“We are all so narrow-minded that we always think we are right.” This phrase attributed to Johann Wolfgang von Goethe has lost none of its relevance. November 6, 2025, the German magazine DER SPIEGELin its issue of SPIEGEL Wissenwas interested in this very human tendency to want to be right at all costs.
For Kersten Sven Roth, linguist and professor at the Otto-von-Guericke University of Magdeburg, we must also distinguish two things: being right and wanting to be right. The “Rechthaber”, the German term used to designate this person, does not simply seek to defend an opinion that he considers correct. Above all, she wants to be right until the end, even if it means refusing arguments that could make her change her mind.
Wanting to be right, a question of power?
In daily life, however, this behavior would be far from permanent. According to Kersten Sven Roth, our conversations generally serve more to maintain social ties than to demonstrate that our interlocutor is wrong.
We agree, encourage, rephrase, complete each other’s sentences… In short, we often make concessions to preserve a form of cohesion.
The need to cling to one’s opinion appears more when the exchange turns into a confrontation. A professional meeting, a tense negotiation or even a public debate can thus become areas where everyone seeks to defend their position.
In these situations, admitting your mistake can make you feel like you are losing ground. The issue is then no longer just the question under discussion: it also becomes that of the place we occupy in relation to others.
“A Rechthaber is not necessarily interested in what is right, but in winning.”summarizes the analysis devoted by DER SPIEGEL to the words of the linguist.
Why is it so difficult to admit when you are wrong?
Admitting a mistake is not always comfortable. When our opinion is strongly linked to how we see ourselves, being contradicted can feel like a part of us is being questioned.
This is where certain cognitive mechanisms can come into play.
Confirmation bias refers to our tendency to seek or favor information that supports what we already believe, rather than information that contradicts it.
In a discussion, this mechanism can lead us to immediately retain the argument which confirms our position, while minimizing the one which weakens it.
But this does not mean that everyone who strongly defends their opinion suffers from a psychological problem. Being convinced, arguing or refusing a point of view that one judges to be false is not in itself pathological. The problem appears more when the objective of the exchange systematically becomes to defeat the other rather than to understand what he is saying.
What if we first sought to preserve the link?
This is precisely one of the interesting lessons from the analysis of DER SPIEGEL. In most of our ordinary interactions, we do not seek to correct every mistake our interlocutor makes.
Imagine a loved one who tells you an anecdote with a slightly wrong date. Are you going to immediately interrupt him to show him his mistake? Probably not.
Because a conversation is not just an exchange of information. It also serves to create and maintain connections.
It is when the discussion becomes a power struggle that the need to be right can take over. In a relationship, at work or on social networks, the initial question can quickly disappear behind another: “Who will have the last word?”
When discussion becomes a competition
Some people are therefore more likely to turn disagreements into confrontations. They systematically correct, respond to the slightest argument, go over details or continue the discussion even when the subject could have been closed.
The risk is then to confuse two very different objectives: seeking the truth and winning a discussion.
However, the two do not necessarily go together.
Wanting to be right at all costs can even prevent us from hearing information that could help us evolve. Conversely, agreeing to say “I was wrong” does not necessarily mean losing. It can also be a way of showing that we are capable of revising our judgment when new elements appear.
How to stop wanting to have the last word?
There is obviously no question of giving up one’s opinions to avoid conflicts. The solution is rather to slightly change the way you approach the disagreement.
Before responding, for example, we can ask ourselves: am I really trying to understand what the other person means, or am I already preparing my response?
Another useful reflex: replace the immediate statement with a question. “What makes you think that?” or “What didn’t I understand?” sometimes helps to reduce tension.
And above all, accept a part of uncertainty. Saying “I’m not sure,” “you might be right about that,” or simply “I’ll think about it” doesn’t mean abandoning your point of view.
This is sometimes precisely what allows you to escape a duel.
Because being right can be satisfying in the moment. But in a relationship, being absolutely right isn’t always the same as moving the conversation forward.