One of the
kindest things a regular reader once said to me was how consistently he thinks
I get things right. "The thing about
your blogs is that you're just so damn right about everything". Let me assure you, I always try. And the secret,
as I'll explain, and as the title indicates, is in not being
afraid of being wrong. You'll usually notice something reassuring about genuine truth-seekers: if someone shows them they are wrong about something, or offers them a better way of looking at things, or imparts some wisdom that comes from superior reasoning skills, they never mind having these things pointed out.
Genuine truth-seekers
are more likely to rigorously explore both sides of the argument, and only opt
for the position they think makes most sense, and best conforms to reason, logic
and evidence. Because the truth is, throughout your life, every time you're
open enough for someone to show you where you're wrong is equally a time when
you've been given the opportunity to be right about something new.
Suppose you were
brought up in the Bible Belt in America
and you used to believe that the earth is only a few thousand years old, that
humans do not share a common ancestor with other apes, and that the eye is too
complex to have evolved. Then in a particularly
enlightening day someone manages to show some good evidence why all three of
those propositions are false.
In being shown to be wrong, you have learned at least three new things - the real age of the earth, the process by which natural selection can bring about eyes through a cumulative ratchet process (I once blogged about this here), and how our understanding of DNA demonstrates common ancestry (I once blogged about this here). Being shown how the old you was wrong ought to be positively embraced, because it also shows the new you how you are right.
In being shown to be wrong, you have learned at least three new things - the real age of the earth, the process by which natural selection can bring about eyes through a cumulative ratchet process (I once blogged about this here), and how our understanding of DNA demonstrates common ancestry (I once blogged about this here). Being shown how the old you was wrong ought to be positively embraced, because it also shows the new you how you are right.
It's not that
difficult in life to be self-assured in your views and argue with confidence in
debates, exposing your opponents with all the aplomb of a sniper picking out targets.
You just have to follow these guidelines: be wedded to facts and truths, not
emotional feelings or in-group biases. Also, don't seek security in the
consensus - it doesn't mean these people are right just because there are a lot
of them.
Consider
bookmakers as an illustration. Bookmakers' odds are about probability of outcomes
before the event. They are, in a sense, the pre-fact likelihood of future facts
- asking who will win an upcoming horse race, presidential election or football
match. The odds a
bookmaker offers on a sporting event are not based on a general public
consensus, they are based on the consensus of a proportion of the population
that knows about sporting probability, and on the behaviour of people who are
willing to bet money on these outcomes.
The bookmakers
don't always get their odds right, but on average you'll find they do - where
on average means over the long term they get a lot more right than they get
wrong. That the betting public get on average a lot more wrong than right means
the bookmakers stay in business.
Learning how
to be right is a bit like this - it's about playing the long percentage game
and not being taken in by any fads or hyperboles. It is about mastering methods
of thinking that can hold you in good stead in front of any proposition. Of course, in
a civilised society it is often good that our democratic views are implemented
- be they views on which party should govern us, whether we should be in or out
of the EU, and so on - but that should not be confused with empirical
investigations.
Just because
the majority of people think we should not frack or that London needs rent controls doesn't matter
one jot if there are good logical and evidential reasons why the consensus is
wrong. “Have you ever noticed
when you’re driving that anybody driving slower than you is an idiot, and
anyone going faster than you is a maniac?” observed the comedian George Carlin. It's
a nice bit of awareness-raising, because one thing you must forever keep at the
forefront of your consciousness is that in being human you see the world
through a series of you-centred biases, and those biases shape how you think,
the views and beliefs you have, and how you formulate arguments.
I wish
everyone always had that at the forefront of their minds, because instead of
thinking everyone wrong and themselves right about everything, they could
perhaps consider more readily that they might, in fact, have plenty to learn,
and plenty of ways in which a change of mind will be good for their arsenal of
reasoning. I’m not immune to that criticism either – it’s always good to be
self-critical, however confident you are that you’re right.
I think the
thing that gives me such confidence when I write as I do is in part because
I’ve thought about these things a *lot*, and always tried to put myself in the
place of the opposition and argue well for their side of the argument (a good
tool to use in any debate). But the other major factor, in my view, is that I
really don’t care what the results are as long as it’s true, logical,
evidential, and conforms to reason.
I have no need
for denial, no dog in any fight, no in-group or tribal affiliation, and no
concern for whether what’s true is thought true by the majority, by some
people, or by hardly anyone – I’m only interested in what is correct. If a
genie appeared and showed me where I was wrong about x or y I’d be genuinely
fascinated and delighted at this fresh illumination. That’s the only way to be,
and why, as the title suggests, the best way to be right is to not care about being
wrong.