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?

  • Senal@programming.devEnglish
    1·
    1 day ago

    To admit that you’re wrong would be to admit that your view is the weaker one.

    Perhaps I’m playing in to the scenario OP is describing but I’d argue that being wrong (let’s assume for this example it’s provably, objectively wrong) isn’t necessarily weakness, sometimes it’s just incorrectness.

    i’m possibly drawing a pedantic line between weakness (a potentially valid, but weaker argument) vs incorrectness ( an argument that is provably, objectively incorrect ).

    Perhaps i’m just describing the difference between subjective and objective arguments … hmmm, not sure

    • seaside@reddthat.com
      2·
      1 day ago

      You’re right, but in common public discourse, there’s no real difference between the two. Debating is about persuasion - a view can be objectively wrong but still be considered stronger than a factually true one if it’s delivered in an attractive and relatively believable way. This is why right-wing views are popular.