Why is it so fun to be right? As pleasures go, it is, after all, a second-order one at best. Unlike many of life's other delights -- chocolate, surfing, kissing -- it doesn't enjoy any mainline access to our biochemistry: to our appetites, our adrenal glands, our limbic systems, our swoony hearts.
And yet, the thrill of being right is undeniable, universal, and (perhaps most oddly) almost entirely undiscriminating. The stakes don't seem to matter much; it is more important to bet on the right foreign policy than the right racehorse, but we are equally capable of gloating over either one.
Nor does subject matter; we can be just as pleased about correctly identifying an orange-crowned warbler or correctly identifying the sexual orientation of our co-worker. Stranger still, we're perfectly capable of deriving satisfaction from being right about disagreeable things: the downturn in the stock market, say, or the demise of a friend's relationship, or the fact that, at our spouse's insistence, we just spent 15 minutes schlepping our suitcase in exactly the opposite direction from our hotel.

Like most delectable experiences, rightness isn't ours to enjoy all the time. Sometimes, we're the one who loses the bet (or the hotel). And sometimes, too, we suffer grave doubts about the correct answer or course of action -- an anxiety that, itself, reflects our desire to be right.
On the whole, though, and notwithstanding these lapses and qualms, our indiscriminate enjoyment of being right is matched by an almost equally indiscriminate feeling that we are right.
Being wrong: Where aviation got it right
At times, this feeling spills into the foreground, as when we argue or evangelize, make predictions or place bets. Often, though, it is just psychological backdrop. Most of us go through life assuming that we are basically right, basically all the time, about basically everything: about our political and intellectual convictions, our religious and moral beliefs, our assessment of other people, our memories, our grasp of facts.
As absurd as it sounds when we stop to think about it, our steady state seems to be one of unconsciously assuming that we are very close to omniscient.

This serene faith in our own rightness is often warranted. Most of us navigate day-to-day life fairly well, after all, which suggests that we are routinely right about a great many things. And sometimes we are not just routinely right but spectacularly right: right about the orbit of the planets (mathematically derived long before the technology existed to track them); right about the healing properties of aspirin (known since at least 3000 BC); right to track down that woman who smiled at you in the café (now your wife of 20 years).
Taken together, these moments of rightness represent both the high-water marks of human endeavor and the source of countless small joys. They affirm our sense of being smart, competent, trustworthy, and in tune with our environment. More important, they keep us alive.
Individually and collectively, our very existence depends on our ability to reach accurate conclusions about the world around us. In short, the experience of being right is imperative for our survival, gratifying for our ego, and, overall, one of life's cheapest and keenest satisfactions.
I am interested -- perversely -- in the opposite of all that. I am interested in being wrong: in how we as a culture think about error, and how we as individuals cope when our convictions collapse out from under us. If we relish being right and regard it as our natural state, you can guess how we feel about being wrong.
For one thing, we tend to view it as rare and bizarre -- an inexplicable aberration in the normal order of things. For another, it leaves us feeling idiotic and ashamed. Like the term paper returned to us covered in red ink, being wrong makes us cringe and slouch down in our seats; it makes our heart sink and our dander rise.

At best we regard it as a nuisance, at worst a nightmare, but in either case -- and quite unlike the gleeful little rush of being right -- we experience our errors as deflating and embarrassing.
And it gets worse. In our collective imagination, error is associated not just with shame and stupidity but also with ignorance, indolence, psychopathology, and moral degeneracy.
This set of associations was nicely summed up by the Italian cognitive scientist Massimo Piattelli-Palmarini, who noted that we err because of (among other things) "inattention, distraction, lack of interest, poor preparation, genuine stupidity, timidity, braggadocio, emotional imbalance, , ideological, racial, social or chauvinistic prejudices, as well as aggressive or prevaricatory instincts."
In this view -- and it is the common one -- our errors are evidence of our gravest social, intellectual, and moral failings.
Of all the things we are wrong about, this idea of error might well top the list. It is our meta-mistake: We are wrong about what it means to be wrong. Far from being a sign of intellectual inferiority, the capacity to err is crucial to human cognition. Far from being a moral flaw, it is inextricable from some of our most humane and honorable qualities: empathy, optimism, imagination, conviction and courage. And far from being a mark of indifference or intolerance, wrongness is a vital part of how we learn and change. Thanks to error, we can revise our understanding of ourselves and amend our ideas about the world.
Given this centrality to both our intellectual and emotional development, error shouldn't be an embarrassment, and cannot be an aberration. On the contrary. As Benjamin Franklin once observed, "the history of the errors of mankind, all things considered, is more valuable and interesting than that of their discoveries."

