Since beginning life coaching in the 90s and starting the practice of psychotherapy in 2011, I’ve lost track regarding the sheer number of people who have expressed to me a so-called “need to be right.” I’m guessing that you’re familiar with what I mean.
Person X engages in an argument with person Y. Even if person X’s evidence-based position is factually correct, person Y refuses to concede that person X’s stance is valid (logically and reasonably sound) and true (factually accurate).
In this common example, both persons X and Y maintain a so-called “need to be right.” I suggest “so-called” in this instance, because it isn’t accurate to refer to one’s desire for correctness as a need to be right.
Of course, other professional mental, emotional, and behavioral health practitioners may disagree with this distinction. For instance, one source reports:
Some people need to be right always. They cannot stand to lose an argument. They won’t admit defeat in the face of compelling evidence against their position. Even having the last word may not be enough for them if they believe the other side has gotten tired of the discussion and stopped arguing without conceding their point. In that case, they may insist on taking up the issue again later.
A need is defined as a physiological or psychological requirement for the well-being of an organism. Conversely, a desire is defined as a conscious impulse toward something that promises enjoyment or satisfaction in its attainment.
Think of a need as a necessity, something without you cannot live (e.g., food). Think of a desire as a want, something without you can live, though you believe that your life would be better if you achieved the element for which you yearn (e.g., proving oneself right in an argument).
Through the lens of Rational Emotive Behavior Therapy (REBT), I recolonize that this need-want distinction plays a key role in the process of self-disturbance. However, it isn’t the action of not receiving what a person needs or wants that causes self-upset. Allow me to explain.
REBT theory uses the ABC model to illustrate how when Activating events (“Actions”) occur and people maintain irrational Beliefs about the events, these unhelpful assumptions – and not the actual occurrences – are what create unpleasant cognitive, emotive, bodily sensation, and behavioral Consequences.
In particular, there are four predominate irrational beliefs which people use: demandingness, awfulizing, low frustration tolerance (LFT), and global evaluations. Addressing these, the ABC model incorporates Disputation of unhelpful assumptions in order to explore Effective new beliefs.
From a psychological standpoint, people disturb themselves using a Belief-Consequence (B-C) connection. Of course, this isn’t to suggest that in the context of the naturalistic or physical world there is no Action-Consequence (A-C) connection.
As an example, if you and your intimate partner argue too loudly within your home (Action), law enforcement officers may respond to the scene if called by your neighbors (Consequence). From an A-C perspective, loud domestic noises may result in a police response.
Now suppose that during the argument with your partner (Action), you unhelpfully Believe, “I must prove that I’m right, because I can’t stand being thought of as wrong.” From a B-C perspective, your demanding and LFT attitude may cause an angry disposition (Consequence).
Thus, when practicing REBT, I help people to stop upsetting themselves through use of B-C connections, though I can’t fully resolve their A-C connections. Police sometimes respond to domestic disturbances, so loud domestic noises aren’t something I can prevent for others.
Revisiting persons X and Y, it isn’t valid or true that either of these individuals has a so-called need to be right. Rather, each of these people unproductively disturbs themselves with rigid beliefs about supposedly needing to prove the other person wrong.
Thus, unrelenting desires which are fueled by self-disturbing beliefs is what causes truculent behavior—aggressively self-assertive with eagerness or quickness to argue or fight. Does this B-C connection serve one’s interests and goals? I suppose it all depends on who I’m addressing.
Contemplating this matter further, I’m reminded of the song “Blessings” by rapper Jared Sanders. In particular, I appreciate the outro which features a bit by comedian Jeff Allen who states:
We have been married 26 years, my wife and I, we’ve had a… if you’re familiar with my story; we’ve had a bumpy ride along the way. And it’s been a wonderful ride and a wonderful journey, but we’ve had our moments. And I wasn’t given this. I wasn’t given advi… my father gave me one piece of marital advice when I got married, on my wedding day. My father walked into the church and said, “I have one piece of marital advice for you. Before you argue with your new wife – and believe me, you’re gonna argue with her – before you do, I want you to stop and ask yourself two questions. Do you wanna be right? Or do you wanna be happy?”
