Do you want to be right or do you want to have friends

I'm talking about what Paul said in his podcast Integrity and Being Alone, about someone having said to him "Do you want to be right or do you want to have friends" (Did I quote correctly, hope I did). Now that reminded me of what Dr. Phil always says (yes I shamefully admit that I have watched the Dr. Phil Show, quite a lot...) "Do you want to be right or do you want to be happy?" He claims that MOST people would rather be right and that this is one of the main reasons that so many marriages fail. In your podcast Paul you say that you suspect that most people would rather have friends than be right. Interesting difference. I don't know who is right but I suspect that you both are (aren't I diplomatic ) Meaning that it is necessary at least in close relationships such as marriage to give up your view sometimes to get along. One can't ALWAYS be right and have a happy marriage, one's partner has to be right too for the relationship to work.

I suppose on a more general level though one will lose some friends if one does extraordinary things and sticks to them. What is interesting to me is how experts or "geniuses" rarely get along with one another. Now one would somehow expect that the geniouses can sympathise with one another's struggles and encourage each other, but I know of no examples of this. In the following sentence I'm not talking about permaculture, because I'm too new at it to know much about the permaculture geniouses and their relationships, but about quite another area of expertise. It seems that even those experts who think practically alike in almost every way EXCEPT a few minor details can be at war with one another, each claiming that the others are a bit stupid.

I think that this whole dicotomy of right -wrong, genious -stupid, asshole-nice person is something we all should work towards getting rid of. Well we won't get rid of it completely, it's human nature to create these dicotomies and to create drama, just as Paul said. But we might want to question these dicotomies more.

The question was "do you want to be right, or be in a relationship?"

I think the question is seriously fucked up. It basically puts forth the premise that you cannot be in a relationship unless you sacrifice your values and your decency and are willing to become wholly a servant to another. I would like to modify the question to "what sort of relationship do you have where you are not permitted to be right?"

I think the question is flawed. The question suggests that these two things are mutually exclusive. They are not.

If the question were directed at two people in a relationship, then here is what I suggest: I like the idea of two strong independent people who come together as long as they choose to. The relationship does not dominate the individual. The individual is revered over the relationship.

If the question is applied to consensus based community, I suppose one person could race to every other person and say "do you want to be right or do you want to be in community?" - and what that one person is really saying is "do as I say or you have to leave our community".

For me, my "being right" is more important than any relationship. I would rather be alone and be right. And then, in time, there is that one in 20,000 chance that there is somebody else that feels the same way about themselves and their "right" is very aligned with mine.

I thought the podcast was pretty good. I enjoy lots of different points of view, and feel it is especially interesting to explore viewpoints I initially find distasteful or uncomfortable. I agree wholehearted with Mr. Wheaton, sometimes when in a relationship, people simply have to be able to disagree and not have the relationship hinge on the point of view being absolutely the same, no matter what.

The question, in my mind, is always that we must find a way to foster community while retaining the indiviudal right to disagree vehemently. This point of nuance in American culture has disappeared and now there is one right way to think and all others are baloney. I find this to be a destructive force in community, culture and individual life.

So you don't agree? Good. Does that mean people have to hate one another or bad talk each other? I certainly hope there is an ability to learn to respect each other enough as human beings that one can find the common ground to agree to disagree. Individuals shouldn't have to mold themselves to fit into the group; they should be able to share and agree or compromise or disagree and still remain friendly through it all. Some of the best new ideas are forged in a disagreement that, while spirited, doesn't challenge the existence of the relationship.

I started a Linux Users Group with people a while back, and eventually quit attending because nobody wanted to develop a good group that would last despite who participated. Nobody wanted to do the hard work of creating content to present to the group. So it became kind of a social club. Eh, not what I was super interested in at the time. I don't think they even meet anymore. Kind of sad really.

Keep up the great work Mr. Wheaton, despite the haters! I look forward to your podcasts and especially the videos on neat items of permaculture. I am hoping to build my first Rocket Mass stove this summer, for winter vegetable growth. Maybe even talk the wife into including one in the living room....we shall see!

Cheers!

paul wheaton wrote:The question was "do you want to be right, or be in a relationship?"

I think the question is seriously fucked up. It basically puts forth the premise that you cannot be in a relationship unless you sacrifice your values and your decency and are willing to become wholly a servant to another. I would like to modify the question to "what sort of relationship do you have where you are not permitted to be right?"

I think the question is flawed. The question suggests that these two things are mutually exclusive. They are not.

