Let Them Be Wrong — Transcript

Full transcript

1. 0:01We’re often deeply concerned with whether  others are right or wrong. And let’s face it:
2. 0:08when we hear people spouting utter nonsense  about subjects like history, politics,
3. 0:14or different cultures, it can be difficult not  to speak up and correct them. For some reason,
4. 0:20we want them to get it right; we want them to  know and understand how things actually are.
5. 0:28But as many of us have probably experienced,  people who are wrong often don’t want to be
6. 0:33corrected. And when we try, they seem  uninterested or even irritated by
7. 0:39information that challenges their beliefs. It’s  as if they don’t want their minds changed and
8. 0:45couldn’t care less about what’s actually true. It’s pretty frustrating. Especially when they come
9. 0:52in groups, all repeating the same misinformation,  hostile to anything that challenges their
10. 0:58convictions, as if they’re trapped in their  own ideological version of Plato’s cave.
11. 1:05Why do people behave like this? Why are they  so infuriating? And how do we deal with them
12. 1:10without letting them get under our skin? This  video explores how to handle ignorance wisely
13. 1:17and prevent it from becoming our problem. My name is Stefan. If you enjoy my work,
14. 1:24you can subscribe to my newsletter on  Substack. You can also support me on Patreon,
15. 1:28and my books are available on Amazon. Thank  you, and I hope you’ll enjoy this video.
16. 1:42We humans are, by and large, eager for the truth.  We want to know why things are as they are. We
17. 1:50want to know why we’re here, why the people  around us behave as they do, or whether our
18. 1:55loved ones are being honest with us. We want  to know what our elected officials are up to,
19. 2:01whether they’re secretly being paid or doing  something fishy behind the scenes. We want to
20. 2:06know whether something is real or AI-generated,  whether someone is genuine or fake.
21. 2:13We are, on the whole, truth seekers, always  searching for answers to make sense of a world
22. 2:20that’s constantly changing and, at times,  seems elusive. Whether we can ever arrive
23. 2:25at “the truth” is, of course, a matter  of philosophical debate. But we can at
24. 2:31least try to come as close as possible,  guided by things like empirical evidence,
25. 2:36careful observation, and sound reasoning. And if  we value truth, the best we can do is adjust our
26. 2:43beliefs in light of the available evidence. Yet people don’t always seem particularly
27. 2:50interested in doing that. We encounter people  who confidently make claims with little evidence
28. 2:57to back them up, dismiss data that contradicts  their views, or rely on sources and people who
29. 3:03simply tell them what they want to hear and  confirm what they already believe. They seem
30. 3:10convinced that their version of reality is the  truth and that nobody can tell them otherwise.
31. 3:17We don’t see this only in political views  but also in everyday life. We see parents
32. 3:23who outright deny their mistakes and blame  their children’s struggles on things like
33. 3:29genetics rather than admitting the part they may  have played. We see partners who refuse to admit
34. 3:35that the relationship went downhill because they  wouldn’t communicate and instead blame it all on
35. 3:41us being dramatic. And whenever we challenge  their versions of what happened, they simply
36. 3:47don’t seem willing to really listen. Needless  to say, this can be deeply frustrating. It can
37. 3:54also become a profound source of resentment. So, why is it so difficult to tolerate people who
38. 4:01are clearly wrong and deny obvious facts? I guess  there are different reasons. Maybe it’s because we
39. 4:10dislike unfairness and injustice. Maybe because  we see them as threats, not just to ourselves or
40. 4:17people we care about, but to society as a whole.  Some false beliefs are dangerous; they can pave
41. 4:24the way for injustice and suffering. Hence, when false beliefs lead people
42. 4:30to support inhumane policies, we’re dealing  with more than just a difference of opinion.
43. 4:35We’re dealing with people accepting  nonsense to legitimize cruelty.
44. 4:41And precisely because of that, we may also suspect  that people who willingly cling to certain beliefs
45. 4:47(such as the idea that some groups are inherently  inferior or deserve fewer rights) simply aren’t
46. 4:54very good, empathetic, or well-meaning people;  that their convictions reveal something about who
47. 5:01they are. And that’s why they anger us, and why  we feel compelled to push back against them.
