Your inner lawyer makes you self‑righteous learn to see your own log first

Hard - Requires significant effort Recommended

You’re sure you’re right. The words come fast, and your face feels hot. In that moment, another part of you has already gone to work, the inner lawyer, assembling evidence that favors your side and hiding the rest. It’s good at its job. It’s also why arguments spiral.

Try a different opening move. Before you send the reply or walk into the meeting, write the other side’s strongest case for five minutes. This is steel‑manning, the opposite of straw‑manning. You don’t have to agree. You only have to be fair. Next, list one concrete way you contributed to the mess. “I missed a deadline,” or “I used a dismissive tone.” Naming a fault hurts for a second and helps immediately after. It takes your nervous system out of courtroom mode and into repair mode.

In conversation, keep a small cue ready: “Maybe I’m wrong.” Say it out loud when you feel moral heat rising, then ask one clarifying question. It’s not surrender. It’s a way to pause the lawyer and invite the judge. Finally, offer a small reciprocal repair. “I’ll share draft notes 24 hours earlier next time; could you confirm scope in writing?” Two tiny moves, traded, can stop escalation.

Here’s a quick story: after a terse thread about timelines, a designer wrote the PM’s best case first, admitted she had buried a risk, and proposed a small repair. The PM mirrored it. The thread ended in six minutes. Social psychology explains why: we confabulate reasons for our positions and suffer from naïve realism—the belief that we see clearly while others are biased. When you steel‑man, name your fault, and trade small repairs, you reduce self‑righteousness and make progress possible.

Before your next tense conversation, write the opposing side’s strongest fair case, then name one way you contributed to the problem. In the meeting, use the phrase “Maybe I’m missing something,” ask a clarifying question, and propose a specific fix you’ll make while inviting one in return. These moves lower heat fast and turn courtroom energy into collaboration. Try them with the very next tough email or chat you face today.

What You'll Achieve

Turn down self‑righteousness and increase accuracy and cooperation in conflicts. Internally, you’ll feel less moral anger; externally, you’ll resolve issues faster with fewer cycles.

Disarm bias before you argue

1

Write the other side’s strongest case

Before debating, spend five minutes steel‑manning the opposing view. Aim to be praised by a fair opponent for accuracy.

2

Find one fault in your own behavior

List one concrete way you contributed to the conflict. Name it plainly without excuses. This softens anger and opens resolution.

3

Use the ‘maybe I’m wrong’ cue

When you feel moral heat rising, say, “Maybe I’m missing something,” then ask one clarifying question before stating your point.

4

Agree on a small reciprocal repair

Offer a specific apology or fix, then invite one in return. Reciprocity can end escalation and restart cooperation.

Reflection Questions

  • When do I feel moral heat fastest, and what’s my cue?
  • What fault can I name in myself in a current dispute?
  • How can I steel‑man the other side so they’d say I’m fair?
  • What small reciprocal repair would meaningfully move this forward?

Personalization Tips

  • Family: In a curfew dispute, write the teen’s reasonable case first, then propose one fair adjustment you’ll make as they meet milestones.
  • Work: Before replying to a sharp email, draft the sender’s best intent, then suggest a small change you’ll make and a small ask from them.
The Happiness Hypothesis: Finding Modern Truth in Ancient Wisdom
← Back to Book

The Happiness Hypothesis: Finding Modern Truth in Ancient Wisdom

Jonathan Haidt 2006
Insight 6 of 8

Ready to Take Action?

Get the Mentorist app and turn insights like these into daily habits.