Would you rather be right or keep a friend ?

Post Reply New Topic

Something I'm faced with at the moment!

Would I rather?
I can't answer that as a generic absolute.
It depends on the specifics of the matter in question.
And some matters are far more significant in life than some others are.

I'd rather keep friends who I can respect their views, while they respect mine.

Sure, we can have disagreements, but that's the way of things.

Last edited by UncannyDanny on 02 Mar 2022, 9:53 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Both, it's a curse of always being right. Disagreeing with a friend is the essence of being a friend.

Interesting question.

Sometimes you have to gloss over differences. Or you have to say something like "lets agree to disagree".

Depends on the situation.

There is a situation that I keep running in my head- a person who used to be in my life- a coworker. I replay a conversation I had with this person - to see if I can come up with "the right thing to have said" to maintain both honesty and our budding friendship. But no...there probably would have been no way. If I had been even half honest this person probably wouldve never spoken to me again. But maybe that woulda been a good thing.

Keep the friend. I personally feel that it is harder to find a real friend than it is to prove that I'm right.

A friendship based on avoiding the truth is not worth keeping.

Correct your friend. If he dumps you, consider yourself better off for it.

Shouldn't that depend on just how solid the "truth" is, as well as how important?

Not all truths are created equal, and that all assumptions that one is right are accurate.

Picking one's battles is a important life lesson.

Truth is both absolute and constant; friends are not.

Truth might be absolute and constant, but human perception of the truth is not. We may change our minds about the truth when we uncover new information or change our perspective. In general I think showing some intellectual humility is a good idea, but easier said than done!

this depends on the matter in question. as an example, if you're discussing what the best flavour of crisp is then losing a friend over that is ridiculous, not at all proportionate. better to agree to disagree, try and laugh about it and accept that this is part of all human-human relationships. if it's a much more fundamental matter that goes to the heart of you as a person e.g. a daily-relevant moral issue then that's a totally different matter. only you can judge that though.

Proven truth is often denied and replaced with popular or traditional beliefs. It has often been stated that many people will prefer a pleasant belief to an unpleasant truth.

Maybe some people fear supernatural consequences for casting off their religious beliefs in favor of scientific truth.

Maybe the beliefs themselves originated with a charismatic narcissist who exploited his followers’ ignorance, prejudices, and hidden fears to acquire and maintain power for himself. Long after the narcissist has died, the beliefs will persist, perhaps in a group that used to enjoy exclusive privileges by denying the truth to other groups, but now finds itself being forced to share those privileges and truths with those other groups (whom the original group used to oppress) as “rights”.

Maybe some people simply do not want to be told what the truth is, but would rather decide for themselves what “truths” they will believe.

And maybe their beliefs arose from some combination of the above.

Truth is absolute and constant. Spurious belief is mutable and irrelevant.

I would rather have but one truthful friend than any number of delusional “friends” who believe in the lies of a charismatic narcissist.

As I said earlier, not all "truth" is created equal.

There is what a person thinks is truth, and there is what actually IS truth. I've seen an awful lot of people stake far too much on perceived truths that are far, far less absolute than those clinging to them think they are.

There is a reason story telling uses miscommunication and stubborn adherence to incorrect perceptions so often as a plot device. In a way, we're all delusional. Sometimes we need to accept that we aren't as right as we think we are.

Last edited by DW_a_mom on 03 Mar 2022, 7:44 am, edited 1 time in total.

This has been my mantra.
Most friendships don't survive, as a result of prioritising self-actualisation.

But there is a "patch".
Respect each other's boundaries.
Embrace the Truth, be True to yourself, but avoid confrontation.
Know when to STFU.

Some can cope with this.
Others can't.
Mostly they can't.
C'est la vie.

It depends on your stage in life and the intellectual and emotional capacity of your friend and yourself.
It also depends on the type of friendship you are talking about.

At a younger age, emotional needs usually take precedence.
The neocortex has not been fully developed and the more primitive aspects of the brain have greater dominance.

When one matures, personal integrity may become more important than primal urges.
There are times when this isn't achieved due to intellectual capacity and/or not satisfying preconditional emotion requirements.

It is a matter of considering the pros and cons at your level of development.

But consider:
You can be both right and maintain a friendship by simply holding your council.
If you *must* force a perceived Truth on someone else, I question your own emotional development.

E.G.
Why is it so important you force a Truth on someone who may not be ready to accept it?
Are you engaging in a pattern of dominance to service your own selfish emotional needs?
Or do you lack an intrinsic self-confidence that causes you to doggedly defend your perception regardless of the emotional needs of the other person?

Because you haven't given a specific context, it is impossible to determine if my analysis has "hit the mark".

OK, let’s put it another way - two people have a disagreement. These people possess similar characteristics, education, values, intelligence, knowledge, and backgrounds, and they have evaluated the same evidence, but have come to different conclusions. How confident should each of them be that their conclusion is the true one?

It’s possible that jimmyjazz is a rational, insightful individual who is defending robustly evidence-based against an irrational anti-intellectual who has based their views on dogma and superstition and prejudice. But it is also possible that this person has some information that Jimmy does not that would potentially cause him to come to a different conclusion. All of us sometimes get things wrong. That’s why it is important to tolerate a certain level of disagreement. We cannot be corrected and get smarter, better informed, and less wrong, unless we are prepared to learn.