48. 5:09And so, we go online and try to school these  people in comment sections, teach them a lesson,
49. 5:15prove them wrong, ridicule their views, or  debunk their claims. But for some reason,
50. 5:21they just cannot be convinced. We may even end up  antagonizing and alienating them. Our pushback can
51. 5:28sometimes even strengthen their beliefs, because  they interpret our anger as proof that their
52. 5:34supposed “truth” is triggering the enemy, and  therefore that they must be onto something.
53. 5:40Fighting, therefore, seems useless. Convincing  someone they’re wrong and getting them to update
54. 5:47their beliefs in light of reason and evidence  only works if they’re receptive. Unfortunately,
55. 5:54many of these folks just couldn’t care less. Why is that? Well, philosopher Arthur Schopenhauer
56. 6:03had an interesting explanation for this. He  observed that people who engage in arguments
57. 6:08often aren’t very interested in finding out what’s  true… because something else is driving them.
58. 6:20A long, long time ago, I was having a fierce  discussion with a friend while having a few beers,
59. 6:26sitting outside at a bar. The subject of  this discussion happened to be religion,
60. 6:32a topic I was fairly knowledgeable about, partly  because of my academic background. After tens of
61. 6:39minutes into the discussion, something rather  annoying began to happen. My friend was so set
62. 6:45on winning the argument that he started using  lies and made up facts. I, pretty intoxicated
63. 6:53at that moment, got so angry because of the  unfairness in his speech that I made a scene.
64. 7:00When I look back on it, my friend wasn’t really  interested in the truth or in getting closer
65. 7:05to it through dialogue. He just wanted to  win. He wanted to be right. And to be fair,
66. 7:15winning the argument was also my goal, though  in my case, it was because I truly believed he
67. 7:20was wrong and wanted to set him straight. Schopenhauer observed something about people
68. 7:26arguing with each other. Often, their goal isn’t  to arrive at the truth but simply to be right.
69. 7:34And once winning becomes the goal, they may resort  to all kinds of dishonest tricks to defend their
70. 7:40position. He discovered, though, that these  tricks and dodges people use are usually the
71. 7:47same over and over, and easy to recognize. So, he compiled a highly sarcastic treatise
72. 7:54of notes on what he called “eristic dialectic,”  now commonly published as The Art of Being Right,
73. 8:01containing thirty-eight methods for defeating  one’s opponent in a debate, from ad hominem
74. 8:07attacks and interruptions to diversions and  deliberately making the opponent angry (in
75. 8:13the latter my friend clearly succeeded). Now, we could ask ourselves: what’s the use
76. 8:20of arguing with people who just want to win the  argument? What’s the point of wrestling with a
77. 8:25pig? Answer: there’s none. Or as Schopenhauer  put it: “Never combat any man’s opinion;
78. 8:33for though you reached the age of Methuselah, you  would never have done setting him right upon all
79. 8:38the absurd things that he believes.” End quote.
80. 8:43And yet, many of us just can’t stop themselves  from trying, by feeding the trolls in the comments
81. 8:49online or being rage-baited by that uncle at a  children’s birthday party who, for some reason,
82. 8:56thought it would be the right place for political  discourse. And before we know it, we’ve wasted
83. 9:01hours of our precious time on Earth. I think that one reason we let ourselves
84. 9:07be seduced by all the proverbial pigs is that we  tend to forget something very important about the
85. 9:13limits of our power. Let’s take a look at it.
86. 9:19As much as we want other people to understand
87. 9:22that they see things wrong, that their  arguments are flawed, and their beliefs
88. 9:27mistaken… whether someone changes their mind  about something is ultimately not up to us. I
89. 9:34don’t want to repeat the Stoic dichotomy  of control ad nauseam, but once again,
90. 9:39it proves to be a useful piece of wisdom for  reflecting on what we’re actually trying to do.
