One thing that changed this for me (I agree the saying is a bit trite) was a comment by Joscha Bach in some podcast where he mentions realizing that he had a totally wrong conception of conversation when he was a kid. To paraphrase his idea, he had previously seen discussion as an opportunity to share facts and engage in a mutual exploration of the truth. But in reality, most conversation is negotiating social status.
So the context is the important thing. You probably want to be "right" not "happy" in some circumstances. But in the case of most social activities, attempting to get to "truth" is usually playing the wrong game. You may think you are having a discussion on, say, the causes of the collapse of the Roman Empire. And you may really believe there is a "right" answer and that you have it. But if you are at most parties and socializing with most people, no one is trying to get to the root cause of historical facts.
So it is really an optimization problem. You just have to ask yourself: in this moment, in this context, with these people - are we optimizing for "truth"? Or should I be optimizing for enjoyment/amusement/happiness? This is sometimes referred to as "being on the same wavelength". If you are optimizing for "truth" and everyone else is optimizing for "happiness", you might find yourself optimized out of the equation.
That is totally possible. One thing to watch out for is the fable of the fox and the grapes. The fox is unable to get the grapes from a high branch and so wanders away thinking "they are probably sour". It is just a reminder that sometimes when we can't get something we want we use a defense mechanism to protect our ego.
Kind of the point of "wisdom" though is the judgement to know when it applies and when it doesn't. Being on guard for common cognitive mistakes is a healthy part of self-reflection. It doesn't suggest that at all times and in all moments that you are in breach of some universal moral imperatives.
And so "being on the same wavelength" goes both ways. Although, if you find that you are always requiring others to always be on your wavelength and you are never willing to match theirs, that might be another thing to self-reflect on.
Your point about sour grapes is well taken; indeed I think about 50% of human brainpower is used to rationalize why the choices we have already made (or are likely to make in the future) can't be wrong.
> And so "being on the same wavelength" goes both ways. Although, if you find that you are always requiring others to always be on your wavelength and you are never willing to match theirs, that might be another thing to self-reflect on.
Very true. I'll give an analogy: I really don't like the game Ticket to Ride. If I'm going to a weekly game group I'll sometimes play Ticket to Ride because playing games are a social activity, which requires compromise. However if the group is playing Ticket to Ride a majority of the time, we are all happier if I just find a different gaming group.
So the context is the important thing. You probably want to be "right" not "happy" in some circumstances. But in the case of most social activities, attempting to get to "truth" is usually playing the wrong game. You may think you are having a discussion on, say, the causes of the collapse of the Roman Empire. And you may really believe there is a "right" answer and that you have it. But if you are at most parties and socializing with most people, no one is trying to get to the root cause of historical facts.
So it is really an optimization problem. You just have to ask yourself: in this moment, in this context, with these people - are we optimizing for "truth"? Or should I be optimizing for enjoyment/amusement/happiness? This is sometimes referred to as "being on the same wavelength". If you are optimizing for "truth" and everyone else is optimizing for "happiness", you might find yourself optimized out of the equation.