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?

  • Kissaki@feddit.org
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    15
    ·
    1 day ago

    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.