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?

  • SparrowHawk@feddit.itEnglish
    2·
    2 months ago

    I think we have an ecolutionary predisposition to be very defensive when we feel threatened. Add that to a social environment where we are CONSTANTLY and artificially condititioned to be threatened, considering that emotional intelligence and the ability to articolate and understand your own thoughts (let alone other’s) are virtually never taught if not en passant and indirectly (and often the wrong this are taught) and you have the perfect recipe for the Tower of Babel.

    Humankind’s inherent incommunicability of internal thought is paired with an artificial and political cooptation of our survival instincts, the ones we evolved to defend ourselves from the people that a re manipulating us right now. That’s the reason antiauthoritarian thought is often patologized. They name the cure a sickness so that we keep ourselves under the Veil

  • ElderReflections@fedia.io
    2·
    2 months ago

    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

  • 𝕽𝖚𝖆𝖎𝖉𝖍𝖗𝖎𝖌𝖍@midwest.social
    1·
    2 months ago

    Hmmm. There are a lot more opinions about this than I thought there’d be.

    Personally, and without any real evidence? I think it’s just because conceding a point somehow feels as if it compromises your whole position. Like you’re getting scored, and admitting you’re wrong gives the other person a point and undermines your entire argument.

    • Opinionhaver@feddit.ukOPEnglish
      01·
      2 months ago

      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.

  • mlg@lemmy.worldEnglish
    1·
    2 months ago

    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.

  • 1984@lemmy.today
    0·
    2 months ago

    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.