[besson3c]

Why are so people so incredibly afraid to admit that they were wrong, that they are being illogical, that they might be overlooking something, and prefer to continue to bash away at their point even if it means looking silly?

To me, a sign of strength is the ability to admit being wrong. It demonstrates a sense of security in ones self to want to better themselves by acknowledging their own deficiencies or areas of ignorance or misunderstood information and working on them. To many others my perception is that offering some sort of concession is perceived by them as a sign of weakness - the exact opposite of the former.

Are people typically so closed minded and full of themselves that they simply can't fathom being wrong about something, or are they afraid to expose a perceived weakness? I mean this in a very general way, and am only putting this here in the PWL because I expect we'll get the usual partisan bullshit about some issue or some attack on me or somebody else before we get to some substantive answers...

I suspect that it is generally sort of an insecurity, but I'm curious to see what you guys think..

[Uncle Skeleton]

Why don't you give an example instead of speaking in vague generalities?

[SpaceMonkey]

Many (most?) people are not interested in actual discussion. They derive enough satisfaction from getting the last word in on some topic, and the format here means that they can essentially do this forever without ever having to admit being wrong. This is much more difficult to accomplish in person.

[Chuckit]

It's a longstanding cultural assumption that being right is good. In fact, people generally assume that there is a correlation between being right and being good. That's why it's pretty effective to try and assassinate an idea by associating it with some widely reviled figure (e.g. "Hitler supported gun control") or try and gain support for an idea by associating it with someone people like ("As Gandhi once said…").

Based on this assumption, we view arguments as contests where the goal is to prove ourselves right (and thus better). This is also reinforced by the way people admire somebody who can make his point effectively, even if he does it dishonestly.

Basically, it's not an insecurity thing, it's cultural laziness.

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by Uncle Skeleton 

Why don't you give an example instead of speaking in vague generalities?

An example of what, exactly? Haven't we all encountered these sorts of situations?

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by Chuckit 

It's a longstanding cultural assumption that being right is good. In fact, people generally assume that there is a correlation between being right and being good. That's why it's pretty effective to try and assassinate an idea by associating it with some widely reviled figure (e.g. "Hitler supported gun control") or try and gain support for an idea by associating it with someone people like ("As Gandhi once said…").

Based on this assumption, we view arguments as contests where the goal is to prove ourselves right (and thus better). This is also reinforced by the way people admire somebody who can make his point effectively, even if he does it dishonestly.

Basically, it's not an insecurity thing, it's cultural laziness.

I like this theory!

[The Final Dakar]

Also, there's nothing to be gained from being wrong (and admitting it).

[SpaceMonkey]

Anyway, I'm right.

[Chuckit]

Originally Posted by The Final Dakar 

Also, there's nothing to be gained from being wrong (and admitting it).

I guess that depends on what you mean by "gain." Socially, you're right. Biologically, I don't think so. Your brain is a computer that's capable of improving its software by incorporating new information it encounters. If you refuse to admit the truth, you starve your brain of useful information.

[The Final Dakar]

Originally Posted by Chuckit 

Biologically, I don't think so. Your brain is a computer that's capable of improving its software by incorporating new information it encounters. If you refuse to admit the truth, you starve your brain of useful information.

INteresting. I was working under assumption that (in besson's scenario) people were just lying through their teeth to save face, not that they were in denial.

[turtle777]

I might be wrong, but I doubt it.

-t

[dcmacdaddy]

I think your answer depends on the definition of "wrong".

There is empirically wrong: Water is composed of three hydrogen molecules and one oxygen molecule.
There is logically wrong: Appeal to authority; Poisoning the well; Straw-men arguments; Ad-hominem attacks; False negations.
There is interpretively wrong: Your interpretation of this matter is X while my interpretation of this matter is Y; I claim your interpretation is "wrong".


I think almost all accusations of error in life, but especially in the Poli-War Lounge, fall under the third category above. Thus, there is no easy way to determine independently whether or not one's arguments are right or wrong because the arguments are based on interpretative ideas and not on logical or empirical evidence.

Take the argument over abortion, for a good example. Everyone in the debate agrees that a human life can be made only from the union of an human egg with human sperm. The debate then becomes over the interpretation of what constitutes life. Does life begin the moment the egg gets fertilized? Does life begin when the zygote has undergone x number of divisions? Does life begin with the development of the nervous system? or the development of the heart and circulatory system? Or does life begin when the fetus has all the functional components of an existing human being while still inside the womb? Or does life begin when the baby is born?

