Let others be wrong if they want; it’s not your job to fix their errors

By David McElroy · June 22, 2025

I spent much of my life trying to correct the rest of the world.

I knew the facts. I knew what was rational. I was absolutely certain of myself. I was arrogant enough to believe I knew what other people ought to believe. How they ought to live. What they ought to say. And I would argue with almost anybody, especially online. All of these idiotic beliefs kept me miserable.

I had to learn a humbling lesson. Nobody wanted me to correct him or her. Even if I was right, my arrogant attitude and insistence on “fixing” others made me wrong. It took me years to learn that.

I see plenty of people around me today who still haven’t learned this lesson — and that is often keeping them unhappy, arrogant and bitter, even if they can’t admit it to themselves.

So I’m going to tell you what I’ve learned. You can accept this lesson or you can ignore it. That’s up to you. Ready?

Let people be wrong.

Don’t argue with them. Don’t try to prove you’re right. Don’t try to prove they’re wrong. You have nothing to gain by arguing. Even if the other person is objectively wrong, so what? Are you really making a difference now if you’re going around correcting people? How’s that working out for you?

Let me add a few things I’ve learned that support this notion, at least for me.

First, human beings will almost always eventually believe whatever they want to believe, not necessarily what objective evidence suggests is true. But we’re almost always certain that we are the ones who followed the evidence to its reasonable and rational conclusion.

When we come to understand that humans are wildly irrational most of the time, we somehow forget that we are human — and that we can be irrational, too. But when we are being irrational, we don’t realize it. We can be just as stupid and ignorant and arrogant as those people we point fingers at. (Even you. Even me.)

Second, people who you knew were stupid or ignorant in the past don’t magically get smarter or wiser. Stupid people rarely change. Ignorant people rarely educate themselves. They just tend to get more confident and become less conscious of their ignorance and their stupidity.

You can’t do anything about this. You just have to accept it.

Third, if you form a conclusion before you look seriously at the evidence, you’ll almost always find the “proof” to back up what you’ve decided to believe. It’s like magic. This is true about pretty much everything, but it’s especially true when it comes to things about which you have a strong emotional investment — such as politics or religion.

Fourth, most people arguing about politics (or almost anything) online have neither the historical nor philosophical knowledge to have rational opinions. So they latch onto whichever positions appeal to their emotions and ignorance. When you see things they say which are factually untrue and completely irrational to assert, it’s easy to believe you can easily “educate” them. But it doesn’t work that way.

These people who are either ignorant or have low IQs don’t understand this about themselves. They’re not going to suddenly see the light because you explain things to them. Honest.

Fifth, even when two people see the same set of facts, their conclusions can be entirely different — depending on their histories, values, needs, desires and egos. This is equally true in politics, romance and commerce. You and your spouse (or ex) see your relationship differently. People of different ideologies see political actions entirely differently. Two rational people can make entirely different decisions about which computer or phone to buy or which political or philosophical position to support.

In every part of life, our perceptions and experiences push us toward subjective conclusions, but almost everybody believes he’s the one making the objectively correct decisions. We are fooling ourselves, sometimes as much as the people who frustrate us so much with their ignorance.

Unless we want to exist in a perpetual war of all against all, we have to find ways to allow people and groups to voluntarily go their own ways in peace without killing one another. That is the core issue humans have to face — accepting that we don’t have to be right and that we can allow other people to live in ways we find immoral or mistaken.

It hurts me that so many people eagerly share obvious lies simply because those lies support what they already want to believe. This makes my brain hurt and it makes my heart hurt.

Even people who are relatively bright fall for obvious lies when believing the truth would require them to change some of what they believe. Truth matters to me — and it hurts to see lies winning — but I see no way to save people from their own intellectual laziness. It’s painful to watch.

And there’s one more reason to stop arguing with everybody in sight.

Every now and then, you will discover that you have been wrong about something had had thought — and leaving others alone will save your ego from being hurt and it will make it easier for you to change your views when you need to correct your own errors. You might not think this applies to you, but it does. It applies to me and it applies just as surely to you.

The more you argue, the more likely you are to hold onto your mistaken beliefs later — even when the more honest part of your brain has realized you were wrong.

A few minutes ago, I ventured onto Facebook for the first time in quite awhile, because I wanted to see how people were reacting to a major world event — and I was appalled.

I saw people posting things (and sharing others’ posts) that were wildly ignorant. Much of what I saw was fit only for idiots who were looking for confirmation of what they already believed.

But I didn’t reply to any of it. I wasn’t going to make a difference anyway. The error I had made was bothering to look at the idiocy and ignorance they were spouting in the first place. I wasn’t going to change their views. To protect my sanity — and achieve exactly the same thing that arguing would have achieved — I had to simply move on.

The people posting the things I saw were widely wrong. Objectively wrong. But there was not a thing I could do about it.

