A right-fighter is someone who struggles to win arguments, even if they doubt their own view. A right-fighter is someone who gets overly emotional or angry when people do not agree with them and their opinions or beliefs. A right-fighter is someone who insists on having the last word in an argument or refuses to back down no matter what.—Dr. Shawn Byler, Ph.R.D. in Psychology*
As my online family grappled with a serious breakdown in communications recently, I was reminded of a term I heard on the Dr. Phil Show. Right-fighter.
Dr. Phil stopped a woman who was talking eloquently and endlessly about why she was right and her husband was wrong.
To the woman Dr. Phil said “Are you here to solve this problem or are you here to prove you are right?” It stopped her dead in her tracks.
Few of us enter into an argument, friendly or otherwise, thinking we want to be proven wrong. Quite the contrary. But what happens when person after person – people whose opinions you respect and whose characters you admire – weigh in on the opposite side of your premise?
Some will actually listen to what is being said, consider the fact that s/he seems to be standing alone and acknowledge that the other people involved in the discussion might have a point. In other words, the point of view of the opposing side is given value enough to consider.
The right-fighter takes on all comers, no matter how compelling the arguments to the contrary. That’s because the right-fighter has his or her value tied to the outcome of being right. To feel lovable and worthy, the right-fighter feels deeply he or she must be right.
Since the right-fighter is always going to be “right” a lot of other personal values are predictably lost in the shuffle. Having to be always right alienates the people around the right-fighter, creates feelings of not being heard and not being valued.
Right-Fighting is an acceptable form of violence or aggression. Because the right-fighting pattern usually ends up one sided and includes a winner and a loser, the effects are similar to those of physical abuse. Learned submission on the part of the children and often the other parent/spouse is inevitable. "Right-Fighting" is in fact a form of emotional abuse. A right-fighter parent is particularly harmful to children because the child is made to feel like the "loser" and that his or her opinions are
not valid or important. Right-fighting is a direct reflection of low self-esteem. And unfortunately the low self-esteem of one steals the development of strong self-esteem of others. -- Dr. Shawn Byler
In the statement above, Dr. Byler is discussing a woman who is a wife and mother. Similar outcomes, however, can be expected in the workplace if the person in authority uses her power to impose her rightness.
In situations where the right-fighter is on equal footing with those s/he tussles with, the likely outcome, over time, is for others to refuse to even enter a discussion – why bother? – or for people to give the right-fighter a wide berth. Animosity and bad feelings set in, because the other people may not have their personal needs met; i.e., the need to be recognized as having an opinion worth considering.
The number of right-fighters on the internet seems to me to be extremely high. Dr. Byler calls it a habit, a behavior that can be and should be modified if the person wants to live a happier life.
This habit is also observable in political circles and certainly in our government. Adhering to one and only one ideology, at all costs – cogent arguments to the contrary be damned – leads nowhere, as we are learning during this Presidential election cycle. Opposing sides resort to all sorts of dishonorable behaviors in order to appear to be right. Deliberate lies. Underhanded innuendo. And absolute refusal to EVER concede a point.
All it takes is a few little words that say “I hear you and I understand what you are saying.” That doesn’t mean concession. It means openness.
*Dr. Byler’s Degrees and Certifications:
Ph.R.D. in Psychology and a Masters degree in Psychological Therapy and Counseling from Logos University, along with minors in both Communication and Organizational Leadership and Supervision from Indiana University. She is also Shawn is a certified diplomat of the National Institute of Sports Division. She’s a GCCA member and former WBE member. Shawn is also a certified Temperament Therapist and a certified FIRO-B administrator.
TIP:
Enter the amount, and click "Tip" to submit!
Terry McKenna
Jacob Sugarman
Devi Hart
M.Stan Yow
Man Talk Now
Kim Gamble
Salon.com
Comments
That darned Dr. Phil pops out with some good ones, doesn't he?
I remember, "Do you want to fix the problem or do you want to be right?" and also the "ten defining moments" the most from my Dr. Phil phase...
Rated!!!
Tell you what... You listen to your doctor and I'll listen to mine!
"Never, never be afraid to do what's right, especially if the well-being of a person or animal is at stake. Society's punishments are small compared to the wounds we inflict on our soul when we look the other way.”
― Martin Luther King Jr.
I always appreciate your calm thoughtful reasoned words, and am glad you weighed in on this.