I completely see your point and agree. But now that I've given it some more thought it is perhaps not so much that the question is flawed but that it is used in a wrong context. It is alright to ask this when people (such as a married couple) argue over nothing, e.g. wife/husband complains that her/ his husband/ wife is too lazy and or makes too much of a mess in the kitchen or something trivial like that. In those cases it might be a good idea to ask yourself whether this is such a big deal and do I want to keep on complaining about this trivial issue - even though I might be right (he really is lazy) it certainly doesn't make me happy when I keep saying it over and over again, all it does is alienate me from him.

However, if it is about your deepest values then no, one should NOT ask questions like this. No one should have to give up their deepest values or decency just to be in a relationship.

So basically I think the question is not all fucked up but the person who asked this in the context described in the podcast probably was fucked up, ie. misusing and abusing the question. The question is suited to trivial fight-over-nothing issues only.

I agree with Chris Holly too: "Individuals shouldn't have to mold themselves to fit into the group; they should be able to share and agree or compromise or disagree and still remain friendly through it all. Some of the best new ideas are forged in a disagreement that, while spirited, doesn't challenge the existence of the relationship. "

With age, if you keep learning, you will find you no longer agree with your younger self... It isn't about being right, it is about being respectful of others who have not yet reached your level of "enlightenment". Notice, I am being sarcastic.

I am nearly 53 years old, with lots of experience. When I look back on myself at 40, I think I was pretty naive, and the 40 year old looked back on 30, as being very naive, etc.

You learn, in time, that you are wrong, you just don't know where yet.

I have friends because I respect them where they are, as long as they respect me. It is never about being right, because honestly, no one is. We only really know enough to be dangerous at any given time, and those who are the most wrong, are those who think they are right.

By the way, even though I think of myself as pretty naive when I was younger, I did accomplish a lot. One goes with what they know, and usually, that is enough. Those who are the failures are those who never start, and only criticize others.

Being humble doesn't mean you aren't confident, it is realizing that you aren't in charge of the universe, so who cares if everyone agrees with you?

Fred Morgan wrote:
It is never about being right, because honestly, no one is. We only really know enough to be dangerous at any given time, and those who are the most wrong, are those who think they are right.

Now this is taking the discussion again to a new level. This is also true. I'm tempted to quote Fukuoka: "Humanity knows nothing". Right and wrong are examples of the dicotomy inherent in the way humans think. In nature there is no right or wrong.

Nina Jay wrote:Now this is taking the discussion again to a new level. This is also true. I'm tempted to quote Fukuoka: "Humanity knows nothing". Right and wrong are examples of the dicotomy inherent in the way humans think. In nature there is no right or wrong.

Being confident you are right, just says that you are not as knowledgeable and wise as you think you are.

The truth is, we work with what we currently understand, and it is good to be convinced you have tried to get to the truth of the matter, but always leave yourself room to admit you were wrong. Those who don't, walk off the cliff like lemmings.

Fred Morgan wrote:
Being confident you are right, just says that you are not as knowledgeable and wise as you think you are.

There is a lot of truth there ..... and .... it depends

Recently, I saw somebody say

If rocket stoves are half as good at squeezing usable heat out of a stick of wood as their proponents make them out to be, sign me up, but in the meantime the hyped numbers surrounding them really only mystifies the subject.

This is in response to a message I posted with a link to my rocket mass heater article which I prefaced with "A rocket stove is for cooking. A rocket mass heater is for heating your home."

So, do I want to be right, or do I want to be in a relationship? Am I right? Am I on a growth path and should doubt my right?

I think it is fair to question your own position when there are many schools of thought which rest upon similar knowledge sets.

In this case, the person was told about the difference between rocket stoves and rocket mass heaters. And chooses to ignore that. Then the person decides to used the word "hyped" and hasn't read the article where the numbers are explained.

Therefore, I want to qualify "Being confident you are right, just says that you are not as knowledgeable and wise as you think you are." with "it depends."

It is true, hyped-guy could be on to something. On the other hand, it seems like the information he presents would be of greater value if he had put in more than 12 seconds to attempt to understand what was being discussed.

And then my bigger point: I feel that 90% of the conversations I have that have some tinge of conflict are where the other party hasn't even bothered with the wikipedia summary. So I guess I'm going to set my confidence level really high most of the time.

So .... YES! A lot of truth in that statement. And ... sometimes ... I arrogantly do feel pretty confident in my right-i-tude.

There is a balance to be sure. For example, I know a lot about tropical trees - but I am still learning. But, when someone question my knowledge, I don't get defensive. For example, I can't tell you how many times we have been questions and at times people have said we must be lying about our growth rates. I just respond that I can't fudge the numbers to be more in line with what others are doing. And we are within the the limits. And I have actually pioneered a few techniques that people are starting to use that is really helping the local farmer be able to reforest.