When engaging in an argument with person Y, person X uses evidence-based argumentation to prove his point. However, person Y refuses to concede that person X’s stance is valid and true, so she continues trying to prove how right her position supposedly is.
Although there are other applicable options, I suspect that persons X and Y maintain one of two main interests. One, they desire to be right. Two, they want to be happy. For the sake of clarity, when used in this fashion, an interest is merely a motive.
Being that both persons X and Y have a motive to be right while also being happy, their interests are misaligned. Suppose that only one of the competing interests is feasible. Which will it be, to prove the other person wrong or to experience sustained joy and pleasure?
When working with clients, I assess whether or not interests are aligned with goals. If interests are synonymous with motives, then goals are the ends toward which effort is directed. They are motives which require motivation and behavior toward the purpose of an action.
Imagine that persons X and Y are traveling along a street and come to a fork in the road. They may either go left or right. Going backward isn’t an option, because other vehicles are behind them. Likewise, going straight ahead isn’t feasible, because there’s a step cliff in that direction.
Left is the direction of being right. Right is the route toward relational happiness. Which interests and goals will guide the course of action for this couple? In this scenario, they simply can’t go both ways. In which direction will they travel? I suppose it all depends on who I’m addressing.
When I used to conduct couples psychotherapy, I discovered that there was often a misalignment of dyad interests and goals. As such, people disturbed themselves with unfavorable beliefs regarding a so-called need to be right, as that was often the preferred direction of travel.
Recently, I watched a video by psychologist Orion Taraban, featured on his YouTube channel PsycHacks. In the video, Taraban discusses a so-called need to be right. In particular, he states:
It’s important to understand that there are games and there are meta-games. Meta-games are the bigger games in which smaller games are embedded. People are generally aware of the games they’re playing, but they’re not always aware of the meta-games that they’re playing […] It’s possible to win both games or lose both games, but it’s also possible to win the game and lose the meta-game.
Given Taraban’s framing of the issue, I used to witness couples self-implode with self-disturbing beliefs about games and meta-games. Person X would choose to go left while person Y went right.
Although each member of the dyad maintained interests in regard to being right and happy in their intimate partner relationship, which served as a type of game, their motives were misaligned with the meta-game of remaining together. There are games and there are meta-games.
Because people can’t go left-right or right-left at the same time, a compromise is often necessary—settlement of differences by consent reached by mutual concessions. Person X could momentarily sacrifice his desire to be right, for the sake of relational happiness.
He could let go of the argued topic so that both partners could keep peaceful conditions which are conducive to a happy home. Person Y could temporarily forfeit the want to be right, because she understands that the matter about which person X is presumably correct doesn’t matter all that much in the long run.
She could merely agree to disagree with person X so that each member of the dyad could surrender the issue in the interest of happiness versus being right. Thus, persons X and Y could lose the game while winning the meta-game. Taraban continues:
In general, it’s a good idea to prioritize the highest meta-game you can conceptualize, because what happens if you prioritize the game over the meta-game? If you win the game but lose the meta-game, then your victory is going to be circumscribed at best and invalidated at worst. It can even be more beneficial to lose the game and win the meta-game than the other way around.
Given only two plausible options – one, be right or two, be happy – which would you choose if you wanted to win the meta-game? Remember, you don’t need to be right. You may like it or love it if you were correct, though this perspective relates to a desire and not a necessity.
Even if, like me, you’ve gone your own way and have chosen not to engage in romantic relationships, you can utilize the information contained in this blogpost for other types of relationships (e.g., siblings, friends, coworkers, etc.). So, what will it be?
Will you win the game, the meta-game, both, or neither? If you choose to self-disturb with unhelpful beliefs regarding a so-called need to be right, how long do you think you can play foolish games of this sort before you inevitably lose? The choice is yours to make. Game on!
If you’re looking for a provider who works to help you understand how thinking impacts physical, mental, emotional, and behavioral elements of your life—helping you to sharpen your critical thinking skills, I invite you to reach out today by using the contact widget on my website.