I learned that day that if I can be wrong about that, I can be wrong about anything and from that time onward I was more open to people's beliefs that was counter to my own. I became more able to see more than one side of an argument and, I believe, it made me a better man than I was before. I may argue a point, but if I'm shown, where I am wrong, I will admit it. Sometimes thats hard to do, but it is the honest thing to do. Just my opinion.
I had no idea Dr Phil had such great stuff on his show.
What gets me about right-fighters is that once an individual decides he or she knows the answers, that individual becomes unable to learn. Looking at our national debate, have we become a nation full of people unable to learn?
Thanks for the level head.
r./
Lezlie
so many times people try to turn passion against you as weakness. too cool for school rational stance comes from temperament no doubt to a degree but also at times to over-trust in the status quo support a person has imho.
but then it is a shame when one must recognize one's own defensiveness that blocks the opportunity to bridge and explore over issues. I remember reading once about some of us children growing up sometimes whereby "our willingness to be wrong" was exploited.
If you had whack-a-mole relationships with other significant people in your life (I sure did) whereby you were the mole when you grow up and you are trying to assert your points you are defensive and afraid to be talked out of your perspective because you got so arbitrarily clobbered as a child and not respectfully and sincerely argued with. You become conditioned to feel you need to hang on to your perspective for dear life, as if fighting for your dignity and your entire essence not just an opinion you have cultivated.
Sadly, on those occasions when others begin to explore what you are saying sincerely you feel that old "fight/flight/freeze" reaction hitting you and you are trying to hear beyond that throwback to old assaults and May Day fear! It takes time and patience to stay open.
Thanks for more of your wisdom, L!! best, libby
And does anyone know what a Ph.R.D. is or has ever heard of one before? I've been hanging around academia with its PhDs, DScs, MDs etc etc and that's a whole new one on me. Even google doesn't seem to.
And what does any of this mean? She is also Shawn is a certified diplomat of the National Institute of Sports Division. She’s a GCCA member and former WBE member. Shawn is also a certified Temperament Therapist and a certified FIRO-B administrator. If the typo in bold is yours you get a pass, if it's hers it cuts into her credibility.
None of which I'd have bother to look up if this question of "right fighting" didn't rankle me for some of the reasons libby raises - the whack a mole position it can create.
I actually saw this come up on Dr. Phil not so long ago. The conflict was between a married couple. The man was without question emotionally and psychologically abusive. The woman was fighting back. The man was clever enough to be contrite and admit to his failings. The woman wanted to demonstrate his pattern of lying and for that Phil accused her of right fighting and pressured her to think of the children - to keep the marriage going.
All I could see was this guy starting up again any time there were no witnesses - and I wondered if it would take that woman as long as it took me to realize she is in a situation where she can only lose. And lose again. Over and over.
Like SBA said - sometimes you have to fight for the right. Granted, you have to know what you're fighting for and it can't be for your ego, it has to be worth it. But you have to know your opponent and you have to fight for the right. (Amy said it better and faster, I see that.)
I was married to someone who was "always right" and who would, in psychological ways , like your psychologist says above, bludgeon me til I agreed, or succumbed.
Now, I'm having to learn how to hold on to my guns and keep them pointed straight. Man, it's hard! I am on the opposite end of what you're talking about. I do not want to give in just to be kind or accommodating. THIS is the aftermath of bullying, self-righteous behavior, the long term effects on others.
What a crazy seesaw this life is, eh?
To truly argue, the point must be arguable. Correcting untruths or dismissing irrelevant facts isn't arguing. Drawing from a similar set of facts and arriving at different opinions is a good argument scenario. However, that seldom happens and, when it does, it's usually because you're arguing with somebody whose overall POV is shared, or at least somebody who realizes opinions aren't absolutely conclusive. Those are the best, most likely to be civil arguments and it's a shame they are rare.
You should always be concerned with being "right," as long as that isn't based on righteousness. Caring that your citations are factual is an element of integrity. Knowing whether it's a relevant fact, or that it has a place in a logical connection, though, is an element of effective disputation that sometimes seems to be a lost art.
Another thing is the difference between it being valid to hold an opinion and the opinion being valid. Invalid information leads to invalid opinions. More facts and better construction lead to more persuasive opinions, as in the recent discussion of the meaning of "state" in the 2nd amendment. No right answer, but a more persuasive set of facts and logic, as I see it.
Y'all may have another opinion, though. Wanna argue 'bout it? Huh? What ya say? C'mon....what about it?!
:)-
I think we're all right-fighters at times, but I also think it's increased by the anonymity of the Web. I've found that people will be a tad more amenable to rational discussion face-to-face. But only a tad.
