Is it Better to be Right and Lose or Wrong and Win???

[Volpone]

A philosophical discussion: Is it better to be right and lose or wrong and win?

I mean if you're right, you have the reassurance that you are right. And that, one day, history will vindicate you. Like Galileo. He was right about the solar system. But he couldn't convince anyone, wound up going to prison, and lost everything.

But on the other hand, if you win, it really doesn't matter if you're right or wrong now, does it? Take Microsoft. Windows 3.1 was crap. It was clunky and awkward. It didn't hold a candle to, say, AmigaDOS. But Commodore went under and MS went on to fix the problems with W3.1. If you win, it gives you the opportunity to learn from your mistakes and keep moving.

Granted, there are other situations. You can be right and lose and have history forget you. You can be wrong and win for a long time and still wind up going under--like Enron. But that's the basis of the discussion. Would you rather be right and lose or wrong and win? Why?

 

[A_Real_Prick666]

I would say be wrong and win because assuming you don't go under, being wrong affords you the opportunity to go back and employ the problem-solving skills to create an eventual winning situation. Working through adversity and using correct problem-solving represents growth and experience. The eventual win is then well earned, whether it be for your own personal satisfaction or for others to know.

 

[Volpone]

Yeah. I'm almost of the mindset that being right and losing is the worst possible scenario. It drives you insane because you know something would work, but you just don't have the leverage (or persuasive skill) to make people understand. It can be maddening.

 

[Cranky Bastard]

Fuck being wrong. I'd rather be right than be be an ass later on just to save face now.