How Willing to Be Wrong Makes You More Right

Stop me if you’ve heard this one before.

A preacher, prosecutor, politician, and scientist walk into a bar. The bartender asks, “What’ll it be?” The preacher says, “I’ll have the stout; it’s the best one here.” The prosecutor orders an IPA and, turning to the preacher, asserts, “You’re mistaken about the stout, and here’s why,” proceeding to elaborate on his reasons. The politician says, “I’ll take whatever is most popular.” Observing the exchange with amusement, the scientist remarks, “I once believed the stout was the best, but I was wrong. Then I thought the IPA was the best, but now I’m not so sure. So, over time, I’ll sample every beer on tap and conduct a series of rigorous taste tests to determine which one truly is the best.”

Now, I’m sure you have never actually heard this one before because I just made it up. And while the joke admittedly falls short in the "funny" department, its purpose is to illustrate a point. There are three common modes of thinking we often default to when interacting with others: the preacher mode, the prosecutor mode, and the politician mode. The gathering at the bar, however, includes a fourth character, representing a mode of thinking that is unfortunately quite rare.

Think You’re Right? Think Again

In his 2021 book, Think Again: The Power of Knowing What You Don’t Know, organizational psychologist Adam Grant discusses four modes of thinking: preacher, prosecutor, politician, and scientist. Notably, however, he emphasizes that three of these modes—preacher, prosecutor, and politician—are particularly prevalent.

When adopting the preacher mode, one aims to persuade an audience to accept their viewpoint. Of course, there’s nothing inherently wrong with that; this blog is all about persuasion and I often find myself in this mode. The prosecutor mode involves efforts to prove others wrong, frequently overlapping with the preacher mode. The politician mode is centered on seeking the approval of others. Just looking around, it is evident how widespread these three modes of behavior have become.

Grant, however, identifies a fourth mode that is often underutilized: the scientist. In the scientist mode, individuals engage in critical thinking, prioritizing truth and accuracy over personal beliefs and biases. Instead of overestimating their knowledge (i.e., the Dunning-Kruger effect), they remain open to the possibility of being wrong and actively seek out reasons why they might be. This approach contrasts sharply with the more prevalent tendency, driven by confirmation bias, to seek information that supports existing beliefs while disregarding conflicting information.

Why You Should Cultivate the Scientist Mode

Why in the world would you ever want to look for reasons why you’re wrong? It seems almost counterintuitive. Well, it is counterintuitive. The brain has a natural, evolutionary predisposition towards confirmation bias which is why it’s so common for people to latch onto information that confirms the beliefs they’re already inclined to believe and to filter out information that contradicts it.

In today’s information-abundance age, actively seeking out information that challenges our beliefs is crucial. The sheer volume of conflicting information, compounded by the constant influx of new data, necessitates this approach. Anyone who values truth and accuracy must recognize the possibility of being wrong. This could be due to initially faulty information or flawed interpretations of accurate data. Therefore, it is essential to reassess and reinterpret information—i.e., to metaphorically reconnect the dots—to ensure a more comprehensive understanding.

You might wonder why it is important to acknowledge when we are wrong. This is a valid question, especially since we seem to live in a “post-truth” era where objective facts often take a backseat to the manipulative tactics of unscrupulous preachers, prosecutors, and politicians who prioritize bombast and cunning over integrity and truth. While philosophers may argue for a moral and virtuous commitment to truth, this can seem overly idealistic in today’s society. Therefore, let’s consider the practical benefits of adopting a scientific mindset.

First, adopting a scientific mindset enhances your effectiveness as a preacher, prosecutor, and politician. Each of these roles serves a distinct and essential function, as truth and accuracy alone do not necessarily ensure success. These roles are vital because they facilitate effective persuasion, critical evaluation of opposing viewpoints, and the ability to rally support for your cause. Equipped with truth and accuracy, you will perform these tasks more effectively.

Persuasion Essential Reads

3 Words to Win Any Argument

How to Talk So That People Want to Listen

This brings us to the second reason for adopting a scientific mindset. Without the grounding provided by scientific rigor, the preacher’s eloquence, the prosecutor’s analytical skills, and politician’s charm rest on unstable foundations and are thus more vulnerable to failure. When this occurs, the credibility essential for leadership and influence is severely undermined. A notable example is Bernard Madoff, who orchestrated the largest Ponzi scheme in history. Ponzi schemes illustrate how beliefs and claims based on faulty or nonexistent evidence can lead to widespread disaster. To prevent eventual failure, actions taken by preachers, prosecutors, or politicians should be underpinned by a commitment to accuracy and truth, as emphasized by the scientific approach.

A third reason to cultivate the scientist mindset is its role in cognitive self-defense. Just as we embody the roles of preacher, prosecutor, and politician, our daily interactions often involve others attempting to persuade, criticize, or influence our thoughts and actions. Without employing a scientific approach to evaluate the validity of these persuasive efforts, we risk being duped or exploited by those with devious intentions. This self-protective function of the scientist mindset is especially vital in our age of AI and AI-driven manipulation.

Fourth, the scientific approach is particularly commendable for what I would call its “corrective humility.” It is well-known that many people are reluctant to admit their mistakes, hence the saying, “he’d rather be proud than right.” While science makes mistakes, it corrects them through further inquiry. Unlike the arrogance and insecurity that often prevents individuals from admitting errors, science acknowledges its mistakes and rectifies them. It does not claim to provide absolute conclusions but rather offers provisional statements based on the best available evidence, subject to ongoing study and investigation. This humility and diligence are hallmarks of scientific integrity. Although rare, individuals who embrace this approach demonstrate a greater level of maturity, grace, and confidence.

Scientists have been instrumental in driving beneficial innovations in sanitation, hygiene, medicine, technology, and much more. When the preacher, prosecutor, and politician act in concert with the scientist, such innovations do not languish in obscurity but get integrated into the fabric of our daily lives. Conversely, when they act as antagonists toward the scientist, it leads to chaos and the dismantling of vital societal institutions. Presumably, most people would prefer innovation and progress over chaos and unrest. If you agree, then get the preacher, prosecutor, politician within you to work in concert with the scientific approach. This collaboration not only safeguards personal credibility and influence but also upholds our most cherished cultural values and institutions.