There are lots of different ways to interpret the question of "when does life begin", and thus to be in the position to say someone else's interpretation of the question is wrong. But there is no way to "interpret" how a human life is formed initially, it is an empirically based question with only one correct answer, through the union of a human egg with human sperm.

[Oisín]

Originally Posted by The Final Dakar 

INteresting. I was working under assumption that (in besson's scenario) people were just lying through their teeth to save face, not that they were in denial.

I think part of the problem is that the scenario Besson describes most often happens in situations when there is no real right or wrong.

I’ve seen plenty of people here admit to being wrong, when it was clearly proved to them. In other words, if they get some fact or number wrong, they’ll freely admit it, ’cause it’s fairly black and white: there’s a true answer and a false answer.

If it’s about arguments for or against some attitude or way of thinking, however, there really is no right or wrong. There are stances that align more closely with how our societies work, but there’s no way to deem them universally right/true or wrong/false in a binary dichotomy. As such, the definition of ‘right’ and ‘wrong’ become equal to what aligns with your own line of thinking and what doesn’t.

And once the definition of ‘right’ becomes ‘that which agrees with my viewpoint’, it’s very hard to consider differing opinions anything but wrong. It’s not even being in denial, it’s just that just that your own [addressing Dakar directly now] feelings of what is ‘right’ are as wrong to Them as Their arguments are to you.

Edit: And of course, dcmacdaddy has to scoot in and give my exact point, but much more eloquently and to the point, while I’m typing. Typical dcmacdaddy behaviour!

[Uncle Skeleton]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

An example of what, exactly? Haven't we all encountered these sorts of situations?

Because our memories are colored by our preconceptions and our wishful thinking and our vindictiveness, what we remember as a general trend/impression is rarely accurate enough to draw conclusions from. But that aside, I don't make a habit of remembering things that didn't happen, only things that did happen, especially since things that "didn't happen" might have actually happened and just not been apparent to me personally (for example, PM). So I remember people admitting it more than not admitting it.

On occasions when I've been wrong, many of them take several days or more to sink in. At that point, it's not appropriate to revive the thread or email or whatever just to say I changed my mind. I'm sure this happens frequently, as it's only logical to deliberate before changing your outlook, rather than flip flop on the drop of a hat.

[Chuckit]

Originally Posted by dcmacdaddy 

I think your answer depends o the definition of "wrong".

There is empirically wrong: Water is composed of three hydrogen molecules and one oxygen molecule.
There is logically wrong: Appeal to authority; Poisoning the well; Straw-men arguments; Ad-hominem attacks; False negations.
There is interpretively wrong: Your interpretation of this matter is X while my interpretation of this matter is Y; I claim your interpretation is "wrong".


I think almost all accusations of error in life, but especially in the Poli-War Lounge, fall under the third category above. Thus, there is no easy way to determine independently whether or not one's arguments are right or wrong because the arguments are based on interpretative ideas and not on logical or empirical evidence.

This is true, but I would call this a defensive mechanism. They could make logical arguments, but it's much more comfortable to throw out irrefutable assertions and tautologies. Why put in more work just to open yourself up to defeat?

[Chuckit]

Originally Posted by Uncle Skeleton 

On occasions when I've been wrong, many of them take several days or more to sink in. At that point, it's not appropriate to revive the thread or email or whatever just to say I changed my mind. I'm sure this happens frequently, as it's only logical to deliberate before changing your outlook, rather than flip flop on the drop of a hat.

That's quite clearly not what happens (at least there are a large number of cases where it doesn't), since people will often come back and make the same false claims again.

[dcmacdaddy]

Originally Posted by Chuckit 

This is true, but I would call this a defensive mechanism. They could make logical arguments, but it's much more comfortable to throw out irrefutable assertions and tautologies. Why put in more work just to open yourself up to defeat?

But is it empirically true or interpretively true?

[Uncle Skeleton]

Originally Posted by Chuckit 

That's quite clearly not what happens (at least there are a large number of cases where it doesn't), since people will often come back and make the same false claims again.

Ok, this is another reason why giving examples is crucial. There are at least 3 different types of people who we could be talking about, and the "why" for each would be mutually exclusive.
a) people who don't know they're wrong
b) people who know they're wrong but are lying
c) people who find out they've been wrong and leave without closure
I interpreted the question as being about (c). Besson, which people are you talking about?