I had to remind myself once again that it’s not my job to correct their errors. I have to let others be wrong — if that’s what they choose for themselves.

You might just find that adopting this attitude would make your life more peaceful, too. Just think about it.

Note: The cartoon is a classic from the online comic xkcd from 2008.

Share on Social Networks

If you have problems with high blood pressure, I’d like to encourage you to consider making serious changes to your diet. There might be some people who don’t have any choice but to start taking prescription medications for high blood pressure, but I’d like to tell you that I have completely eliminated my issue by eliminating all sugar and almost all carbohydrates. (A couple of months ago, my blood pressure hit 185/144, which was dangerously high — considered stage 3 hypertension.) By completely changing my eating habits, I’m down 22 pounds and my blood pressure is now in the “ideal” range — without taking any medication. In addition, I sleep better and I have more energy. Getting away from the sugar-laden mess that we generally refer to as “highly processed food” has been a life-changer for me. Now my challenge is to avoid slipping back into old habits — by eating in the dangerous ways that almost everyone in our society has come to see as normal.

When I first heard about this, I thought it must be satire. When I discovered it was real, I was appalled, but I still thought it must be a one-time thing from some nutty activist. But it turns out it’s the latest bit of pandering to a bunch of far-left activists who believe that a man can become a woman if he decides to claim he’s a woman. As everybody knows, men have prostate glands. Women do not. Period. End of story. Men can get prostate cancer. Women cannot. But political activists are so eager to pretend that a man claiming to be a “trans woman” is really a woman that they are insisting that “women” be included in public health messages about the issue. This is nothing but political virtue-signaling. If you’re a man, you know which parts you have. You know that you ought to be screened. Nobody is made any safer by dragging far-left gender ideology into simple medical reality.

Every time someone tries to tighten requirements around the use of absentee ballots, I hear screams from Democrats and others on the political left that such efforts are nothing but “suppression of black voters.” These protests have never made sense to me, especially because it’s never been a secret that absentee ballot fraud goes on all the time in certain areas. (Everybody knew it when I worked in politics.) The people who engage in such fraud are rarely caught — often because the local political establishment approves of the crime — but a Democrat who won a primary election in Clay County, Alabama, last year has pleaded guilty to this sort of cheating. Terry Andrew Heflin was running for a place on the Clay County Commission. He was caught ordering seven absentee ballots in the names of various voters and sending them to his post office box — after which he used the ballots to vote absentee for himself seven time. Did he have other people cast additional fraudulent ballots? We’ll never know. But in a primary in which he was able to win with only 141 votes, it wouldn’t take many fraudulent votes to change the election. The next time you hear “civil rights activists” claim that it’s just “voter suppression” to hurt blacks which is at the root of efforts to stop this fraud, remember Terry Heflin. If you care about fair and honest elections, ballot security and voter identity should matter to you.

A state legislator in Maine has been stripped of the ability to speak in the state Legislature — and her votes are not being counted on legislative issues — all because she made a truthful social media post. Rep. Laurel Libby (R-Auburn, Maine) opposes allowing boys to compete against girls’ teams in school athletics and she’s become known for making an issue of it. On Feb. 17, she posted on Facebook about a recent example that she found outrageous. She posted side-by-side photos of a boy named John who competed last year in a state track event and won fifth place against other boys two years ago — and a photo of the same boy (now called Katie) who won first place in the same event this year against girls. Whether you find this outrageous or not, Libby is clearly being honest and truthful about the objective facts of an issue of public importance. But the state Legislature censured her. Democrats decreed that she could not speak in the House and that her votes would not count on legislation — until she apologized for the outrage of telling the truth. She refused and her constituents have been unrepresented in the state House since then. The people who promote this ideology are out of touch with reality and won’t rest until they force the rest of us to join them in this delusion. But even if you agree with “trans” ideology, you should be appalled at this heavy-handed attack on political speech.

The late Steve Jobs was at the center of our culture’s transition from analog to digital. He co-founded Apple Computer. He led the team that revolutionized personal computing with the first Macintosh. As CEO of Apple, he led the development of the iPhone and later the iPad. You would think the children of such a man would be surrounded by technology. But Jobs and his wife Laureen didn’t let their children use iPads. Their home had few screens of any kind. Even though Jobs spent most of his time developing and selling Macs and iPhones and iPads, he was home with his wife and children for dinner when he was in town. The family ate together at a simple wooden table in their kitchen — and there were no digital devices or focus on popular culture. Instead, he’s said to have guided his family toward deep discussions of art, philosophy and education — with no iPads to be found. If the man who guided the development of such products chose a different path for his own children, does that suggest that his digital experience taught him that children need human connection, not screens? And does it suggest the possibility that we might be better off if we made the same choice for our families?

Related Posts