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?
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
The backfire effect. Here’s a nice funny comic to explain it. https://theoatmeal.com/comics/believe
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:
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 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.
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 I am always right obviously
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.
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.
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…
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.
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:
You have to do the heavy lifting, not them IMO.
For example the why should we help lazy people?!! I wonder what should we actuallydo with them then? Like you’re too lazy to work should we let them die because of their “stupidness” and errors they made?
Never changed anyone’s mind right away but you get to talk about the underlying reasons why they hate “lazy” people, and it’s often something (shocker) that has nothing to do with “lazy” people.
For example.
Edit: I use the rightwing trope here just as an example. I’m the laziest person I know!
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!
