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?

  • Opinionhaver@feddit.ukOPEnglish
    21·
    15 days ago

    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.

    • surewhynotlem@lemmy.world
      2·
      15 days ago

      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.