I don't disagree at all with the points raised by libby, vis a vis the effects on a child of being raised by a right-fighting parent. I do believe, though, that the defensive response is a behavior that can be unlearned if and when that person first acknowledges it (which, to her great credit, libby has done.)
If you haven't already, read the entire article and you'll see that it touches upon the deleterious effects on children and, in the case of business/work place, subordinate employees.
My intention with this post was to get people thinking introspectively.
Regarding that Dr. Phil episode: I'm pretty sure I saw that one, too. IMHO, the woman was "selling beyond the close" and Dr. Phil was already on to the husband and wanted to move on. I know people dislike him for one reason or another, but I do think he knows what he's doing when it comes to assessing a situation.
And I did get a little bit emotional reading the post. And I am rushing around tonight ... Maybe I can re-read it tomorrow. I often think Dr. Phil is ok - but that couple set off more than one of my emotional alarms. I've had to drop a lot of negative reactions to learn to trust them. It may be that they sent me back to my own past problems but I tend to think not. That guy was trouble.
Stands for Phreakin' Righteous Dude.
One thing he used to say was that for an effective debate, you can't get emotionally involved in your argument. Maybe that's where the line is for right-fighting. To a debater, argument is a little like chess, or a game. To a right-fighter, it's about an undiminished self.
Another thing hubby used to point out was that I argued like woman. Yeah, that always helps. You maybe are wondering why I still like the guy. But I think he has a point. Men seem more inclined to view the other person as an opponent. Women have an emotional component to their position. I'm noticing that play out in this comment stream. Not bad, just interesting.
R
r.
I often made it a point to read op-eds that disagreed with my own views. They probably weren't going to change my mind, but an honest reading may point out flaws in my logic and thus sharpen my opinion. But I'm afraid that the cacophony in our political environment has gotten so loud that I've begun to retreat altogether.
Did his lack of emotion in his debates make it better or worse when skills for a debating team were brought home and into the most intimate of relationship setting?
How did you feel after a 'debate' ? Were you able to laugh it off or something?
Just curious.
I got a shiver reading your comment...
However, I will say that our dynamic made for a hot intense relationship I'll never forget. He desired (I think) my depth of emotion and my creativity. I desired his intelligence. He's well known/published, a major player in his field, with an endowed chair at an Ivy League institution. I know. I'm smart too. But not nearly that smart, and I find that level of smart devastatingly attractive.
What do you want to accomplish?
Sometimes being acknowledged as right is counterproductive. Being seen as right doesn't automatically fix your problem; sometimes it aggravates it.
There is a false dichotomy I've noticed on the comment thread. There is a huge difference between being passionate about an issue and refusing to listen to the other side (let alone consider it). One absolutely does not preclude the other.
Being proven wrong won't kill you. Being passionate doesn't give you the right to give up your intellectual integrity. There is nothing wrong with being passionate. There is plenty wrong with allowing your passion to broaden your argument to the point where it can no longer reliably support your case. Going there is, quite simply, self-indulgent. If your cause is that important to you, handle it with care; if it isn't important enough to handle with care, your passion probably isn't just about your cause.
As you said, right-fighters equate their self-worth with being right. That's a formula for extremism because they can't afford to do anything but win, even if they're wrong. It's also something else: intellectual cowardice, an unwillingness to face the possibility that they might be wrong because of being afraid to face it.
Dr. King was not a right-fighter. Dr. King was someone who never heard a compelling argument from the other side because it turns out they didn't have one. That doesn't mean he stopped listening or exaggerated his case. He of all people was extremely careful about whom he demonized.
There is no veiled accusation in this comment about anyone. If I argue with something you say, it means I disagree with something you say, and that's all it means.
One last thing (I promise): Engaging in the phenomenon we'll refer to here as Right-Fighting doesn't mean you engage in it 100% of the time. There have been times I've engaged in this phenomenon but that doesn't make me (or anyone else who has) a right-fighter in general.
If you want to second, please to go to
http://www.open.salon.com/blog/os_readers_picks/2012/08/09/os_readers_picks_15th_awards
I'm with zanelle, I avoid right fighters, my experience is they have nothing I want. If they need to be right then I hand them the win and get rid of them, then we both get what we want.
██████████▄
█CHAMPAGNE█████████"°º„
█████████████▀────"°º¤ø„
───────────────████████──
───────────────████████─.¬
───────────────▀██████▀.──
────────────────▀████▀───
─────────────────▀██▀───
──────────────────██─────
────────────────▄████▄