I’ve been thinking lately about why, in debates (usually) about highly emotional topics, so many people seem unable to acknowledge even minor wrongdoings or mistakes from “their” side, even when doing so wouldn’t necessarily undermine their broader position.
I’m not here to rehash any particular political event or take sides - I’m more interested in the psychological mechanisms behind this behavior.
For example, it feels like many people bind their identity to a cause so tightly that admitting any fault feels like a betrayal of the whole. I’ve also noticed that criticism toward one side is often immediately interpreted as support for the “other” side, leading to tribal reactions rather than nuanced thinking.
I’d love to hear thoughts on the psychological underpinnings of this. Why do you think it’s so hard for people to “give an inch” even when it wouldn’t really cost them anything in principle?
Lemmy is worse than reddit in almost every measureable way. The reason I haven’t gone back to reddit is purely out of principle and it’s not a principle if it’s not costing you anything.
Damn your opinions suck lmao. Were you the reason Blahaj defederated from feddit.uk?
Cuz it would be funny if one user could annoy a community so much that they decide to defedreate the entire instance.
Also the above comment being right next to:
Longest continuous edging streak. Hell, I might already hold that record anyway.
Perfect example of a reddit user lol.
What do you get out of going around insulting complete strangers? People being intentionally mean online is honestly baffling to me.
what’s baffling is that you don’t see it!
Very often on Lemmy, and maybe social media in general, discussions are pointless. People are not there to see the other side, they are there to fight for what they already think.
All these keyboard warriors think they are fighting a battle, weather its about defending trans rights or fighting antivax opinions, or whatever.
This is all true. it’s something that crosses my mind whenever I spend (i.e. waste, probably) any time at all in debate. In person too, BTW, although text feels even worse because of the way it disembodies your interlocutor.
And yet. Open debate is all we have. The alternatives cannot possibly be better. I tell myself that even if 99% of it is useless, that remaining 1% can make a lot of difference statistically. I can certainly think of occasions when I’ve changed my mind, or at least seen things in a new light, because of a single comment someone made in debate. But yes, it’s rare.
The discussion usually is for the benefit of lurkers and rarely results in changing the opinion of the opponent.
For example, it feels like many people bind their identity to a cause so tightly that admitting any fault feels like a betrayal of the whole.
That’s exactly it in a lot of cases. More on that here:
Also consider the Yes Ladder - in sales, getting someone to say yes to something small makes them more likely to agree to other things.
It also applies to other contexts. If a police suspect refuses to talk, they ask innocuous questions because once someone starts talking, it’s hard to stop.
Admitting incorrectness will make you more likely to concede other points too
I think it’s two things.
- Tribalism and identity play a large role here, we’re wired to defend our identity and that of our group so we naturally get defensive when those things are questioned.
- We have cultivated a culture in which being wrong or changing your mind about this stuff is weakness or makes you a bad person.
People are desperately afraid of being wrong, of admitting that they made a mistake, especially one that makes them question their tribe’s values because that combines shame and judgement with the possibility of being ostracized.
Personally I’ve always tried to cultivate a willingness to be wrong because I value having the best possible information more than not being wrong or questioned. I actively seek our situations where my core beliefs and opinions are challenged and tested, where I am exposed to new ideas and perspectives, because to me that is the only way to make sure I have an accurate and well informed worldview. But it definitely took a lot of effort to quash that gut reaction of ‘fuck you don’t question me’.
It’s been less than a week since I last publicly admitted to being wrong about something. Not only did I get called ignorant for being wrong in the first place, but even more so for admitting it.
I also agree with your point about pressure-testing your own beliefs. Whenever I’m debating someone, it’s as much about trying to influence their beliefs as it is about letting them test mine. I know I’m wrong about plenty of things, and I don’t want to stay wrong any longer than necessary. If there’s a flaw in my reasoning, I want someone to point it out to me in a way I can’t ignore.
It’s painful to be proven wrong - I’m not immune to that either. It stings. What I don’t understand, however, is why, instead of simply leaving the discussion, some people start making excuses, redefining terms, rewriting history, or attacking me personally based on beliefs I often don’t even hold. That kind of behavior just seems absurd to me.
I’m usually not someone who picks sides easily, but I think the Russian invasion of Ukraine is a rare example where it’s pretty clear to me who the good guys are (though I’m open to counterarguments). Even then, if someone pointed out that Ukraine has committed war crimes too, I’d say that’s almost certainly true - but it doesn’t change how I feel about Ukraine broadly when compared to who they’re fighting against. My worldview isn’t threatened by admitting that. I genuinely struggle to understand the perspective of someone who can’t do the same.
One nice thing about being willing to admit that you’re wrong is when other people make a big deal about it you can say something like ‘Look, I apologized and I said I would do better in the future, are you trying to accomplish something with all this endless harping on a resolved issue or are you just still stuck on how upset you were that I’m fallible just like everyone else?’
I don’t want to stay wrong any longer than necessary
Right, exactly. I care more about having the correct information than I do about being seen to be right. Honestly I don’t find it painful to be wrong unless it’s something I defended eagerly and resisted being corrected on, which does happen sometimes, but most of the time I can just shrug and go ‘My bad, but at least I’ve learned something here today.’
What I don’t understand, however, is why, instead of simply leaving the discussion, some people start making excuses, redefining terms, rewriting history, or attacking me personally based on beliefs I often don’t even hold. That kind of behavior just seems absurd to me.
Because some people over-correct in resisting being wrong until they have to be right all the time.
I dunno, man.
All I know is that open-mindedness is far less common than I’d once assumed.
