— Teach Your Opponent a Thing or Two

The pervasive psychology of “being right” is a plague. It’s not about objective, physical realities. Sure, 1+1 equals 2. Gravity will have its way with you if you jump from a height. Poison in sufficient quantity will end you. These are the inarguable truths of physical existence.

But let’s cut through. I’m diving into the murky waters of opinion, preference, belief, and faith. Here’s where it gets contentious. Billions of people cling to faith about natural phenomena and origins, babbling from both sides of their mouth. One moment it’s faith; the next, they’re throwing pseudoscientific justifications at you. Why? Faith, by definition, doesn’t require evidence. It thrives on the absence or contradiction of it.

This lust for “rightness” feeds the beast—organizations, institutions, corporations, governments, political and activist groups, universities, and that parasitic elite. Universities once were the crucible for debate, for intellectual rigor. Now? They’re indoctrination camps for institutional narratives.

Asserting “rightness” fuels antagonism, and it’s these entities that profit in wealth, influence, and power. Even ethical and moral stances are twisted. From genocidal regimes justifying mass slaughter for the “greater good” to the “Robin Hood” ethos—it’s all a moral facade to justify heinous actions.

Debating online or face-to-face, you’re stepping into quicksand when you claim ultimate truth. Here’s a radical thought, a business-like approach:

You want to adopt a philosophical, epistemological stance of likely being wrong.

Aim to be less wrong instead. Scrutinize your stance, ditch the weakest links, and reformulate something stronger, more tenable.

Now, flip this strategy on your opponent. You’re not accusing them of wrongness; you’re refining their arguments. Identify the shakiest parts of their stance, offer alternatives gently, and integrate them into a revised, less wrong position. People are more apt to agree with an improved argument rather than a blunt “I’m right, you’re wrong.”

So, when you debate, don’t just aim to be less wrong yourself—help your opponent be less wrong, too. That’s persuasion. That’s how you prevail. Not by driving them into your corner, but by guiding them away from their own errors. It’s an art. It’s subtle. It’s effective. And it’s how you win.

Remember, prevailing isn’t about claiming victory. It’s about moving the conversation forward. It’s about progress. And that’s how it’s done.

If you think hard on it, you might recognize this as a business approach.