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by Uncle Skeleton 

Ok, this is another reason why giving examples is crucial. There are at least 3 different types of people who we could be talking about, and the "why" for each would be mutually exclusive.
a) people who don't know they're wrong
b) people who know they're wrong but are lying
c) people who find out they've been wrong and leave without closure
I interpreted the question as being about (c). Besson, which people are you talking about?

Any of that, it doesn't really matter to me. I think people act out their being wrong using different defense mechanisms, but what is more interesting to me is why people feel like they have to employ any of the above defense mechanisms?

[Uncle Skeleton]

How can it not matter to you? If one person is wrong because they simply don't know that what they're doing/thinking is wrong, how can you expect them to "admit" it? Suppose for a second that you are wrong, that people actually do admit when they are wrong, most of the time; then why don't you admit it? Why didn't you admit it in the first post?

If you really want an honest answer to your question, look inwards. You will never find a more complete answer from others than you can provide from yourself. If it doesn't matter to you after all, then what is this thread, some sort of grand ironic gesture to act out one of the defense mechanisms you decry?

Serious question ^

[Chuckit]

Originally Posted by Uncle Skeleton 

Ok, this is another reason why giving examples is crucial. There are at least 3 different types of people who we could be talking about, and the "why" for each would be mutually exclusive.
a) people who don't know they're wrong
b) people who know they're wrong but are lying
c) people who find out they've been wrong and leave without closure
I interpreted the question as being about (c). Besson, which people are you talking about?

I took it to be about any of the above, since we can't know which we are dealing with.

[Uncle Skeleton]

Ok leaving aside the fact that we can in fact know which we are dealing with in most cases, am I the only one who thinks that the "why" of each of those cases is necessarily different, even opposite? How can you ever have an answer without knowing that first?

[Chuckit]

If they don't tell us they know we're right, I don't know how we're supposed to read their minds. If I were to venture a guess, I would say that the first two very seldom occur in their pure state — even if we feel like we've been out-argued on some level, we are usually lying to themselves as well as others about whether we've been proven wrong. (I would also say the third is a very different and not particularly interesting case.)

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by Uncle Skeleton 

How can it not matter to you? If one person is wrong because they simply don't know that what they're doing/thinking is wrong, how can you expect them to "admit" it? Suppose for a second that you are wrong, that people actually do admit when they are wrong, most of the time; then why don't you admit it? Why didn't you admit it in the first post?

If you really want an honest answer to your question, look inwards. You will never find a more complete answer from others than you can provide from yourself. If it doesn't matter to you after all, then what is this thread, some sort of grand ironic gesture to act out one of the defense mechanisms you decry?

Serious question ^

At some point, people sometimes cave in to the counter arguments for any number of reasons: popularity, logic, an illumination upon a weakness in argument, etc. I agree that sometimes this process doesn't happen, but other times people deal with this by choosing to bury their head in the sand, or any other number of strategies. It is the awareness of being wrong process that I'm addressing here, not the lack of any sort of awareness as to what the counter argument is.

[besson3c]

Skeleton: actually, I think I was misunderstanding your post. Yes, I'm addressing c). I was focusing too much on the leaving without closure part, which seems pretty incidental.

[Uncle Skeleton]

Originally Posted by Chuckit 

If they don't tell us they know we're right, I don't know how we're supposed to read their minds. If I were to venture a guess, I would say that the first two very seldom occur in their pure state — even if we feel like we've been out-argued on some level, we are usually lying to themselves as well as others about whether we've been proven wrong. (I would also say the third is a very different and not particularly interesting case.)

I'm confused... the first two seldom occur and the third is not interesting. Does that mean you're only interested in talking about exceptions?

[Uncle Skeleton]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

Skeleton: actually, I think I was misunderstanding your post. Yes, I'm addressing c). I was focusing too much on the leaving without closure part, which seems pretty incidental.

Ok so suppose someone was arguing side A but somehow became convinced of side B, so they stopped arguing. And your question is what exactly? What would you do in their place?

I'm still trying to understand the contention in the OP.

[besson3c]

I think you're overthinking this, Skeleton. I'm interested in people that do not want to confront the idea of being wrong when it is staring them plainly in the face. That's it, really.

[Uncle Skeleton]

The thing is, you're assuming that you know what's right and what's wrong, and that there's no information that you are lacking or misinterpreting. How do you know in half the situations they're not thinking the exact same thing about you? The reason they're not confronting the idea that they're wrong is because their attention is all taken up by wondering why you aren't confronting the idea that you're wrong... Possible?

