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?
The backfire effect. Here’s a nice funny comic to explain it. https://theoatmeal.com/comics/believe
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.
Hmmm. There are a lot more opinions about this than I thought there’d be.
Personally, and without any real evidence? I think it’s just because conceding a point somehow feels as if it compromises your whole position. Like you’re getting scored, and admitting you’re wrong gives the other person a point and undermines your entire argument.
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.
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.
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…
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.
Oh boy. If you really wanna understand this, there are like 80 episodes of the podcast You Are Not So Smart that look at this from different angles.
There’s not really a single reason. It’s a lot of inter-related ones.
Probably cause kids ridicule you hard if you are wrong or stand out. When you grow up, you might learn to have your own opinions, but you might never unlearn the various defens mechanisms and feelings of ridicule that developed as a result of kids around you scrutinizing you and your opinions.
They don’t want to hear it cause it is uncomfortable. And they feel like they are loosing respect and getting attacked. They rather sweep it under the rug and forget about it, sometimes not learning from it at all. Humans are also lazy.
Being wrong gracefully is a learnt skill.
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
It can feel a bit lopsided - if I’m having a conversation about some divisive thing, and grant a point, even a small one: the other person will probably keep harping on the thing I was wrong about. Meanwhile, that person will never admit they were wrong about anything.
It’s a symptom of treating these conversations like debates. After you ‘lose’ a couple, you’re conditioned not to give an inch.
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.
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.
The discussion usually is for the benefit of lurkers and rarely results in changing the opinion of the opponent.
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.
If you’re genuinely interested, then there are people studying and talking about this (beyond the expertise of Lemmy). There’s a fantastic podcast I listen to that talks in detail and there author has written a book about how minds change. Here’s a specific episode (out of many) that is relevant, but I would really recommend listening to all:
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:
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.
