There’s nothing ego loves more than to be right, which makes it an important and satisfying attachment to practice letting go of.” – Dr. Wayne W. Dyer

Almost nothing in this world comes close to the importance people put on the notion of “being right.” The conviction of one’s beliefs, and the degree to which an individual will stand firm in those beliefs, can certainly be an admirable quality. But what happens when you have conflicting beliefs between parties whose convictions are adamantine? Well, things like World Wars come to mind, polarizing partisan politics, family feuds, and inane boxer/brief debates. Worse, what happens when emotions trump reason when it comes to expressing our opinions? In those situations, you can expect Jerry Springer melees on stage, mob violence in the streets, and vitriolic United States Congressional hearings.

So, how the hell did we ever get to a place where our opinions became so important that we would sacrifice, literally, anything and everything just to feel vindicated in those opinions? The short answer is: at some point in our lives we began to attach our opinions to our egos. The moment we completely self-identify with our beliefs, opinions and actions, is the moment when “being right” takes on a whole new importance in our lives. Regardless of how many times I am baited by self-opinionated zealots to “defend” my personal political or religious views, I refuse to bite. What I have often found to be the case with such people is not a sincere desire (on their part) to have an intellectual debate on issues, but rather to obdurately spew out a barrage of prepared talking points in an attempt to intimidate, and silence, the “opposing view.”

For these type of individuals, being right is tantamount to standing on an Olympic podium, having a Gold Medal hung around their necks, while raising their middle fingers high in the air. For them, it is such an ego-satisfying achievement to “win” their arguments that they don’t really care how many lies they have to tell, who they have to denigrate to make their point, or what is being said by the individual who is countering their position. They will do whatever is necessary to satisfy that insatiable egoic need to be right.

Now, here’s a question for you: have you ever witnessed a humble person act in this way? Of course not. By it’s very nature, humility demands that we not seek adoration for either our opinions or actions. A humble person would sooner smirk at someone’s foolish statement than engage in a heated debate with the individual. A humble person certainly has personal opinions just like everyone else. The difference is that ego doesn’t motivate this type of individual – a respect of other people’s opinions does. Humble people usually aren’t personally invested in their opinions to the same degree as egocentrics. They are more prone to listening to others instead of doing all the talking. For that very reason, people who practice humility are usually more open to rational arguments put to them, and more likely to amend their own opinions when they hear a sound argument politely offered.

I suppose the real question we must ask ourselves when we fall into the trap of “having to be right” is: “Do I want to be right, or do I want to be happy?” When you see two people, or two groups of people, in hot debate, screaming at each other at the top of their lungs, do you ever get any sense, at all, that these are “happy” people? Or are you witnessing people that are oftentimes emotionally out of control, and probably more inclined to spit in the face of their arguing opponent than give them a loving embrace after the debate is over? Think of the famous scene in the 1967 classic Cool Hand Luke, when the Captain hits Luke over the head with a blackjack billy club, knocking him to the ground, and then stating, “What we’ve got here is . . . failure to communicate.”

There was also a time, in the not-so-distant past, when many an individual, debating any issue whatsoever, could feel “self-satisfied” in the knowledge that he/she was “right,” and simply walk away from an argument when it got too heated. When did our egoic need to be right cause us to enter into a war of words with another like two gladiators in the Roman Coliseum – just so we can proclaim to the world (or, at least, to the person we’re arguing against) that we had “won” an argument? Without wasting too much time trying to answer when that occurred, the important thing to recognize is that it did occur. I have little doubt that the increase in the human ego’s obsession to be right, over the years, is directly proportionate to a steady increase in marital, relational and civil strife, not to mention an unprecedented degree of social intolerance towards the opposing views of our fellow human beings.

To add insult to injury, it also seems quite evident to me that most arguments debated today are usually between individuals who don’t rationally debate topics as much as they regurgitate talking points put out on social media by spin doctors and political ideologues. Of course, the secret to using nothing but talking points to defend one’s opinion is: when your talking points are challenged, or when you can’t quite remember what they are, one can always resort to the time-tested last resort of unleashing a diatribe of vitriolic epithets at his/her opponent. My demeaning another with a verbal barrage of insulting labels – racist, Nazi, Fascist, homophobe, xenophobe, misogynist, ad infinitum – the dumbest debater in the world can, at least, walk away from an argument thinking, “I sure told that idiot off!”

Oftentimes, in today’s world, that’s all it takes to be “right.”