91. 9:45Suppose we’re trying to debunk an anonymous user  in the comment section of a political video. In
92. 9:51such an attempt, we usually try two things. First,  we aim to craft the best possible counterargument
93. 9:59to refute this person’s claims. Second, we  try to convince this invisible stranger that
94. 10:06they’re wrong; we hope that our argument will  make them see their mistake and, preferably,
95. 10:12admit it and adjust their thinking. Now, from a Stoic perspective, the first
96. 10:18thing is largely within our control. The second  thing, however, is not. We can create the best,
97. 10:26strongest, most complete argument ever written  in human history about that particular topic, but
98. 10:32that still doesn’t guarantee that the people we’re  trying to convince will change their minds.
99. 10:39There’s no problem if we’re okay with that.  But many people aren’t. They don’t just want to
100. 10:44present a good argument; they also want to change  the other person’s mind, and they’re emotionally
101. 10:51invested in doing so. They seem to believe  that, if they wrestle with the pig long enough,
102. 10:59it might eventually turn into a beautiful Arabian  horse, only to end up frustrated, disappointed,
103. 11:06and defeated when it doesn’t. When we care too much about people’s
104. 11:12faulty beliefs and opinions, whether  they’re our friends, parents, spouses,
105. 11:17or nameless people online, we put ourselves in  a position where they can easily affect us.
106. 11:23And because they affect us, we may feel hurt,  feel compelled to do something about it,
107. 11:28or even become angry, especially when we realize  we can’t change them. In doing so, we give these
108. 11:35people enormous power over us: over our feelings,  our thoughts, and the actions that follow.
109. 11:42We become susceptible to rage bait. People who  enjoy provoking others can easily get a rise out
110. 11:49of us, because they know we’re bothered by what  they think and say, and they simply enjoy seeing
111. 11:54us upset. Others lure us into discussions with the  sole intention of defeating us in an argument and
112. 12:02getting an ego boost. In other cases, we may be  bothered by the beliefs of people close to us.
113. 12:08But what can we actually do? People will  think what they think and say what they
114. 12:14say. According to the Stoics, we’re better  off letting go of what isn’t in our control
115. 12:20and focusing our attention on what is.
116. 12:26I’m not saying we should never correct
117. 12:27someone. Speaking up for what’s right can  be a good thing. From a Stoic perspective,
118. 12:34depending on our role and responsibilities, it  may even be our duty to speak up and defend what
119. 12:41is just. When something important is genuinely  at stake, it’s better not to remain silent.
120. 12:48However, if we’re honest with ourselves, in  many cases, trying to change the minds of
121. 12:53people who don’t want to change just isn’t  worth our time. According to Schopenhauer,
122. 13:00it’s also better to avoid correcting  people’s mistakes in conversation;
123. 13:04“for it is easy to offend people, and  difficult, if not impossible, to mend them.”
124. 13:10And so, whenever we hear one of our  parents twisting the past again,
125. 13:14or that uncle blurting out his absurd political  views, or we see that simpleton in the comment
126. 13:20section barking up the wrong tree, we can also  just leave them be. Just let them be wrong. Don’t
127. 13:28correct them. Let them be ignorant. Let them  talk nonsense. Or, as Schopenhauer said:
128. 13:35“If you feel irritated by the absurd remarks  of two people whose conversation you happen
129. 13:40to overhear, you should imagine that you  are listening to a dialogue of two fools
130. 13:46in a comedy.” End quote.
131. 13:49There have always been fools, and there will  be no shortage of them in the future. Having a
132. 13:55brain is clearly no guarantee that we know how to  use it. Ignorance knows no bounds, and there has
133. 14:02never been a point in history when our species  was free of its seemingly infinite capacity for
134. 14:09idiocy. In that sense, stupidity is as natural  to us as having arms and legs. We can fight it,
135. 14:17but we’ll never eradicate it. So, quite ironically, in many cases,
136. 14:23accepting that ignorance is part of human  nature and simply letting it be may actually
137. 14:29be the wiser choice.
138. 14:34Thank you for watching.