You may find, as you age, that this viewpoint takes on nuance. Yes, we should root our world in scientific thinking. We should approach problems logically. We should make our decisions rationally. We should be efficient in how we allocate our resources.

But there are times when being human outweighs those interests. There are times when we should be deliberately inefficient because too much efficiency can cause harm. There are times when we need not investigate rigorously, because by picking apart someone we might do them harm. There are times when we should accept that there might not be a logical underpinning to a behavior, because we will never be capable of operating free from emotions.

And most importantly, there are times where you need not pursue a truth. That sometimes the quest to understand can be much more harmful than simply being present and accepting.

I used to be a hardline 'logic only, logic always, efficiency above all' person. I'd plan my routes to optimize path efficiency. My relationships left me scrutinizing every interaction, guessing at double meanings and challenging assertions by people. It was unbearable to be around me. I've had to learn that sometimes people want to engage with me in diving deep, sometimes people really hate doing that, and rarely it's for everyone's best interest to override those interests.

But ultimately in those alienating conclusions you were _right_, how do we forget this? What does it make us to disregard uncomfortable truths?

It’s not about disregarding uncomfortable truths, it’s recognizing that speaking truth in an uncomfortable way accomplishes very little. To get someone to change their behavior, you need to first show them that you understand their perspective, even if you disagree with it.

Otherwise, they’ll mentally dismiss your arguments as coming from a different tribe without really listening— emotions and group identity are very strong psycological forces, so you need to take them into account when crafting your own actions.

A nuanced response, but my main point is about self censorship, what does one do if ultimately their conclusion is contradictory to their opponents. Acquiesce to maintain the peace or state their claim? I personally will always back truth regardless of its comfort to the audience whoever they might be

Pragmatically, you will achieve less this way. Eventually, you will hit the limits of others tolerance for what they will perceive as arrogance.

Perhaps this is of little concern to you, but if you absolutely want to maximize your accomplishments, you must be sufficiently flexible so that when you do speak truth it carries weight and import.

This sounds like how I used to think. A question from a mentor of mine: what does being right accomplish?

> what does being right accomplish?

Not being wrong.

Which is often bad, sometimes very bad, like "you're dead" bad or "you killed somebody else" bad.

Being right is just like epidemic prevention or vaccines: if they work, you don't even notice.

Thank you!

> I think it's right to shut up when "logic" hurts people's feelings AND there's nothing to gain from saying it

Given that your logic train might inspire others to get more insight and work on expanding your argument - or refuting it - "nothing to gain" is something that never happens.