Through our errors, he felt, "the soul has room enough to expand herself, to display all her boundless faculties, and all her beautiful and interesting extravagancies and absurdities."
To my mind, the healthiest and most productive attitude we can have about error must take as its starting place Franklin's proposition that however disorienting, difficult or humbling our mistakes might be, it[size=18pt] is ultimately wrongness, not rightness, that can teach us who we are.[/size]

http://www.cnn.com/2011/OPINION/05/15/schulz.admitting.wrong/index.html?hpt=C2

Are you trying to make yourself feel good about being so ignorant?

Look, there's a way out.

Just live in sexuality section- no brains needed over there.

^^^

ROFLMAO!

What's funny? ??

Do you think i havent noticed your extremely limited knowledge about anything pertaining to yoruba.

Better join your buddy walestar in sexuality since no IQ is needed there.

Yeah, i saw through your disguise and fake attempts to seem learned.

Hmph.

I doubt you'd even recognise a yoruba person if they stood on your ear.

Too long. Summary please!

tpia@:

What's funny? ??

Do you think i havent noticed your extremely limited knowledge about anything pertaining to yoruba.

Glad someone finally caught me. But where? link please?

Better join your buddy walestar in sexuality since no IQ is needed there.

Thanks for the advice. I definitely will do as you suggest

Yeah, i saw through your disguise and fake attempts to seem learned.

Disguise to seem learned? By posting research articles from Historians whose job it is to sift through/analyse and present facts from contradictory and confusing essays and nonsensical balderdash that people like you post. You think, I'd read your crap and ignore well supported articles?

Pray tell, what did I post that was not true. Well, i didnt know that trying to hit on girls on the WWW is something only learned people do.

And, just so there is no confusion between us in the future, I, Zstranger, of the Zstranger IS NOT LEARNED FAME, hereby SOLEMLY DECLARE TO YOU TPIAH THAT I AM NOT LEARNED.  Satisfied?

I doubt you'd even recognise a yoruba person if they stood on your ear.

Of course not. First, I am not an anthropologist.  Second, I have people phobia so I dont meet too many diverse/YORUBA people and it would be really difficult for me to differentiate and categorize people into different ethnic groups based on their looks alone. Third, I am legally blind, all women look the same to me, likewise men. Fourth, I have a job and I am busy, so spending time trying to understand how to categorize people based on facial looks alone isnt exactly my idea of productivity. Fifth, I love s3x, and when I see a good lay, trying to figure out their ethnicity would be ridiculous, and against all Darwin, my God, stood for. Sixth, it is energy consuming. Why analyse their facial looks when you can simply ask them.

I can go on and on as to why I wouldnt be able to "recognize a Yoruba person even if they stood on my ears," but, eh, I have other things to do, like going to hang out with  some of my buddies and some, guess what, incredibly awesome White chicks. Actually, one of them is Canadian. She is really hot Tpiah.

Kangun kangun kangun, a kangun si bi kan.  oro ife lagbara

Eni bimo won ri nkan fun.

Oooh, i'm so scared and jealous. Why do nigerian men always pass me by for beta people.

^^^

Still waiting for the link?

This love affair na real wa o

hmm.

you guys should just invite me to handle the 'toast' part of your wedding prg, oro a po ninu iwe kobo.

This posts is tooooo longggg and than when I saw who the poster is, now Im not bothered to even read or comment knowing that he is a LOCAL CHAMPION