And there are those people who aren’t actually interested in truth, but are instead interested in “winning,” because they see every conversation as a power struggle, with a winner and a loser (and as such, language is merely a tool to be wielded for gaining and maintaining social power, not actually finding out things for their own sake). Part of that game can include pretending to be curious and interested in truth, because of the positive image that can project for them.
When those of us who are actually curious about the world interact with one of these types, it can be quite a confusing and frustrating experience if we don’t know what we’re dealing with.
I think it sometimes depends on how much they have internalised their perspective on a topic as a core part of their personality.
If they perceive a disagreement with their perspective as a direct attack on their person, that can lead to subjectively bad outcomes.
There is also the possibility that what you see as a small point is a critical point to them.
I’m not an expert, but…
even when doing so wouldn’t necessarily undermine their broader position
Conceding one wrong is proof that you, your view or argumentation, is flawed. Conceding just one minor point puts every point’s validity into question.
Even if you can conclude that it’s irrelevant both factually there’s social and emotional aspects to it.
We are driven not only by reason, but in large part by emotion, and our ingrained social psyche.
Even if it is factually irrelevant, conceding is confirming fault, and may cause anxiety about repercussions in terms of social standing (how you are seen by the others) and for your argument as a whole (will you be trusted when something you said was wrong).
What you describe as building identity is building that identity around a set of beliefs and group of people.
Depending on the group and beliefs, two aspects come into play:
Group dynamics of in-group and out-group. Loyalty may be more important than reason. The own group is likely seen as better than the “others”. Others may be seen as inferior or as enemies.
If you acknowledge just one point integral to the groups beliefs, what does that mean for you as a part of that group? Will you lose all your social standing? Will you lose being part of the group?
Somewhat unrelated and related at the same time, because self-identity is also a construct to build stable group associations; building your confidence and self-identity around a set of values, conceding on some of them means losing stability and confidence in yourself, your worth.
The human psyche is still largely driven by genetics developed in ancient times, and the environment.
As a social create, it was critically important to be able to join groups and stay in them, to have strong and stable bonds. This persists today, in our psyche and behaviors.
It depends a lot in which context the “discussion” is taking place.
- at a dinner table it’s more about small talk and performing… “social grooming” as you would observe it in ape societies.
- at official events, people either have a job or an established opinion, they are in a stressful environment that does not actually allow them to make rational evaluations
- in school / academia / media, the particular response and opinion will affect your grade, social standing and future career opportunities
In all of those situations, it should be obvious why the “dominant” position does need to give an inch, for social reasons.
Even in absolutely perfect conditions, calm environments, prepared discussion participants, “objective neutrality” towards the outcome, individuals will have different opinions on importance of topics or methods and will discard “details” or see them as irrefutable counter examples.
Basically, there are lot of (subconscious) things going on that prevent an “objective discussion” from happening. I’m sure you can find specific examples of what could be influencing people in specific circumstances once you look for them.
Read up on cognitive biases.
People are social animals. We form groups and we stick with them. Some of our cognitive biases are very clearly geared toward preserving the cohesion of the group. The truth is very much secondary to group cohesion.
Individuals vary a lot, however. And some individuals are much more open to changing their mind than others. Groups are stronger when they have a variety of different personalities within them. Different people can have different roles within the group and help it adapt to changes.
Because it conflicts with their personal identity. If I point out being “pro-life” while also denying people’s right to health care for that life is hypocritical, I’m calling you a hypocrite from your perspective.
I can’t help myself but to comment on this though it gets a little off-topic.
I think the “pro-life vs healthcare” example can be a little more complicated.
If someone sees abortion as equivalent to murder (because they believe life begins at conception), their opposition is based on a direct moral prohibition - being against killing - rather than a broader stance on care or social services.
That doesn’t mean there aren’t inconsistencies elsewhere, but the perceived contradiction might not be quite as direct from their point of view as it sounds.
abortion as equivalent to murder
They don’t believe that. They think they believe that, but they don’t. The frozen embryo in the fire question proves this. The fact that they aren’t actively killing abortion doctors proves this.
I get where you’re coming from, but I think this is actually a good example of what I was trying to get at in my original post.
Assuming people don’t really believe what they say - just because they don’t act exactly how we might expect - feels like another form of refusing to give an inch.
If someone says they believe life begins at conception, I take that at face value unless there’s clear evidence otherwise - I’m not a mind reader after all. And not resorting to violence (like killing doctors) is actually consistent with believing killing is wrong, not evidence that they don’t believe it.
People can be inconsistent without being dishonest. We’re all a bit messy like that.
I’m arguing that there IS clear evidence otherwise. The fact that they’re not acting in a way that is consistent with the belief that life begins at conception is a problem. And saying that they don’t understand their own belief is much nicer than saying that they’re horrible people who let death happen when they could have stopped it.
And I think the point of these discussions is to exactly fix your final point. To iron out the inconsistencies and find the truth.
The backfire effect. Here’s a nice funny comic to explain it. https://theoatmeal.com/comics/believe
You will realise that many people are too egotistic to back down.
I’m not here to rehash any particular political event or take sides
checks post history out of curiosity oh.
Their name should give away that they are a troll.
the irony of their position and still asking this question is military grade, ironically enough in its own way.
To quote myself here:
I’ve also noticed that criticism toward one side is often immediately interpreted as support for the “other” side, leading to tribal reactions rather than nuanced thinking.
mmhmm, keep going…
In general the small points are not actually related to the overall point or are the rare exception to larger trends and are either meant to derail the discussion or show that the other person is going for gotcha points.