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by Uncle Skeleton 

The thing is, you're assuming that you know what's right and what's wrong, and that there's no information that you are lacking or misinterpreting. How do you know in half the situations they're not thinking the exact same thing about you? The reason they're not confronting the idea that they're wrong is because their attention is all taken up by wondering why you aren't confronting the idea that you're wrong... Possible?

Sure, there are subjects that are immovable, I realize that. But every once in a while I assert something and realize later that I'm wrong, I see this happening to others too and it often appears that they are in denial, although of course I can never really tell for certain.

Isn't it pretty normal to realize that you are wrong about something? It happens all the time in life, in relationships, in problem solving. Why wouldn't it be natural for it to happen here as well?

[ThinkInsane]

I'll gladly admit when I am wrong, although just telling me I'm wrong will not do the trick. Show me where I'm wrong through a logical argument, prove me wrong with facts, prove your point in someway, but just yelling "I'm right and you're wrong" won't convince me of anything, except that you can't back up your position. Or sometimes I'll admit I was wrong after some consideration or a bit of research, and I'll gladly beg pardon and own up to my wrongness. If it's simply a matter of opinion, and not based on facts, you have a tough row to hoe if you want me to admit you're right and I'm wrong.

[Uncle Skeleton]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

Sure, there are subjects that are immovable, I realize that. But every once in a while I assert something and realize later that I'm wrong, I see this happening to others too and it often appears that they are in denial, although of course I can never really tell for certain.

Isn't it pretty normal to realize that you are wrong about something? It happens all the time in life, in relationships, in problem solving. Why wouldn't it be natural for it to happen here as well?

Um, it does happen. Maybe you just remember yourself doing so much more often because you always happen to be there to witness it when it's you doing it (*cough* also the person who posts the most would be expected to do everything more often)

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by Uncle Skeleton 

Um, it does happen. Maybe you just remember yourself doing so much more often because you always happen to be there to witness it when it's you doing it (*cough* also the person who posts the most would be expected to do everything more often)

Are you imply that people in general are generally good about admitting when they are wrong once seems fairly evident?

In my experience, people are generally very stubborn and unwilling to admit to themselves or others fault. I see this in here and elsewhere in life.

[ebuddy]

I'm with a mixture of Uncle and dc on this one.

1) You would have to presuppose the former position is correct in order to determine with certainty that an apology or admittance is in order regarding the latter. In other words, how often have you admitted being wrong?

2) Most issues are subject to varying interpretations and numerous points of contention. In dc's example of abortion; two people are mired in argument over when life begins and a third one pops up to cite the long-term affects of abortion on the female anatomy. There may be more than one reason to oppose or support a notion. You may quietly concede a singular point by not responding while maintaining overall opposition to the ideal.

There's a third factor IMO and it's the same thing that would motivate one to write a review of a product. Have you ever done this? Personally, I've never been compelled to rate or review a product, but I'm glad others have. They are usually either rave reviews or very harsh reviews. The invested and the opinionated...

3)This is a political forum. People post here out of the notion that they need to; that others need to know what they think. Someone this opinionated has often invested something in their perspective and have come to the conclusion that either an ideal is brilliant or moronic. Moderates often need not apply. If a product performs as I expected, I am not compelled to review it. If I had a profoundly positive or negative experience with the product however, I may be more likely to review it.

One of the reasons I post here for example is to be exposed to various interpretations and have at times been moved in another direction by a compelling argument. There are times when I've been patently wrong and I have no problem admitting it, but introspect and acknowledging that there is almost always two sides to a story is critical for civil discourse. Still, I wouldn't post here if I didn't have a strong opinion one way or the other. The point I think you're driving at is that there are those whose positions on a given matter are an integral part of their overall identity. To abandon any one or all of these positions is to abandon an old friend; an unthinkable proposition that must disregard all evidence to the contrary.

The problem is, there is rarely ever such compelling evidence that a counter argument is impossible.

[Hawkeye_a]

Pride.

[Warren Pease]

I was wrong to think anything I would write here would change somebody's mind.

[andi*pandi]

If you never give in, you've never lost, and are therefore right.

That's what the history books tell me. But it's possible they lied.

[Laminar]

Originally Posted by andi*pandi 

If you never give in, you've never lost, and are therefore right.

That's what the history books tell me. But it's possible they lied.

Of course they did.

[andi*pandi]

!

[SpaceMonkey]

Remember: it's not a lie, if you believe it.