By the way, just so you know, I am not implying anything regarding yourself Paul, just general observations. More likely, I am aiming at those who won't give you a fair hearing because they are sure their ignorant opinion must be right. One thing that has helped me in the past as well is never assume anyone is aiming at me. If you wish to pick a fight with me (not you, anyone), you are going to have to be really obvious, otherwise, I am going to act like I must be reading what someone said wrong, because surely someone wouldn't be so poorly raised as to talk like that...

And, I know that the rocket stove works as said, because I tried one just to see. Heck, couldn't have taken me more than 20 minutes, total, to run an experiment to convince me it was pretty great technology.
It is one of those brilliant ideas that when you learn about it you think, now why didn't I figure that out? Probably the best response is something like "yeah, I can understand not believing it, but why not give it a try, even if it is half, wouldn't it be great? I would be thrilled if you can show me where I am wrong"

I have decided after many years of being combative, that if someone wants to pick a fight with me, they are going to have to work really hard... :

After all, if they don't follow my advice, etc, how am I a loser? It is they who are going to learn the hard way, if ever.

just wanted to say i enjoyed the podcast, where i live i don't know anyone around me who practises permaculture, let alone heard of the word, and i remember spending years trying to show and explain how easily a lot of these work etc........what follows are just blank faces or no doubt a bit of sniggering and running off to the shop to buy something from monsanto ! i have to know what i am doing is right , which it is !!!

A little more on this, we live in Costa Rica where people strive to get along. You can be weird here and no one goes out of their way to try to get you to conform. Sure, they might call you the Gringo loco, but in a amused, tolerant way (until things start working, then you are the alien ... I kid you not). I think that the USA is very combative - look at the politics. It isn't enough that your opponent is wrong, in your opinion, no, they must be EVIL. Too often people put a moral value on whether you agree with them or not.

I have tended to be alone for most of my life - but I have a few very good friends. One is my wife. The truth is, how many friends do you need? I suspect Paul has more friends and people who admire him than most people, so what a few people (or heck even a majority) think he is a jerk? Building a community is about attracting people who are like you and you have skills that can support you. It isn't about allowing anyone in who wants to be in.

Honestly something I learned in business is that those who are available often are not the ones you want. The people you want are those who are busy and doing things. For example, if Paul, Ernie, myself, Sepp, etc all got together in a group, would you believe there would be almost no friction? As long as I have the freedom to experiment and build things and you don't make things a pig sty, well I am easy to get along with. Oh, and give me space when I don't want to talk to anyone. If you want to build a community, I would suggest recruiting, more than open enrollment. Of course, this is easier for me because when I find someone I want to be with us, I just hire them. - and fire them if they don't work out.

My friendships tend to be around doing something together - not just "hanging out". I am a ubergeek and never have been able to figure out this "just hanging out" thing. I used to be sad because I felt left out of society, but then it occurred to me it was society telling me I should feel sad. Nope, now I am happy with a few friends and having people visit us who I find interesting.

Most of the rest of the world just tries to exist - they find me uncomfortable.

Lots of good stuff from many.... especially Morgan, in my opinion. Questions came to mind. Can I maintain my 'rightness' (whatever that is) if someone attacks my position? and/or me personally? Or do I give them the power to threaten my 'identity' (my peace) by such a challenge? Whether stated personally or not, do I have to take it personally?

Can I not give a rat's ass what he/she thinks, and simultaneously maintain my peace? I have found the hard way, and far too late (I'm 65), that folks like me a lot better when I DGARA, and I also enjoy them a lot more when I DGARA what they think - who knew!! I'm free to respond to them peacefully, whether they denounce me as a heretic, make demands, etc.... or not ;) Giving others the power to upset me is just not good for me, or them (per Morgan ;)

And, I have also learned, much to my know-it-all surprise, that I'm actually quite ignorant, and that 'having' to be right is a pain. I think I know some stuff, and I prefer some things, but realizing how dense I truly am has been a very liberating process. Clinging to fundamentalist, true-believer certainty (in any area) is one way to achieve security; but it may require blinding oneself to "... the bliss of action, the glory of growth and the splendor of beauty..." (BTW, I agree with Morgan that 'security', however defined, is in exceptionally short supply in our No Am culture.)

A factoid - per some expert - 85% or so of us are mainly extroverts (i.e., we become uncomfortable when alone for long) and the minority of us are mainly introverts who, while enjoying folks, become uncomfortable without significant alone time. An indicator is, are your 'batteries' recharged or drained by being with, or without, people - not levels of enjoyment, but actual energy levels. Understanding, that 'batteries' are designed to be regularly depleted and recharged ;) This may have a bearing on different valuations of 'relationship' and 'rightness' .... ?

