Someone who is unapologetically wrong can be likable, a lot more likable than someone who is unapologetically right.

Not a profound observation but the evidence for this is everywhere. Most people would find Genghis Khan likable than people like Alan Turing or Isaac Newton because Genghis Khan was unapologetically himself and who he is, whereas the latter two were socially awkward people who were at the behest of social mores and norms.<br><br>This is a fairly common phenomenon in our cultural and social history, most people when they look back at historical figures they picture Napoleon and Alexander the Great rather than people who actually made world changing contributions like Newton, Archimedes and Copernicus. People love unapologetic assholes who do whatever they please than someone who is socially awkward but analytically right and correct.<br><br>This begs a philosophical question, which is more important social likability or being right and socially awkward?