As the world’s foremost old school hip hop REBT psychotherapist, I’m pleased to help people with an assortment of issues from anger (hostility, rage, and aggression) to relational issues, adjustment matters, trauma experience, justice involvement, attention-deficit hyperactivity disorder, anxiety and depression, and other mood or personality-related matters.
At Hollings Therapy, LLC, serving all of Texas, I aim to treat clients with dignity and respect while offering a multi-lensed approach to the practice of psychotherapy and life coaching. My mission includes: Prioritizing the cognitive and emotive needs of clients, an overall reduction in client suffering, and supporting sustainable growth for the clients I serve. Rather than simply helping you to feel better, I want to help you get better!
Deric Hollings, LPC, LCSW
References:
Drobotdean. (n.d.). Portrait of a furious young African couple having a quarrel [Image]. Freepik. Retrieved from https://www.freepik.com/free-photo/portrait-furious-young-african-couple-having-quarrel_6872116.htm#fromView=search&page=1&position=29&uuid=7d830815-d83c-4270-8b41-175d95f9725a
Fileva, I. (2021, September 19). The need to be always right. Psychology Today. Retrieved from https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/the-philosophers-diaries/202109/the-need-be-always-right
Genius. (n.d.). Jared Sanders. Retrieved from https://genius.com/artists/Jered-sanders
Hollings, D. (2024, August 7). Awfulizing. Hollings Therapy, LLC. Retrieved from https://www.hollingstherapy.com/post/awfulizing
Hollings, D. (2024, March 19). Consequences. Hollings Therapy, LLC. Retrieved from https://www.hollingstherapy.com/post/consequences
Hollings, D. (2022, October 31). Demandingness. Hollings Therapy, LLC. Retrieved from https://www.hollingstherapy.com/post/demandingness
Hollings, D. (2022, March 15). Disclaimer. Hollings Therapy, LLC. Retrieved from https://www.hollingstherapy.com/post/disclaimer
Hollings, D. (2023, September 8). Fair use. Hollings Therapy, LLC. Retrieved from https://www.hollingstherapy.com/post/fair-use
Hollings, D. (2024, April 2). Four major irrational beliefs. Hollings Therapy, LLC. Retrieved from https://www.hollingstherapy.com/post/four-major-irrational-beliefs
Hollings, D. (2023, October 12). Get better. Hollings Therapy, LLC. Retrieved from https://www.hollingstherapy.com/post/get-better
Hollings, D. (2023, September 13). Global evaluations. Hollings Therapy, LLC. Retrieved from https://www.hollingstherapy.com/post/global-evaluations
Hollings, D. (2024, April 13). Goals. Hollings Therapy, LLC. Retrieved from https://www.hollingstherapy.com/post/goals
Hollings, D. (2024, September 24). Happy place. Hollings Therapy, LLC. Retrieved from https://www.hollingstherapy.com/post/happy-place
Hollings, D. (2024, September 22). Hermit life. Hollings Therapy, LLC. Retrieved from https://www.hollingstherapy.com/post/hermit-life
Hollings, D. (n.d.). Hollings Therapy, LLC [Official website]. Hollings Therapy, LLC. Retrieved from https://www.hollingstherapy.com/
Hollings, D. (2024, January 2). Interests and goals. Hollings Therapy, LLC. Retrieved from https://www.hollingstherapy.com/post/interests-and-goals
Hollings, D. (2023, May 18). Irrational beliefs. Hollings Therapy, LLC. Retrieved from https://www.hollingstherapy.com/post/irrational-beliefs
Hollings, D. (2023, September 19). Life coaching. Hollings Therapy, LLC. Retrieved from https://www.hollingstherapy.com/post/life-coaching
Hollings, D. (2022, December 9). Like it, love it, accept it. Hollings Therapy, LLC. Retrieved from https://www.hollingstherapy.com/post/like-it-love-it-accept-it
Hollings, D. (2023, January 8). Logic and reason. Hollings Therapy, LLC. Retrieved from https://www.hollingstherapy.com/post/logic-and-reason
