A quick note before we begin:
My ebook STOIC CONFIDENCE has been received incredibly well since its release. I’ve had many readers message me to say that it helped them rethink their relationship with fear, self-doubt, and confidence, and hearing that has meant a lot to me.
If you’d like to read it, the full ebook is included with every Annual and Patron subscription, along with access to the complete Stoic Wisdoms archive.
I have been thinking about why a correction can be completely accurate and still fail. We tend to assume that once the facts are on our side, the rest is mostly a matter of saying them clearly. Someone made a mistake. We point it out. If they are reasonable, they acknowledge it and change.
However, human beings rarely make it that easy.
The moment someone feels humiliated, the mistake is no longer the only thing they are dealing with. They are also dealing with the fact that they feel exposed, diminished, or embarrassed in front of someone whose opinion matters to them. If other people are watching, there is now an audience to consider as well. Admitting the mistake may still be the rational thing to do, but it has acquired a social cost that did not need to be there.
You can see how easily this changes a conversation. A person who might have been willing to say, “I got that wrong,” begins explaining why it was understandable, why somebody else contributed, why the mistake was not as serious as you are making it sound. Sometimes we interpret that defensiveness as further proof that the person cannot take criticism. Sometimes that is true. But I think it is worth asking whether the way we delivered the criticism gave them something besides the error to defend.
When admitting mistakes carries the risk of embarrassment or loss of face, people often protect themselves by withdrawing, withholding information, or becoming defensive. Environments where people can acknowledge errors without expecting humiliation tend to make honest discussion and learning easier.
That does not mean truth should be made comfortable. Some truths are uncomfortable by their nature. It means we should be careful about adding discomfort that serves no purpose beyond making sure the other person feels the correction.
Epictetus has a passage in the Discourses that I think gets remarkably close to this. He describes what happens when someone encounters a person who reasons badly. Too often, he says, we become frustrated, ridicule them, call them ignorant, and walk away. He then gives a much better image for what correction is supposed to be:
“A guide, when he has found a man out of the road leads him into the right way: he does not ridicule or abuse him and then leave him.”
Epictetus, Discourses, 2.12
The image changes the question.
If someone has lost the road, the point of knowing the road is that you can help them find it again. Standing beside the path explaining how foolish they were to get lost may establish your superior sense of direction, but it leaves the original problem untouched.
Epictetus goes on to praise Socrates for the same reason. What he admired was Socrates’s ability to question someone without becoming irritated or abusive, allowing the contradiction in their thinking to become visible through the conversation itself.
There is something useful in that beyond Socratic debate. People are often much more willing to revise a conclusion they have been allowed to examine than one they feel forced to surrender. A question can sometimes do more than a verdict because it gives the other person room to participate in discovering what went wrong.
That does not mean every correction should be disguised as a gentle question. Sometimes the facts are already clear. If someone has treated you badly, missed an important responsibility, or crossed a boundary, there may be nothing useful about pretending you are merely curious. Clarity can be a kindness too.
What matters is whether the correction remains directed toward something that can actually be corrected.
“You interrupted me repeatedly in that meeting, and I need you not to do that again” gives the other person something specific to confront. “You are an arrogant person who has no respect for anyone” asks them to defend an identity. Even when the second statement grows out of genuine frustration, it reaches much further than the behavior we actually needed to address.
Once a correction becomes a judgment of the whole person, admitting the mistake becomes harder because there is more at stake in the admission. Agreeing that I behaved selfishly in one situation is possible. Agreeing that I am, in essence, a selfish person is a very different demand.
Seneca approaches correction from another direction in On Anger. He argues that anger is unnecessary for dealing with wrongdoing and compares correction to medicine. The person correcting an error should be concerned with what will improve the person and the situation, just as a physician is concerned with treating what is wrong rather than becoming personally offended by the illness. Seneca is not asking for softness. He allows discipline and consequences where they are needed. His objection is to the anger that makes punishment satisfying in itself.
I think that distinction is easy to lose when we have been hurt.
