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?

  • PhilipTheBucket@ponder.cat
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    2 months ago

    One thing I would add to all the good answers here: It stems from a lack of contact with real-world, messy, difficult environments.

    Usually people who come into contact with harsh reality a lot in their daily life are pretty humble. They don’t get stuck on one way of looking at things, they don’t refuse to admit obvious good sense arguments. Even if they get to the point that they’re super-qualified, they just kind of have common sense and are approachable. Mostly, not always. I think this is why people kind of fall in love with certain types of environments with a lot of challenge or “win or lose” aspect to them: Business, sports, law, war, esports, mountain climbing, whatever. It’s like you get to prove yourself and all your bullshit against the harsh light of day, and a lot of times what you learn is that some genius theory wasn’t really all that solid once it got exposed to the real world.

    But then, a whole lot of first-world modern life isn’t like that. You can just go around your entire life talking about economics or politics and just be wrong as hell and you never get to find out. So it’s easy to be super-confident, and it’s obviously a lot more comfortable to be always right about everything than it is to admit when someone’s maybe successfully poking a hole in your genius.

  • stoy@lemmy.zip
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    2 months ago

    Because team mentalilty.

    Many people will instinctively disagree just because you happen to be on the other team.

    Let’s take political ideologies, they all want the same thing:

    Good schools, good healthcare, good geriatric care, good infrastructure and so on.

    Where they differ is how they get there.

    The left want the government to provide these services, the right want the private sector to do it.

    To have a productive discussion on how to solve society’s problems, I find it better to talk about the issue itself and avoid branding yourself as a part of a particular movement.

  • HootinNHollerin@lemmy.dbzer0.com
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    edit-2
    2 months ago

    Hot take: Lack or world-shattering psychedelic experiences.

    Regular take: media designed to isolate or at least divide. Plus general trend of less in person daily contact

  • 1984@lemmy.today
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    2 months ago

    I think because people who watch the discussion seems to take sides, and they want their side to win. 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.

    • JubilantJaguar@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      2 months ago

      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.

  • emb@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    edit-2
    2 months ago

    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.

  • tauren@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    2 months ago

    Because that would shatter their worldview which is essential to how they understand the world and themselves in it.

  • carl_dungeon@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    2 months ago

    Because it conflicts with their personal identity. If I point out being “pro-life” while also denying people’s right to health care for that life is hypocritical, I’m calling you a hypocrite from your perspective.

    • Opinionhaver@feddit.ukOP
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      edit-2
      2 months ago

      I can’t help myself but to comment on this though it gets a little off-topic.

      I think the “pro-life vs healthcare” example can be a little more complicated.

      If someone sees abortion as equivalent to murder (because they believe life begins at conception), their opposition is based on a direct moral prohibition - being against killing - rather than a broader stance on care or social services.

      That doesn’t mean there aren’t inconsistencies elsewhere, but the perceived contradiction might not be quite as direct from their point of view as it sounds.

      • surewhynotlem@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        2 months ago

        abortion as equivalent to murder

        They don’t believe that. They think they believe that, but they don’t. The frozen embryo in the fire question proves this. The fact that they aren’t actively killing abortion doctors proves this.

        • Opinionhaver@feddit.ukOP
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          2 months 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
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            0
            ·
            2 months 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.

  • Kennystillalive@feddit.org
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    2 months ago

    Because people go into these debates online to prove themselves right. They have no intention from changing their opinion from the begining. They only want to prove the others wrong. They have already a defense build up that discredits whatever others says. They don’t care about communication or understanding others they only care about representing their opinions the best way possible. Worst part, the harder they “lose” these debates, the deeper their believes in their opinion grows as they feel the need to defend their believes.

    As a tip, if someone wants to debate you on a topic, don’t engage or engange in a communicative & cheritable manner trying to understand them and why they hold their believes. Try to move their opinions a little from their side “I get exactly what you mean, but how abou this and that. Have you considered these possibilities?” Let them reach the right conclussion and not you force them into a conclussion. I know it’s way harder than just straight up debating them but way more productive if you truly care about a topic and want to engage with them in a debate.

  • kibiz0r@midwest.social
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    2 months ago

    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.

  • Photuris@lemmy.ml
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    2 months ago

    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.

  • chonglibloodsport@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    2 months ago

    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.

  • boreengreen@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    edit-2
    2 months ago

    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.