Who is wrong

For example, if we disagree over the number of people living in Australia, we can look to the latest census to clear the matter up. Sometimes these disputes cannot be resolved because the parties cannot agree on an acceptable source of information. In this case, the dispute has become broader and is now a difference of opinion.

We see this sort of disagreement all the time Politicians seem to be very selective in the credence they give to a source of information; one side will select the source that best suits its argument and the other side will pick the source that suits theirs. Neither is really seeking any objectivity, rather they are point scoring. Indeed, such disputes can be seen as a disagreement of opinion masquerading as a disagreement over facts.

Differences of opinions are fundamentally differences in underlying beliefs and standards, however people rarely see this. Mostly they go into a learned emotional response to defend their opinion as though somehow it is connected with their inner being - they are defending themselves. After all, most people don't like to be wrong! The result is a wide variety of strategies to make ourselves right. These strategies can be very overt or quite subtle.

They could puff themselves up and yell, and hope that the other person backs down - "They gave up I am right! However, in any disagreement whenever someone ends up being seen as right, someone else is seen as wrong.

People don't like that - being made wrong. They tend to remember being wronged and at some time in the future seek redress. Yet there is another way of dealing with these situations. Rather than assuming we are right and someone else is wrong, we can look at this as a difference in standards or beliefs and wonder why there is a difference.

Perhaps, we are missing something. We can do this by asking ourselves a few simple questions. Those protesters made him shoot them. He was trying to do good, to protect this dying nation. Predominantly white voters were trying to defend their freedom, so they flocked to an open bigot like Donald Trump and stormed the U. Politicians and local officials — again, many of them white — have stoked this by framing the teaching of race and books that explore its context as something constituents should defend their communities from.

Frightened of losing the country their hardworking salt-of-the-Earth parents and grandparents built. Of becoming a minority among minorities. Of being displaced as the de facto right way to be a real patriotic American, of being able to define just what that means.

It was an entitlement, as well. An entitlement to make and uphold the rules, to make America great again. His supporters have basically guaranteed those outcomes. We need to make sure the disparity in who is afforded life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness is honestly and continually discussed regardless of how uncomfortable it is for people to confront the truth and see to it that those tenets of American democracy are extended to those who have historically been left out.

The WHO, meanwhile, was getting its information from the same Chinese authorities who were misinforming their own public, and then offering it to the world with its own imprimatur. On January 20, a Chinese official confirmed publicly for the first time that the virus could indeed spread among humans, and within days locked down Wuhan.

But by then it was too late. It took another week for the WHO to declare the spread of the virus a global health emergency—during which time Dr. Asked for comment, a representative from the WHO pointed to a press conference Tedros gave this week. And the organization says it has now shipped millions of pieces of protective gear to 75 countries, sent tests to more than , and offered training materials for health-care workers. The structure also gives WHO leaders like Tedros an incentive not to anger member states, and this is as true of China as it is of countries with significantly less financial clout.

The WHO has also shown, however, that it can walk the line between the need for cooperation and information-sharing from member states and the need to hold them accountable for mistakes. During the SARS outbreak in , a WHO spokesman criticized China for its lack of transparency and preparation, which had allowed the virus to spread unchecked.