It is strange how we (humans) tend to attach some fundamental value to the condition of being right, instead of attaching that value directly to information itself- as if it makes us more valuable as individual beings to have correct information. In a way it does, I guess- it can give us credibility in others' eyes when our judgment is sound. But it's generally obvious to other people when we're more attached to the condition of being right than we are interested in distilling the most correct information. So being attached to the condition of being right for the value it brings socially- instead of having that drive for the sake of itself (to be able to trust oneself to know what's correct, rather than to 'be' that person in others' eyes)- is doomed to backfire?
/might be wrong
There's a difference between wishing to develop a reputation for reliability, and wishing to "always be right".
Wanting to always be right, insofar as it is a
reaction to a situation, has nothing to do with being right and everything to do with wanting to maintain appearances of being right, so as to get one's way with others. If wanting to be right is instead expressed as diligence, as properly verifying one's facts, and keeping abreast of the knowledge one needs to maintain, that is quite another thing. It can appear to be emotionally reactive as the former, on occasion, but it arises not from an egotistical reaction so much as one's investment in acquiring and maintaining that relevant knowledge.
Personally, I strive to develop a reputation for reliability because it keeps others from trying to micromanage my affairs. It has nothing to do with wanting to be recognized as superior in any way, and everything to do with getting my work done with minimum fuss and bother. Rely upon normal procedure to analyze and find errors in my work, not nosiness and micromanagement.
In terms of decision-making and analysis, I prefer that my views and opinions be challenged. An unfortunate side-effect of being an expert (in whatever field) is that others can start to assume that you're the expert, and any disagreement they might have is disqualified because they value your expertise over their own judgment. I would rather hear an unqualified opinion from a different perspective: people forget that we're all experts in our own fields, and as such we have knowledge to contribute to each other. If I'm writing loan software, I need to defer to loan experts on how the rules should work, and to loan officers on how the workflow should proceed, and to the IT staff on what servers are available for installation, and so on.
In a more humorous vein, my attitude is kind of like this:
Now, work the logic of that quote backwards. The reason I care about being right is because it saves me time, it makes things easier to do them correctly the first time through, instead of running around in circles trying to put out fires. I also try to extend this beyond my own personal sphere: I try to make things happen right the first time so that it not only saves me time, but saves time for everyone else around me. Interestingly, these kinds of efforts are often largely invisible to those whom they help, because it's about saving opportunity costs, as opposed to, say, being the miracle worker who, when a disaster strikes, finds the problem and fixes it quickly. To my mind, if I'm the wizard who fixes things quickly, it's probably because I made the mistake that caused the disaster in the first place, which is why I know how to fix it so quickly ...