Imagine you’re playing a game of tennis. You’re rallying back and forth, playing a competitive game, when you marginally lean to the left of the court in the middle of a point. Your better-skilled opponent catches the error in their peripheral vision and changes their shot at the last second. Game, set, match. [1]
In tennis, this is called an unforced error (UE). You lost, not because of your opponent’s expertise, but rather, because of your own poor judgment and execution. To quote Shane Parrish, “Amateurs win the game when their opponent loses points, experts win the game by gaining points.” [2]
Metaphor aside, we can avoid mistakes in life and work, not by being more right, but rather, by being less wrong. “Trying to be right has a tendency to devolve into protecting [our] beliefs,” writes James Clear. “Trying to be less wrong has a tendency to prompt more questions and intellectual humility.” [3]
A direct approach to earning more money would be to ask for a raise. An inverse approach, by contrast, would be to limit your expenses. A direct approach to dieting would be following a new diet. An inverse approach, by contrast, would be avoiding unhealthy foods. Being more right is about chasing the gains; being less wrong is about limiting the losses.
Don’t be more right. Be less wrong.
Footnotes
[1] Thank you to Gabriel Weinberg and Lauren McCain for introducing me to the unfocused errors and using tennis as a metaphor for being less wrong in their book, Super Thinking: The Big Book of Mental Models.
[2] “Parrish, Shane, “Avoiding Stupidity is Easier than Seeking Brilliance.” Farnam Street. June 2017.
[3] Clear, James. (JamesClear). “A Strategy for Thinking Clearly.” 25 July 2019. Tweet.
Leave a Reply