Hollings, D. (2022, December 2). Low frustration tolerance. Hollings Therapy, LLC. Retrieved from https://www.hollingstherapy.com/post/low-frustration-tolerance
Hollings, D. (2024, March 4). Mental, emotional, and behavioral health. Hollings Therapy, LLC. Retrieved from https://www.hollingstherapy.com/post/mental-emotional-and-behavioral-health
Hollings, D. (2024, September 27). My attitude. Hollings Therapy, LLC. Retrieved from https://www.hollingstherapy.com/post/my-attitude
Hollings, D. (2024, April 22). On disputing. Hollings Therapy, LLC. Retrieved from https://www.hollingstherapy.com/post/on-disputing
Hollings, D. (2023, September 3). On feelings. Hollings Therapy, LLC. Retrieved from https://www.hollingstherapy.com/post/on-feelings
Hollings, D. (2023, April 24). On truth. Hollings Therapy, LLC. Retrieved from https://www.hollingstherapy.com/post/on-truth
Hollings, D. (2024, May 5). Psychotherapist. Hollings Therapy, LLC. Retrieved from https://www.hollingstherapy.com/post/psychotherapist
Hollings, D. (2022, March 24). Rational emotive behavior therapy (REBT). Hollings Therapy, LLC. Retrieved from https://www.hollingstherapy.com/post/rational-emotive-behavior-therapy-rebt
Hollings, D. (2024, January 20). Reliability vs. validity. Hollings Therapy, LLC. Retrieved from https://www.hollingstherapy.com/post/reliability-vs-validity
Hollings, D. (2024, January 4). Rigid vs. rigorous. Hollings Therapy, LLC. Retrieved from https://www.hollingstherapy.com/post/rigid-vs-rigorous
Hollings, D. (2022, November 1). Self-disturbance. Hollings Therapy, LLC. Retrieved from https://www.hollingstherapy.com/post/self-disturbance
Hollings, D. (2024, April 21). Sensation. Hollings Therapy, LLC. Retrieved from https://www.hollingstherapy.com/post/sensation
Hollings, D. (2022, October 7). Should, must, and ought. Hollings Therapy, LLC. Retrieved from https://www.hollingstherapy.com/post/should-must-and-ought
Hollings, D. (2022, November 9). The ABC model. Hollings Therapy, LLC. Retrieved from https://www.hollingstherapy.com/post/the-abc-model
Hollings, D. (2022, December 23). The A-C connection. Hollings Therapy, LLC. Retrieved from https://www.hollingstherapy.com/post/the-a-c-connection
Hollings, D. (2022, December 25). The B-C connection. Hollings Therapy, LLC. Retrieved from https://www.hollingstherapy.com/post/the-b-c-connection
Hollings, D. (2024, September 17). The E-C connection. Hollings Therapy, LLC. Retrieved from https://www.hollingstherapy.com/post/the-e-c-connection
Hollings, D. (2023, May 3). Want vs. need. Hollings Therapy, LLC. Retrieved from https://www.hollingstherapy.com/post/want-vs-need
Hollings, D. (2022, August 8). Was Freud right? Hollings Therapy, LLC. Retrieved from https://www.hollingstherapy.com/post/was-freud-right
Hollings, D. (2024, August 20).We all make our choices. Hollings Therapy, LLC. Retrieved from https://www.hollingstherapy.com/post/we-all-make-our-choices
Hollings, D. (2024, September 29). Well, well, well. Hollings Therapy, LLC. Retrieved from https://www.hollingstherapy.com/post/well-well-well
PsycHacks. (2024, October 4). Being right doesn’t matter: winning the battle to lose the war [Video]. YouTube. Retrieved from https://youtu.be/lyr3fpSJ0dA?si=7UFmOEPHEIWXCDTe
PsycHacks [@psychacks]. (n.d.). PsycHacks [Official YouTube channel]. YouTube. Retrieved from https://www.youtube.com/@psychacks
Sanders, J. (2017, January 28). Blessings [Video]. YouTube. Retrieved from https://youtu.be/czc3zg7jB5Q?si=sZlmEqTipaG_qgjL
Taraban, O. (n.d.). Orion Taraban, Psy.D. [Official website]. Retrieved from https://oriontarabanpsyd.com/
Wikipedia. (n.d.). Jeff Allen. Retrieved from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jeff_Allen_(comedian)
Comments