They've seen something, read something, watched something or experienced something and their first thought is "well that's not how it should have been done" instead of "that's not how I'd have done it". Disapproval rather than open-mindedness. Certainty rather than speculation. Self-importance rather than objectivity.
It could be something trivial, like wearing a particular brand of trainers, or someone with a tattoo you don't like, or the meal they've ordered at the table next to yours. That's just wrong, you'll say, perhaps hoping for a nod from your companions, rather than recognising that your opinion is irrelevant.
It could be a decision that was out of your control, like a building you don't appreciate, or a football manager making a last minute substitution, or a film you'd have ended differently, or the racket that's number 1 in the pop charts at the moment. That's just wrong, you'll say, perhaps genuinely believing it is, rather than recognising it was never your choice to make.
It could be much more serious, like a woman's right to an abortion, or the pros and cons of immigration, or choices for the future direction of our economy - areas where many people are sure they know what's best. When Michael Gove declared that "people in this country have had enough of experts" he was simply tapping into this groundswell of deep personal certainty. But experts do genuinely know what they're talking about on certain issues, and it's dangerous to ignore them because they're not telling us what we want to hear.
Claiming that something is wrong happens a lot in politics, indeed our national debate is often built on it. Politicians like to point at something - a decision, an economic structure, a health outcome, the status quo, whatever - and denounce it as wrong. It's not necessarily wrong, it's simply not the decision the politician would have made themselves, but labelling it 'wrong' better frames their rhetoric.
If we happen to agree with that politician's viewpoint then we're likely to leap in and think yes, that's wrong, rather than stopping to question the veracity of their claim. Alternatively if we disagree with their viewpoint then we're likely to end up angry, because their assumption is patently incorrect, and the temperature of the discussion ratchets up another notch. Disguising opinion as fact rarely aids debate.
To be clear, it's by no means always the case that "that's wrong" means "I wouldn't have done that". Some things are genuinely wrong because facts are facts. Some things are definitely wrong because they contravene universal rules. Some things are wrong because society says they are, like murder, speeding, fraud, queerbashing and theft. You might not like the laws that enshrine these values but it's not your call to make, it's how things are. Only if a shade of opinion is involved, and the "that's wrong" brigade weigh in, do things get awkward.
This mindset often gives rise to blinkered criticism. That typeface is wrong, people say, when what they really mean is they wouldn't have used it. The behaviour in that story on social media is wrong, they tut, when what they really mean is they'd have reacted another way. That TV news report is wrong, they gripe, when what they really mean is they'd have edited it differently. That change to local services is wrong, they moan, when all they've actually considered is how they themselves will be affected.
It's all too easy to get on your soapbox and complain about a decision when it's not the decision you'd have made. It was somebody's decision to make, and if you'd applied to the company and worked your way through the organisation maybe that person could have been you. But you didn't, and they did, and they probably made the decision based on a far wider range of facts and factors than you ever could.
Too many people assert that something is wrong when in fact they're only making a value judgement. What's more they firmly believe it is wrong, because the idea that other opinions might be valid never enters their mind. One reason public discourse gets so heated is because too few people stop and think before their prejudices kick in.
Use of the word "surely" is often another indicator of inadequate thought. No matter of opinion is ever so cut and dried that "surely" is an adequate response. Describing something as "obviously wrong" should also be avoided, and "clearly wrong" suffers from the same degree of overconfidence. Far better to be self-aware enough to describe something as "probably wrong", recognising that even if you wouldn't have done it like that, somebody else might.
It's crucially important to be able to step back and think about an issue objectively. One reason history and science are in the curriculum is to train us to be critical of facts and to take evidence into account before leaping to conclusions. Our world is hugely complex, and ploughing through it thinking we have all the answers is a profoundly dangerous way to behave.
Something isn't wrong solely because we wouldn't have done it that way ourselves.