(Paul protects us so carefully and kindly from personal attackers in his 'evil kingdom', I wish we could protect him from them in the really 'evil' external world... but no can do. I wish those inconsiderate goofs understood that he'll be off to his own land one day soon, and we'll lose a great deal of his generous time, attention and knowledge ;)

Hi,

I, too, enjoyed your podcast. I really admire your willingness to be unpopular. I also want to say, "ban away". There are so many blogs whose comment sections I really looked forward to reading but that have become so troll infested that I no longer read them. It isn't necessary to provide a forum for everyone. You don't have to let people poison the well in the name of openness. It's really sad that so many people let that happen.

I also agree that consensus driven organizations have a tendency to become huge time sinks where no one will make a decision and nothing ever gets done without endless angst and multiple meetings. I'm a member of one right now and every time I leave a meeting (when I can force myself to go) I think, "there's two hours of my life I won't get back." I'd probably scare a lot of people if they knew what my ideal society would look like; I sometimes say that I am a liberal with fascist tendencies. But, I really do think that most people want leadership. Not someone to dictate their every step but someone with vision and plan to see that vision come to be. I've come to the belief that even chickens want purpose in their lives (they will spend their days searching out bugs even with a full food dish) and it is the absence of purpose that underlies so much of the discontent in our society.

I do think the idea behind the question "would you rather be right, or be in a relationship" isn't truly a choice between capitulation or being alone. I think it's about choosing your battles and seeing, clearly, the consequences of choices you make. I say this as someone who has never actually watched Dr. Phil so I don't know that this is his interpretation, but I think, it's about prioritizing and basing our decisions on the way things are rather than the way we think they should be. So if the reality of someone's current situation is that winning an argument will cost him his relationship, then that is the reality and he has to decide what his priority is. If someone is unhappy with the number of relationships/friendships she has, then she has two choices: learn to be happy with her lot in life, or make changes to way she interacts with people.

Sasha

Sasha Goldberg wrote:Hi,
But, I really do think that most people want leadership. Not someone to dictate their every step but someone with vision and plan to see that vision come to be.

That is probably true. I for one am one of those people who may look like they need leadership but who in fact doesn't like to be lead at all All I really want is conversation and then I like to make my own decisions myself. I respond very kindly when someone comes and tells me how I ought to do things, I am truly grateful that someone cares about what I do enough to comment it and make suggestions. But I often don't follow those suggestions or follow only 1/10 of them which then later makes the that person angry who tried to give me what was in her mind a very good piece of advice.

This has happened to me more times than I care to count and the end result is that me and that person do not really get along anymore. Which is very sad. But I've noticed time and again that many other people do not have the will to discuss things endlessly like I do and they just decide they'd rather not be friends with me when I thought the discussion was just about to get really interesting

Is it so that many people think the point of conversations is to make the other one agree with you? I do not think so, I'm one of those who likes to think we all don't have to agree and everyone should do what they think is best and be their own boss. But I can see that if everyone was like me that wouldn't be a good thing, on the contrary, it would be chaos.

I posted about this podcast in the tinkering forum but want to also add my two cents here:

If the “friends” need me to go along with values and belief systems that I don’t agree with, and if they mock and disdain the things that I do, then they are not friends. I would much rather be alone than be with people like that. And that is pretty much every one I know.
My own company is not so bad, and I can connect with my virtual friends for an exchange of mutually appreciated thoughts and ideas.
But do I need to be ‘right’? I’m never right – but I do need to be true to myself; right, wrong or otherwise.

I've been on this Earth a couple years now, and it's been my observation and experience that in ones quest (or need) to be right, there is typically an equal (and sometimes greater) need for "those others" to be wrong.

Neil Evansan wrote:I've been on this Earth a couple years now, and it's been my observation and experience that in ones quest (or need) to be right, there is typically an equal (and sometimes greater) need for "those others" to be wrong.

Every action has an equal and opposite reaction. If I say, "I am trying the following, and it works for me" someone may share what is working for them. If I say "I am reforesting in the tropics and you should too". Well, now we are going to get into an argument.

One of the things most important in permaculture regarding plants, is diversity and understanding that having a field of wheat isn't nearly as good as having a food forest. Well, take the same idea relationships. I may be a wonderful person full of wisdom and insight (hah!) but that doesn't mean that the world needs to have only people like me... after all, as shown my my recent mishap with a machete, you need people who are good with a machete and not such deep thinkers that they have accidents while using one. lol

I think it is a question of degree.If I had to be right about everything I would probrably be very annoying. Having met people like this(thankfully very few God bless them!) I found continually debating exhausting and after a while wouldn't bother.It's important to be able to decide if a particular hill is worth dying on .

