Part 2 of “What’s Wrong with Being Wrong”
Remember my tomato planting argument with Leland? The one where I was absolutely, completely, 100% certain we’d planted in May, only to be proven wrong by a timestamped photo from April 18th? Well, that ridiculous ten-minute battle over garden timing taught me something goes way beyond horticulture.
Having facilitated over 14,000 mediations, negotiations, and facilitative sessions throughout my career, I’ve witnessed this exact same dynamic play out countless times across boardrooms, courtrooms, and kitchen tables. Last month, I sat with two neighbors in my mediation office who couldn’t stop talking about what was wrong with each other. Elena was convinced David was “completely unreasonable” about their shared fence line. David was equally certain Elena was “impossible and demanding”. For forty minutes, they took turns explaining to me, and each other, exactly what character flaws the other person possessed.
As I listened to them, I couldn’t help thinking about my own desperate defense of those tomato dates. Just like I’d been ready to die on the hill of incorrect planting times, Elena and David were both absolutely convinced they were right and the other person was fundamentally flawed.
Sound familiar? Whether neighbors arguing about property lines, family members debating politics at dinner, or colleagues clashing over project approaches, we seem committed to asking the same fundamental question: “What’s wrong with them? This keeps me up at night because that question is the wrong question entirely. In fact, never have I found it leads to the resolution of a dispute.
The Judgment Trap
When we ask “What’s wrong with them?” we may feel productive, but we are FAR from it. Instead, we’re positioning ourselves as the reasonable one, the one with clarity, the one who sees the situation correctly. Meanwhile, the other person becomes the problem to be solved, the obstacle to be overcome, the defective human who just needs to be fixed.
Here’s the crucial insight: when we view the other person as the problem, our brain goes into problem-solving mode about them rather than about the actual issue at hand. We start trying to figure out how to change them, convince them, or work around them. But what if we looked at them as a collaborator in problem-solving instead? Suddenly we have two brains approaching the challenge, which is one of the keys to brilliant brainstorming. After all, brainstorming isn’t done in a vacuum—it thrives on the bridging of different perspectives.
But here’s the neurological kicker: when we’re in judgment mode, we literally can’t access our collaborative brain power. Recent research in social neuroscience reveals when we judge others, our brains shut down the neural pathways responsible for empathy and perspective-taking. A 2019 study by Schurz and colleagues, published in NeuroImage, used fMRI scanning to show moral judgment and mentalizing (understanding others’ mental states) activate opposing brain networks.
When we’re busy deciding what’s wrong with someone, we’re neurologically incapable of understanding their perspective. This means we’re also incapable of the kind of creative collaboration that produces breakthrough solutions. I can show you this via a question. Have you ever changed your mind about something important while someone was explaining what was wrong with your thinking? Yeah, neither have I.
The Echo Chamber of Rightness
We’ve created echo chambers so sophisticated we don’t even realize we’re in them. We curate our social media feeds, choose news sources confirm our existing beliefs, and gradually distance ourselves from people who think too differently than we do. Have you ever ghosted a friend whose political views started grating on you? Have you muted that cousin who shares articles you find offensive? Have you slowly stopped engaging with the colleague who always seems to disagree with your approach? I have. And each time I’ve done it, I tell myself I’m just avoiding negativity, but what I’m really doing is narrowing my lens until it becomes so focused I can barely see anything outside my own perspective.
Research from Dartmouth College’s neuroscience lab shows this preference for confirming information isn’t just psychological—it’s hardwired. When we encounter information aligns with our existing beliefs, our brains release dopamine, the same neurotransmitter involved in addiction. Meanwhile, contradictory information activates the anterior cingulate cortex and the insula, areas associated with physical pain. Our brains literally treat opposing viewpoints like threats to be avoided. Basically, we’re all walking around like addicts looking for our next hit of being right.
The Boring Tyranny of Being Right
Here’s what nobody talks about: being right all the time is incredibly boring. When everyone around you thinks exactly like you do, when every conversation confirms what you already believe, when every article you read makes you nod in agreement—where’s the growth in that? Where’s the surprise? Where’s the possibility of discovering something could genuinely change how you see the world? It’s like eating the same meal every day for the rest of your life. Sure, you know you’ll like it, but good Lord, how tedious.
I’ve started to notice the most interesting conversations I have are with people who make me slightly uncomfortable—not because they’re trying to be difficult, but because they see angles I’ve missed, ask questions I haven’t considered, or operate from assumptions challenge my own. In mediation, I’ve learned the moment someone stops asking “What’s wrong with them?” and starts asking “What might I be missing?” is usually the moment breakthrough becomes possible.
