The question assumes that if I am "right," then the other person is "wrong," and therefore the situation is unhappy (because of unresolved conflict), correct? It's a bit too dualistic for me, I guess.
Given my often argumentative nature and stubbornness, of course I'd generally like to be "right," but usually that's only *my* sense of being right... and isn't truly Right, with a capital R. So I recognize that (when I am able) and try to make room for other "rights," because how else would I be able to function and live with other human beings? That's not happiness, that's just plain good practice.
More particularly... I strive to be both "right" and "happy" with my husband, because he matters most to me... and our senses of "right" generally coincide with each other (otherwise we wouldn't have gotten married). If they don't, then we work to make things "right" between us, which is called compromise. We are always learning how to do that better, but I think we have a pretty good thing going with that skill already. Once again, the "right" thing to do is to realize that one person's "right" is not best for all.
Yeah, this is just getting more confusing. I guess I just don't see the duality between "right" and "happy." I think there are very few people (including myself) who are ever truly RIGHT about anything, and this has little to do with how one decides to be happy or not. Happiness is something else entirely.
The End Of My Rambling Post.