This thread happens to be my reading material while on the throne so my reply will be breif.... some people are like porcupines... lots of good points but no one wants to get close.

I have a thirst for knowledge and find it impossible not to share things I've learned with everyone. It's not about being right or wrong, just sharing. But when people say I'm wrong in an attacking way I get upset and sensitive so these days I often spend a lot of time alone. I'm happier that way. Does that mean I pick 'being right' over having friends? I think so, but some people need to care about the details so it's not a bad thing.

I was reading through a psychology book the other day I picked up at costco. One section of it, which I have found to be true, was titled "truth is more tolerated when it is self-discovered". I think the best leaders are the best planters. That is they know which seeds to plant in peoples minds to guide their thinking while keeping the other persons self-respect intact.

"Do you want to be right or do you want to have friends?"

I want to have friends..... who think I'm right. LOL

Petra Smirnoff wrote:It's not about being right or wrong, just sharing.

I like this. I think it is possible.

"Out beyond ideas of wrongdoing and rightdoing, there is a field. I'll meet you there.
When the soul lies down in that grass,the world is too full to talk about
language,ideas, even the phrase 'each other' doesn't make any sense."
Rumi

I suspect that, when people talk about "being right" in contexts like that, what they usually mean is "being recognized by others as being in the right", rather than actually "being correct".

Fred Morgan wrote:. One thing that has helped me in the past as well is never assume anyone is aiming at me. If you wish to pick a fight with me (not you, anyone), you are going to have to be really obvious, otherwise, I am going to act like I must be reading what someone said wrong, because surely someone wouldn't be so poorly raised as to talk like that...

I admire this philosophy. I on the other hand, always assume that whatever is disagreeably said - is aimed at me. Defensiveness. wonder where it comes from. I have noticed that people who are not defensive seem much happier.

anyway, thank you. I appreciate your comment, and am going to see if I can alter my stance.

nancy sutton wrote:A factoid - per some expert - 85% or so of us are mainly extroverts (i.e., we become uncomfortable when alone for long) and the minority of us are mainly introverts who, while enjoying folks, become uncomfortable without significant alone time.

I think this expert is probably North American. Our culture favors extroverts. And most people who have come of age in the internet era, rarely if ever experience solitude. They clutch their cells like talisman. (Morris Berman's phrase). I see it all the time. Even if they are not using them, people hold them and stroke them. Kinda like we used to do with teddy bears when we were 3.

I have read that the young go to sleep with their cells under their pillows.
So afraid to be cut-off!
And yet I believe that we need silence and solitude we need reflection and contemplation.

How can be hope to solve the problems of our world if we never take time to reflect, to be still?

I also like my own company, but I don't find connection online. I still seek friends in real life, altho it is hard. There is a quote I remember from some 50 years ago - along the lines of:
"there is no loneliness like that of the mind unable to find comprehension by others"

I think we humans want to be comprehended, to be "gotten" more so than to be right. At least I do. I don't care if some one agrees with me or not, as long as they get what I'm saying.

As far as being "right" - everyone says what they think is right. No one is going to go around thinking something that they think is wrong. Right?

Jeanine Gurley wrote:I posted about this podcast in the tinkering forum but want to also add my two cents here:

If the “friends” need me to go along with values and belief systems that I don’t agree with, and if they mock and disdain the things that I do, then they are not friends. I would much rather be alone than be with people like that. And that is pretty much every one I know.
My own company is not so bad, and I can connect with my virtual friends for an exchange of mutually appreciated thoughts and ideas.
But do I need to be ‘right’? I’m never right – but I do need to be true to myself; right, wrong or otherwise.

I'm of the mindset that I'm going to do what I think is right for me and my family/community. Anyone who would like to help or add to my knowledge base, is more than welcome to do so. If they'd like to sit and watch from a distance, that's OK too. But if they wish to obstruct or be negative about how I'm doing things, screw em. I don't have time to fight people on any matter. I'm not one to fight, I'll just walk away but if I'm not permitted to walk away, then I'll go nuclear to prove my point. I've ended a number of friendships over fundamental disagreements. In all cases the other person eventually realized that I was "right", but by then it's too late. I generally don't give people a second chance to screw me over. It's not about being right, for me it's about preserving my integrity and respect.


That being said, I'm always open to new ideas and am readily willing to admit what I don't know or when I'm wrong.