The Neuroscience of Curiosity
What if, instead of asking “What’s wrong with them?, ” we got conflict curious? What if we approached disagreements the same way scientists approach hypotheses—with genuine interest in what we might discover?
Neuroscientist Dr. Matthias Gruber’s research at UC Davis demonstrates curiosity doesn’t just feel good. It actually changes our brain chemistry in ways enhance learning and memory. When we’re genuinely curious about something, our brains release dopamine and activate the hippocampus, creating optimal conditions for absorbing new information. Even more fascinating, this curiosity state makes us more receptive to information we weren’t originally seeking. This means when we approach someone else’s “wrong” opinion with genuine curiosity rather than defensive judgment, we’re not just being nicer—we’re literally creating the neurological conditions allow us to learn something new.
Revolutionary, right?!? Who knew being curious could actually make you smarter!?
A Different Goal Entirely
The goal isn’t to convince each other our opinion is correct. That’s a losing proposition, and frankly, it’s exhausting and nobody wins. The goal is to open our minds to possibility; the possibility we’re wrong, the possibility there’s a middle ground we haven’t considered, the possibility the other person sees something we’ve missed entirely. And by middle ground, I don’t mean some wishy-washy compromise where everyone gives up half of what they believe. I mean the rich, complex terrain where two different perspectives create something neither person could have reached alone. Imagine actually creating something better instead of just defending our corner of intellectual real estate.
Your Next Best Idea Isn’t Yours Alone
Here’s something to ponder: your next breakthrough idea probably won’t come from your own brilliant thinking. It will emerge from the intersection between your perspective and someone else’s—but only if you stop pointing fingers and believing you already know everything.
Some of the most innovative solutions I’ve witnessed in mediation happen when two people who were convinced the other was completely wrong suddenly realize their combined thinking creates something neither could have reached alone. The neighbor who seemed “unreasonable” about the fence line actually had crucial information about drainage patterns. The colleague whose approach felt “completely backwards” was seeing a user experience blind spot that transformed the entire project. But here’s the catch, these collaborative breakthroughs only happen when we’re brave enough to put down our weapons of rightness and pick up the tools of curiosity.
Checking Your Ego at the Door
Next time you find yourself in a disagreement, try this: check your ego at the door like you check your coat at a theater. Ask yourself, “What if I’m the one who’s missing something here?” Not as self-flagellation, but as genuine curiosity.
Listen—really listen—not for the flaws in their logic, but for the experiences led them to their conclusions. Be conflict curious. Be brave enough to consider your narrow lens might be showing you a very limited view of a much larger picture.
Because here’s the radical truth: in a world full of people fighting to prove what’s wrong with everyone else, maybe the most transformative thing we can do is admit we might be the ones who need to expand our view.
The question isn’t “What’s wrong with them?”
The question is “What might I be learning?”
And trust me, the answer might surprise you.
Transform Your Team’s Conflict Resolution Skills
After 14,000+ mediations and facilitations, I’ve learned that most workplace conflicts aren’t really about the surface issues—they’re about teams asking the wrong questions. Whether you’re a leader struggling with team dynamics, an HR professional dealing with recurring conflicts, or a fellow mediator looking to enhance your practice, I can help you shift from “What’s wrong with them?” to “What are we learning together?”
For Organizations: I work with teams and leadership groups to implement collaborative conflict resolution strategies that turn disagreements into innovation opportunities. My approach helps reduce workplace tensions while building stronger, more creative teams.
For Mediators: Want to improve your sessions by helping parties move beyond blame into genuine collaboration? I offer specialized training on facilitating this mindset shift that transforms mediation outcomes.
Ready to change the conversation? Let’s explore how your team can master this process. Contact me to discuss customized training programs or consultation services.
Because the most transformative breakthroughs happen when we stop fighting about who’s wrong and start discovering what we can build together.
References:
Braun, K. A., Ellis, R., & Loftus, E. F. (2002). Make my memory: How advertising can change our memories of the past. Psychology & Marketing, 19(1), 1-23.
Gruber, M. J., Gelman, B. D., & Ranganath, C. (2014). States of curiosity modulate hippocampus-dependent learning via the dopaminergic circuit. Neuron, 84(2), 486-496.
Loftus, E. F. (2005). Planting misinformation in the human mind: A 30-year investigation of the malleability of memory. Learning & Memory, 12(4), 361-366.
Schurz, M., Radua, J., Aichhorn, M., Richlan, F., & Perner, J. (2014). Fractionating theory of mind: A meta-analysis of functional brain imaging studies. Neuroscience & Biobehavioral Reviews, 42, 9-34.