According to the dictionary, “right” means what is in accord with what is good and proper and also what is in conformity with fact, reason, truth or some other standard or principle.1 We think of it as being something good, fair and equitable as well as accurate and true.
“Wrong” is something out of accord with what is right or “good” and also something deviating from the truth or fact.2 We sometimes equate it with iniquity, immorality and even badness, evilness, wickedness and sin.
We all have strong feelings and opinions about what is right and wrong. These are sometimes buried and latent, but sometimes they are dominant and on the surface, impacting our state of mind and actions. These feelings and opinions help guide us through life and they are very real to us. But they can blind us to other parts of reality, too. They also precipitate, aggravate and perpetuate conflict.
As lawyers, we are asked to help with determining who and what right and wrong are as part of our work, sometimes almost every day. In our legal cases, who others (third-party decision makers, e.g., judges and juries) think is right or wrong determines the final outcome, unless we can come to some compromise with those who disagree with us.
When we cannot agree and negotiate a solution, we participate as lawyers in a very structured process dictating how we go about deciding who is right or wrong. We rely on a huge body of substantive rules (law) governing what our culture has embraced — and is willing to enforce — about what conduct is sanctioned and what conduct is not.
While we study these processes and rules in depth in law school and research them as part of our case, we have not been asked to formally study the underlying reasons about how our own attitudes and those of others have been formed. And not knowing these underlying reasons and how they affect us and others often causes us to come to false or inaccurate conclusions. In short, what we thought was “right” is really “wrong.”
While considerable research on how our attitudes are formed has been conducted since WWII, this is not yet a part of what we are required to know as lawyers. This inhibits our effectiveness as problem solvers and I believe we all would be better off if some such study were required of us as we prepare for and participate in our careers.
This belief is reinforced by some of what I have come across as I have started to read some of the literature about the studies that have been done on this important and interesting subject. Some of the work has been reduced to catchy phrases with punchy content. Here are some of them:3
Bandwagon effect: The tendency to do (or believe) things because many other people do (or believe) the same thing. This is related to “groupthink,” as in Orwell’s 1984, and herd behavior (as I want to look and be like everyone else, purchase what is popular to purchase and “I buy into that” argument, something quite popular during election years). According to some, this also is related to manias, as in my team is better than your team (witness Super Bowl mania, for example) or do Hillary, Barack, John or others in the political fray stand for what is good, right, moral and just?
Bias blind spot: The tendency not to compensate for one’s own cognitive biases. A common misconception is that “this is a legal problem,” rather than “my client has come to me with a serious group of problems,” some of which may be legal, but many of which may be transactional, relational, economic, emotional and otherwise human, requiring considerable thinking outside the box of legal constructionism.
Such constructionism, by the way, often falls into the category of “I’m right, you’re wrong, and here is what we are going to do about it!”4 This we see acted out frequently in negotiations of all sorts and in power plays by those who think they have so many of the horses that they can afford to walk away or otherwise impose their will on the outcome, leaving consequences to others and ultimately, when the kickback comes, to themselves until later.
Confirmation bias: The tendency to search for or interpret information in a way that confirms one’s preconceptions. De-confirmation bias is the tendency to discount anything that contradicts the way we perceive, and want to perceive, things to be. In law, we call this “making a case” and excuse it on that basis. We also do this in international relations, politics, economics, work, at home with our significant others, and with our kids, too.
Déformation professionnelle: The tendency to look at things according to the conventions of one’s own profession, forgetting any broader point of view.
Endowment effect: The tendency for people to value something more as soon as they own it, as in “This is my idea” or “This is mine! Do not touch it!” This tendency is related to the phenomenon of “sunk costs,” as in “I’ve invested ‘ca-trillions’ in this case (or this war); the ‘bodies’ (literally or figuratively) are everywhere. I can’t back out (or down) now!”
Attribution error: The tendency to attribute another person’s actions and attitudes to a character deficiency. This is accompanied by ascribing one’s own actions and attitudes to circumstances, as in “He’s a jerk!” or “He won’t listen to reason, so I have no choice” or “I had no other option, his actions (or some other uncontrollable circumstance) made me do it!” or “If he had any brains, he could figure that out.”
The list goes on, of course, and the dilemmas we face as we go about determining what or who is right and wrong are not easily resolved. While I suspect the process of trying to resolve these dilemmas always will be challenging, I believe we can improve our perception and awareness of attributes of this process we have not studied before. This, I think, will give us a better shot at coming closer to the truth; something I think is an important, and helpful, thing to do.
With this in mind, my inner guide suggests that we should try, particularly when we feel most “righteous,” to test our beliefs and feelings, bringing our unconscious attitudes to the light of consciousness, reflecting on them, and modifying the way we think and act according to our reflections. A first step might come by remembering, as the title of this article proposes: “Right Is Sometimes Wrong — Right … or Wrong?”
John Shaffer has successfully litigated and tried cases for many years. He is a candidate for an LL.M. in Dispute Resolution (Straus Institute, Pepperdine University Law School). He now mediates and arbitrates civil lawsuits and counsels law firms, executives and management-level personnel on conflict system design and conflict resolution. He can be reached at jcslaw1@aol.com.
1 Dictionary.com Unabridged (v 1.1), based on the Random House Unabridged Dictionary, © Random House, Inc. 2006,
2 Id.
3 I owe complete thanks to a blogger named Meredith Wade for these summations and for leading me to Wikipedia and other sources. The information extracted almost verbatim in some instances is to be found at http://www.healthbolt.net/2007/02/14/26-reasons-what-you-think-is-right-is-wrong/, last visited January 21, 2008.
4 This closed and dictatorial approach has been termed “argie-bargie” by one of my recent dispute resolution professors: “argie” is “argument” (“I’m right you’re wrong”) and “bargie” is “bargaining” (“here is what we are going to do about it”). This is often attributed to the worst form of lawyering, yet we all fall prey to it as our underlying feelings, beliefs and opinions rise to the surface and interfere with a more thoughtful assessment about what really ought to occur in the conflict we are facing. We are not alone in this regard, as any review of talk shows or observation of recent political debates will amply demonstrate.
Go Back