Most of us treat being corrected like being attacked.

When someone points out a flaw in our reasoning, a mistake in our work, or a contradiction in our behaviour, we tense up and settle into a fighting stance. We quickly assent to impressions like: the correction is wrong, or somehow not applicable to us specifically (it’s unfair, maybe).

Marcus thinks we should stop reacting in that childish way. If someone shows us we're wrong, the reasonable response is gratitude because being wrong isn't a problem… but choosing to stay wrong sure is.

This is hard to practise because our identity gets tangled up in our opinions. When someone challenges what we think, it can feel like they're challenging who we are. But the Stoics drew a pretty clear line between the two: our opinions are things we hold, but they are not our identity.

Dropping a bad opinion no more diminishes us than does dropping a heavy bag we no longer have any need to carry.

When a correction arrives from someone we don't particularly like (especially), or in a tone we find grating, or in front of other people, our instinct is often to reject it before spending any time considering it. But neither the speaker of truth, nor the way the truth is dressed up or delivered, says nothing meaingful about the quality of the truth itself.

The truth never hurt anyone. That's Marcus's claim.

But continuing in error? That always winds up hurting someone (usually ourselves).

Today's suggestion: Think of a recent disagreement where you dug in. Ask yourself (honestly): "Was I defending a position, or defending myself?" If it was the latter, it might be worth revisiting the criticism with fresher eyes.