Interpreted literally, my version is clearly false. But when combined with my explanation of how I think about it, I don't believe it is false.

More importantly, to me, it engages me with the exact tradeoff that I have found myself choosing between. I find it helpful to make the choice explicit, rather than implicit and driven by emotion.

If your version works for you, then great. But for me, prioritizing useful over right, begs the question of what useful means, and who gets to define it. The answer to that situation isn't currently obvious to me. I've spent most of my life putting one foot in front of the other, chasing fairly clear goals. And now I'm trying to figure out what goals I should even be chasing at the moment.

It may be that your version might appeal to some future version of me. But for present me, my version is far more directly relevant.

> I just refuse to label this behavior as being constructive, desirable, something to cultivate and protect.

> I see this "complainy" way of engaging as unproductive

You are merely defining "constructive" and "productive" to whatever suits you.

> I get wanting to vent and wanting to be heard but solutions should come first.

One thing I learned after learning all these skills (later in life), is to openly tell others "The word 'should' is not in my vocabulary."

should is usually a means to be lazy in explaining your thought process. Why should solutions come first? What problem are you trying to solve, and why that problem? Understand that addressing emotions is solving a problem - it's just a different one from what you're trying to address. Solving that problem (well) often results in fewer problems down the road. The one you're trying to solve likely won't.

To directly address the topic - solving the emotional problem first makes them more open to listening to your (other) solution.[1]

> but I also nudge, coach and hope they develop healthier and more constructive ways of dealing with their problems.

Tip for the future: Being judgmental is going to negate most of your efforts. There's nothing wrong with nudging people down a path you feel is right. There is a problem in labeling the behavior as "unconstructive".

And, as I said in another comment, I'd wager good money that your behavior is not particularly different. You may not do it as often as the people you speak of, but you do do it - and you won't recognize it until you dig deeper into understanding the bigger picture. Once you do (as I did), you'll find plenty of examples in your life - past and present - where you behaved in the same "unconstructive" way, and didn't realize it.

(And in the off chance you have realized it, and criticize yourself for those past trespasses, you are putting a barrier to improvement).

[1] And yes, that's true even for you! You merely have to go back to your life where someone told you something (that you later found to be correct) and you didn't follow it, and ask why. There are multiple reasons people don't, but this is one of them. Distrust, dislike, disdain, etc lead to devaluing things others say.

For what it’s worth, I agree with you, and my partner has a similar outlook. There are people in the world who prefer to live life from a perspective of truth seeking and open inquiry. Don’t let anyone gaslight you into thinking that this is a flaw or that you should fundamentally change yourself for the sake of the average person!

It’s important to be able to navigate these conversations professionally, but there’s no reason to be overly close with people who you don’t naturally mesh with.

One of the reasons of my version is that it points my attention at the actual decision - would I prefer to be right, or to cut this person off? The answer isn't always to please others.

It looks like you are passing judgement on the OP's situation.

As the OP, I can confidently tell you that you are absolutely in the wrong. You do not have sufficient information to pass this judgment.

I was emphatically not, "trying to make the situation better." Though that was the excuse that I would have made for myself. I was distracted, and wanting the problem to go away so I could get back to something else. (Which was rather less important.) I was throwing out suggestions before I had heard enough to say anything that had any chance of actually being useful. And if my mindset had been, "trying to make the situation better," I would have absolutely realized that.

Problems don't beg for help. People do.

And in this general scenario, you are assuming that you are being begged for help every time someone describes a problem to you. Literally, they are not. Maybe they are implying that request; maybe they are communicating something else instead.

I assure you that your general assumption is false, sometimes.

In the worst case you have some people who only want to transmit their own negative emotions to you. The don’t want to solve the problem (but will get angry if you don’t attempt it), they won’t accept empathy (or will use it as bait for subtle personal attacks), and they divert any and all conversations back to their own personal issues. The listener is not at fault in this situation!

A second reply, to a second comment.

> But apparently we live in this bizarre world where emotions are always right.

No, but we do live in a world where emotions are always important. So much so that highly productive and well-beloved people commit suicide sometimes, in the extreme cases.

Emotions matter, certainly, or at least yours do - to you. When others' emotions also matter to you, you move beyond infant-like narcissism, and become a potentially productive member of society. Not productive in the sense of number of lines of code written, but in the sense that you are treasured, looked after, and sought out by others simply for yourself.