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?
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?’
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.’
Because some people over-correct in resisting being wrong until they have to be right all the time.