How to Be Wrong (and why not knowing how will cost you)

Think back to the last time you found yourself in an unexpected argument.

(Cue: John Cleese, Michael Palin and Graham Chapman.)

I’ve gotten pretty good at avoiding them. They’re quite rare now.

But whenever it does happen, it almost always boils down to this issue:

WHO’S RIGHT?

As a kid, my arguments weren’t so trivial. It was usually a squabble with my brother or sister, and it was over who got that critical block or piece of Lego, or who had to sit in the middle seat, or who had to drink out of the ugly cup.

Important stuff like that. (Resources were scarce in those days.)

Being Right, on the other hand?

Wow, that kind of real estate is hard to find. When you do ... defend that turf for all you’re worth.

Or should you?

I suggest Not.

Being wrong is unpleasant. Aggravates your screaming inner chimpanzee.

Reminds you that you suck, you’re a waste of space, everybody hates you, your mother never really wanted you (and besides, she was a hamster and your father smelt of elderberries) ...

Being wrong reminds you of all your inner insecurities.

Being wrong reminds you of your inner INGE - I’m Not Good Enough.

BUT ...

Once you internalize the face that everybody has an INGE chimpanzee monster inside them ...

... and that they’re not really screaming at you, they’re screaming at their INGE ...

... (you just inadvertently and unknowing tripped their INGE) ...

... then you can afford to Be Wrong.

BIG ADVANTAGE.

Because you know the INGE is a liar. A petulant and insecure brat who just screams because that’s all it knows how to do.

You can ignore INGE.

Or better yet, grab it by the scruff of the neck, walk to the closet, throw it in, and close the door, (which is soundproofed, so INGE can rant and rage all he/she wants in there.

Unfortunately, the door has no lock. Once INGE has calmed down, he/she will let themself out, and lurk until the next opportunity.)

Once you’ve internalized, really internalized this fact about the screaming INGE’s of the world ...

... it takes all the pressure off.

You Don’t Have to Be Right.

You can Let Them Be Right. It’s OK.

Yes, there will be the odd occasion when The Fact somebody has to be right about is actually more important than whose weather app is giving the better forecast.

Like, Does the flight leave on Wednesday or Thursday? Yeah, being right about that is not so trivial.

But even then, it’s possibly to BE right without making the other person feel WRONG.

(This almost happened to me, btw. Was convinced we were leaving for Singapore on the Thursday, and was mighty perplexed when the Park-n-Fly app reminded me they were expecting us Wednesday.

They had it wrong, of course, so I called them up.

Ho-leee cow, am I glad I called. SCRAMBLE, start packing …)

If you can cultivate the Skill of Being Wrong When You’re Sure You’re Right ...

... your life will never be the same. Your blood pressure will thank you.

(Probably no one else will thank you, because they’re convinced they’re right. But it doesn’t matter. You’ve just avoided a parallel universe that stood to be a lot yuckier.)

The skill isn’t really Being Wrong, of course.

The skill is Not Being Desperate To Be Right.

Top notch, 21st Century skill. It will take you places, trust me. (I’m right about that.??)

What I’m currently reading

The Silva Mind Control Method (José Silva).

Have Vishen Lakhiani to thank for this one. His ad popped up on YouTube, and was so good, I actually watched it from beginning to end. (Hardly ever do that.)

He was, of course, trying to get me to buy his MindValley membership, but made the mistake of mentioning a book that he says changed his life. I’d heard of it, and was curious enough to think ... Why not go to the source?

Kindle, click ...

Here is a man (José Silva) who was (as far as I can tell) a devout Christian ... but open-minded enough to wonder if his religious upbringing might not have given him all the truth he needed to survive and thrive in the 20th Century ...

Open-minded enough to follow his curiosity, and discover facts and principles overlooked by those around him ...

... (and possibly long-forgotten by our ancestors) ...

The author uses one word repeatedly throughout the book:

EXPERIMENT

All the Silva mind Control teachings seem to be based on Jose Silva playing the role of Self-Appointed Scientist of the Mind. He reaches a hypothesis, runs an experiment, evaluates the results, tweak hypothesis, rinse, repeat ... until he reaches a steady conclusion.

Even then, he’s open about what his techniques work for, and what they don’t.

For example, his techniques work very well for losing weight, but not as well for quitting smoking.

He doesn’t know why, and is open about it.

I like that.

And he makes some intriguing suggestions in the book. For example, he suspects God and “a Higher Intelligence” ... are not the same being. (Although there again, it’s his suspicion, not a firm conclusion.)

All this from a humble Hispanic-American radio repair man, who just kept searching for ways to make his life, and the lives of his friends and family ... better. And who stayed curious and open-minded.

Much obliged, Vishen. (He seems like a cool dude, I’ll probably check his stuff out after I’ve finished Silva.)

Who I’m currently watching on YouTube:

Three different people, both in conversation with Tom Bilyeu. Neither one painting a rosy picture of the future for the human race.

First, Shanna Swan , talking about population collapse.

She points to growing infertility world-wide. In the 1960’s, couples averaged 5.4 kids world-wide. By 2010, it’s 2.6 and dropping.

(The necessary fertility rate for the human race to persist is 2.1. So we are getting perilously close. In most developed nations, it’s well below 2.1, and it’s South Korea, it’s below 1.0.)

A parallel factor is dropping sperm count. And she throws out the bombshell that the generally accepted 1% year-on-year decline in sperm count has been shown to be an under-estimate - it’s more like 2.5%.

She actually uses the expression “extinction”, and admits that a dominant cause has been widespread education of women (which she wholeheartedly supports - and who would disagree?) Educated women generally have fewer children.

What used to be a societal pyramid ... old people at the top, newborns at the bottom ... is rapidly turning into a vertical rectangle shape.

Bilyeu uses the expression “widespread economic collapse”, and Swan suggests that once we fall below the magic global average of 2.1 ... there’s no bouncing back from that.

Then, Chris Williamson …

… talking about the rapid decline of (particularly young) men seeking dates and partners.

His focus is on the quality of life of young men (i.e. aged 18-30), approximately 50% of whom he says currently have no sexual partners at all.

They use online porn and video games to deal with the primate urges ... which keeps them “sedated”, i.e. out of trouble (barely).

They are unattractive prospects for the young women, who are typically the ones doing the “selecting”. So this doesn’t bode well for them either. Most face a future where they will have to “share” one of the few high-value men, or remain single for life. (Not an appealing picture.)

Put Williamson’s and Swan’s findings together in a pot, and then stir in:

The mass unemployment forecast by Emad Mostaque (founder of Stability AI) for 1-2 years from now.

(Snippet: “AI will not replace humans. Humans with AI will replace humans without AI.”)

... and you have a future that looks frightening.

I’m not sure if I’m smart to be watching videos like these, or foolish.