There are some situations where we could neither be clearly right nor wrong depending on the outlook. In essence, I’m saying that in such situations, you are either “wrongly right” or “rightly wrong”. (I’ll explain myself shortly.)
Now, “wrongly right” implies that your original intention was good but the approach is just unacceptable for some reasons (best known to the ‘victim’) while “rightly wrong”, on the other hands, means that what you did is bad (apparently when taken on the surface level) but it was indeed done in good fate for a good reason/outcome.
You usually find yourself in this “wrongly right” or “rightly wrong” syndrome when your actions vs intentions were somewhat misunderstood. It is now your duty to sit back, find out which part of the divide you belong (based on the feedback you’ve got) and explain yourself to the other party on how you’re honestly “wrongly right” or “rightly wrong”. By so doing, you’re clearly admitting that you’re wrong somehow and/or somewhere along the line (conceding to his/her point of views) but also letting him/her know what your good intention was initially – even though sometimes selfish.
This viewpoint, I believe, would be particularly effective in settling disputes whenever you or the other party feels misunderstood and/or aggrieved. It gives the feelings of “no winner, no vanquished” – a win-win situation – where both parties involved feel “right” in some ways and not totally wrong after all because we don’t usually want to feel completely defeated.
Adopting this slant would effectively throw more light on some of our good actions done in bad ways (and vise visa), but which we adamantly defend to be 100% right.
There are some situations where we could neither be clearly right nor wrong depending on the outlook. In essence, I’m saying that in such situations, you are either “wrongly right” or “rightly wrong”. (I’ll explain myself shortly.)
Now, “wrongly right” implies that your original intention was good but the approach is just unacceptable for some reasons (best known to the ‘victim’) while “rightly wrong”, on the other hands, means that what you did is bad (apparently when taken on the surface level) but it was indeed done in good fate for a good reason/outcome.
You usually find yourself in this “wrongly right” or “rightly wrong” syndrome when your actions vs intentions were somewhat misunderstood. It is now your duty to sit back, find out which part of the divide you belong (based on the feedback you’ve got) and explain yourself to the other party on how you’re honestly “wrongly right” or “rightly wrong”. By so doing, you’re clearly admitting that you’re wrong somehow and/or somewhere along the line (conceding to his/her point of views) but also letting him/her know what your good intention was initially – even though sometimes selfish.
This viewpoint, I believe, would be particularly effective in settling disputes whenever you or the other party feels misunderstood and/or aggrieved. It gives the feelings of “no winner, no vanquished” – a win-win situation – where both parties involved feel “right” in some ways and not totally wrong after all because we don’t usually want to feel completely defeated.
Adopting this slant would effectively throw more light on some of our good actions done in bad ways (and vise visa), but which we adamantly defend to be 100% right.
