(The full title, which won't fit in the journal title header: 'Thought for the Day: Admitting That You're Wrong Can Help You Win Arguments')

We like to think we're rational people. In some senses we are, but we make so many decisions based on emotions far more readily than we do on the faculties of logic and reasoning, and this happens way more than we'd like to admit.

One trend I notice among so many people in my newsfeed on FaceBook happens something like this:

1) Person A posts an incredible claim, possibly with certain citation of sources (usually just a single article).
2) Person B posts evidence that contradicts claims shared by Person A, which could very well include well-rounded arguments that completely destroy the claims made by Person A.
3) Person A responds by saying that Person B's sources are "untrustworthy," often without giving any solid, argued reasons as to why this is the case.

So what's going on here? In my candid opinion, Person A is unwilling to believe in the credibility of Person B's source because it disagrees with the original position. It's a knee-jerk reaction to being called out for being wrong. This effect is generally compounded when the original claim has to do with a political or religious stance. "Oh, well, you can't trust [source] because they support [political party I don't like/religion I don't follow], so everything they say is a lie intended to destroy America."

^That's hyperbole in how people word their responses, but that's probably alarmingly close to the mark emotionally if people are being honest with themselves. We don't like to be wrong, and there are likely a number of reasons that cause us to feel so avoidant towards being seen as being wrong. I particularly like to blame, at least in part, our educational system's foundation of punishing wrong answers, which breeds generations of people afraid of being wrong and who go to great lengths to avoid being seen as having made any such faux pas. What's more, our culture seems to be dramatically increasing in our general senses of arrogance and insecurity, where we feel the need to "win" arguments so we can be temporarily placed "above" someone else. We feel like we're losing some position in the eyes of our peers if we're wrong about something, even something petty. We've turned truth into a zero-sum game of social status.

I'm going to offer an alternative: What we're really after when we engage in these arguments is the comfort that comes from believing we know the truth. We want to know that what we think and believe about the universe in which we live is correct, because with knowledge comes control, important because control staves off fear-inducing uncertainty. It's generally summed up in that motto plastered across middle school posters reading, "Knowledge Is Power." So how do we get over this fear of the unknown to admit that we just don't know an answer? There are at least a few options, and more likely that there are about as many ways to skin this cat as there are people alive today.

First, admit to yourself that you can't possibly ever know everything. Our brains, in all their awesomeness, can only store a limited amount of data; even worse, they can only effectively collate a fraction of the data they can store for the sake of comprehension and application. Having the humility to embrace this first admission is probably the first best step in quelling some of that ego that wants you to be right more than is healthy.

Second, understand that, like you, nobody has a monopoly on truth. No person or organization knows everything. Heck, this entire article I'm writing could even be a load of malarky. Who the heck am I to know to tell you how to live your life? Understanding this mindset that every person and group is flawed on some level gives us the license to critically question all sources of information, and not just those with which we disagree in a knee-jerk response. What's more, even though a source may be wrong on some things doesn't mean it's wrong on all things, so each individual nugget of information is worth weighing with this sort of criticism when it starts to create a strong emotional response in us, whether that emotional response is positive or negative.

Third, step back from the information and ask yourself what you're really feeling and why. Is a new article making you feel like your worldview is threatened? Why? What's the worst thing that could actually and reasonably happen as a result of this information being true or untrue? Write down a brainstorm session on this if it's a severe enough response--it could end up helping you organize your thoughts and figure out why you're suddenly angry at that distant relative who just posted an emotional editorial taking a stance on gun laws or prayer in schools with which you disagree. I admit myself that I feel a pang every time I see friends of mine constantly bashing on Obama, because it makes me worried that they want to side with a political party intent on treating me with prejudice just because I'm gay; so I have to remind myself that my friends don't actually feel that way about my sexual orientation, and it's a false dichotomy to say that, "By rejecting A, you must support B." By taking this kind of breather, you could prevent yourself from writing a scathing response you'll later regret after it burns some bridges. You're going to have immediate emotional responses, and that's okay--just try your best to not act rashly on them.

Fourth, detach your ego from your body of knowledge and belief systems. What you know or believe is not the be-all-end-all of who you are as a person. This should hopefully stem naturally as a result from Step 3. Just remember that you are a complex, multi-faceted, beautiful, amazing person. You have so many unique life experiences, dreams, hopes, ambitions, fears, friends, achievements, and other qualities that make you who you are. Remember how much love you have within you, and work on manifesting that both towards yourself and towards others. This will set you up for Step 5:

Finally, approach the conversation with a tempered mind willing to absorb different positions. Open up an inviting dialogue that clearly defines the position you initially had, whether or not that has been changed and why, and what you may be feeling about the whole matter. If you find your belief system or body of knowledge changing based on new information, then it can help to express this openly. Showing that level of humility can help others be more amicable in exchanging ideas with you, and that's how the pursuit of truth should happen: Instead of trying to "win" an argument, we should be presenting differing nuggets of information or beliefs with the intent of coming a little bit closer to objective truth by the end of this exchange of ideas.

This is how truly civil debates happen--they are comprised of people who have no sense of ego attached to knowledge or beliefs, because all parties are simply trying to reach closer to the truth by understanding that nobody knows it all or has all the answers. It's only by working together, by combining the collective brainpower of our limited individual ability to collate and comprehend that we can ultimately find objective truth that leads to a higher quality of life for all, and that's when we truly win.