Correction can begin with a legitimate purpose and acquire another one along the way. We want the person to understand what they did, but we also want them to feel what they put us through. We want an apology, but perhaps we also want to watch some of their confidence disappear before we accept it. By the time the conversation ends, the original issue may have been addressed, yet we keep going because the emotional account still feels unpaid.
That is often where dignity gets taken unnecessarily.
A person can understand the seriousness of what they did without being humiliated. They can face consequences without being mocked. They can be told something difficult without having the correction performed in front of people who had no reason to be involved.
Of course, privacy is not always possible or appropriate. A public falsehood may require a public correction. Harm done openly may need to be addressed openly so that other people understand what is acceptable. Protecting someone’s dignity cannot mean protecting them from every consequence of their choices.
But even then, there is a difference between making the truth visible and turning someone’s embarrassment into part of the punishment.
That difference becomes especially important in relationships that continue after the correction.
Every time someone tells you about a mistake, they learn something about the price of honesty with you.
A child who admits breaking something notices what happens next. An employee who tells a manager about an error notices whether the admission becomes useful information or ammunition. A friend who says, “I handled that badly,” notices whether the confession lets the two of you move toward repair or simply gives you a better position from which to attack.
Over time, these experiences teach people what they should bring to us and what they should hide.
This is where humiliation becomes more expensive than the moment itself. If every mistake becomes an occasion for ridicule or prolonged shame, people may not become more careful about making mistakes. They may become more careful about letting you see them.
That creates a strange kind of relationship. Everything appears fine because problems arrive late. People tell partial truths. They soften what happened before bringing it to you. They wait until there is no other choice.
The person who believes they have taught everyone around them to be responsible may actually have taught them to become discreet.
There is a much better reputation to have: to be someone people can be wrong in front of.
I do not mean someone who excuses everything. I mean someone whose seriousness can be trusted. If I have made a mistake, I know you will tell me. If I have hurt you, I know you will not pretend otherwise. But I also know that admitting it will not require me to crawl first.
That kind of trust makes correction easier because the person does not need to spend half the conversation protecting themselves from you.
And there is another reason to practice this that has little to do with whether the other person changes.
Being right places us in a small position of power.
For that moment, we know something they do not, see something they missed, or have a stronger claim than they do. It may be a trivial advantage, but advantage has a way of revealing character. What do we do when someone cannot answer back convincingly? What do we take once we have already established the point?
The Stoic concern eventually returns to us.
Epictetus warns that abusive words strengthen an abusive character just as repeated actions strengthen any other habit. We are always practicing something in the way we respond.
If someone else has behaved badly, correcting them may be our responsibility. Humiliating them is another action altogether, and that action belongs to our character.
Perhaps that is why leaving someone with their dignity matters even when they have done nothing to earn our kindness in the moment. We are not only deciding what they deserve. We are deciding what kind of person we will practice being while we have the upper hand.
Say what needs to be said. Make the boundary clear. Let consequences follow when they should.
Then, when the truth has done its work, know when to stop.
The mistake may belong to them.
There is no reason their dignity has to belong to you too.
Stay stoic,
SW
Thanks for reading this far , I genuinely appreciate it.
If you want more essays like this in your inbox, you can subscribe below. I’d be glad to have you here.
And if you’re already subscribed, consider upgrading for access to the full archive.
Continue reading:
How to Become Interested in Anything
The most important thing I did while climbing out of my depression in my late teenage years was not a technique. It was not an app, a routine, or a book about depression. It was opening myself up to learning new things.
I love the concept behind Socratic discussion that the discussion itself can help the person discern what went wrong rather than having to explicitly say it. There is kindness in helping others understand without humiliating them. So good!
I’ve realized there’s a huge difference between correcting someone and making them feel small.
Anyone can win an argument. The harder skill is telling someone they’re wrong without making them regret being honest with you.
Sometimes the most powerful thing you can say after making your point is nothing at all.
Truth should fix the situation, not destroy the person.