During a recent Small Batch meeting (a weekly Zoom gathering of men I connected with through MenLiving), I asked one of the men who was in a debate with someone outside our group on a topic regarding men and women: "Do you want to be right, or do you want to be in relationship?"
I could see from his reaction that he disliked the question. He chose to let it pass by, and we moved on. But a week or so later, during a one-on-one catch-up, he brought it back up. He was still troubled by it. He shared that he had received the question as an accusation. He felt I was minimizing his well-articulated and firm position (my characterization) in the debate. Phrased the way I did, my question had the presumption he didn't value or want relationship, and he would have to (or should) stand down to get it.
Damn. I could see how he might feel that way.
When I use that phrase, I’m not suggesting someone should abandon the truth, let others walk all over them, or self-silence. Conviction matters. When I use it, I am suggesting that when our desire to win takes over, the ego steps in, and we lose our curiosity, and that ain’t good.
Curiosity is the thing that makes connection possible. When we are consumed by being right, we switch into defense mode. We stop listening to understand and start listening to formulate our next response. The moment curiosity vanishes; the other person ceases to be a human being to connect with and becomes an opponent to defeat.
Coincidentally, as I was preparing to write this, I was listening to Adam Grant’s new book, Vibe: The Secrets of Strong Connections in a Lonely World. He happened to be discussing the famous relationship between Supreme Court Justices Antonin Scalia and Ruth Bader Ginsburg.
It’s well known that these two legal giants couldn’t have been more ideologically different. Scalia the conservative originalist and Ginsburg the liberal constitutionalist. Yet, they were dear friends for decades. They held deep respect for each other’s intellect, shared a love of opera, good food, and humor, and genuinely enjoyed each other's company. Many found their bond baffling. Incomprehensible. In a culture where close-minded, zealous position-taking has become the norm, a friendship like theirs was refreshing. A model of healthy human connection.
What Scalia and Ginsburg understood, and what we can so easily forget, is that conviction and curiosity are not mutually exclusive. We don't have to surrender your principles to remain curious about (or even love!) the human holding the opposite view. Curiosity doesn't require compromise; it demands presence. It can be easy to blow-off the person on the other side of an argument or we can care enough about the relationship (even if it is transitory) to ask,” How did you come to see the world this way?" instead of "How can I prove you wrong?"
Do you want to be right, or do you want to be in relationship? How does it land for you?