me on my life is someone who is deep in conspiracy theories. For some “weird” reason I don’t have this problem with anyone else in my life.
Sometimes it’s more about the other person.
pruwybenYou gotta admit this post is a little ironic.