Why is it so hard?

[Mesozoic Mister Nigel]

Does this apply to the Internet or life in general?

Both, IMO.

[LMNO]

There is the potential that, when dealing with lesser apes, if you admit that you are wrong, that will spread to other things you've said and done and will say, and you will never be trusted again, or, at least, what you say will constantly be questioned, and doubted.


LMNO
-is rapidly using up the limited supply of commas in this world.

[The Good Reverend Roger]

Mike the Engineer frequently declares what a given problem is being caused by.  When facts prove him wrong, he will begin bending the facts into pretzels to avoid being wrong.

As a result, we all know he's a dumbass.

By contrast, Russel, our new wet-behind-the-ears engineer says things like "what kind of tests can we do to isolate the problem?", or "I think it's A, not B, but let's test and find out."...Evidence shows B, he then says "Okay, I was wrong, it's B.  How do we fix B?".

As a result, we all know he's a genius.

[The Good Reverend Roger]

There is the potential that, when dealing with lesser apes, if you admit that you are wrong, that will spread to other things you've said and done and will say, and you will never be trusted again, or, at least, what you say will constantly be questioned, and doubted.


LMNO
-is rapidly using up the limited supply of commas in this world.

Fuck the lesser apes.

[Mesozoic Mister Nigel]

There is the potential that, when dealing with lesser apes, if you admit that you are wrong, that will spread to other things you've said and done and will say, and you will never be trusted again, or, at least, what you say will constantly be questioned, and doubted.


LMNO
-is rapidly using up the limited supply of commas in this world.

Never had that happen yet. But I imagine that could be one of the fears that drives digging in and screeching.

[Mesozoic Mister Nigel]

Mike the Engineer frequently declares what a given problem is being caused by.  When facts prove him wrong, he will begin bending the facts into pretzels to avoid being wrong.

As a result, we all know he's a dumbass.

By contrast, Russel, our new wet-behind-the-ears engineer says things like "what kind of tests can we do to isolate the problem?", or "I think it's A, not B, but let's test and find out."...Evidence shows B, he then says "Okay, I was wrong, it's B.  How do we fix B?".

As a result, we all know he's a genius.

And yep.

Sort of an extension of the Dunning/Kruger Effect.

[The Good Reverend Roger]

Mike the Engineer frequently declares what a given problem is being caused by.  When facts prove him wrong, he will begin bending the facts into pretzels to avoid being wrong.

As a result, we all know he's a dumbass.

By contrast, Russel, our new wet-behind-the-ears engineer says things like "what kind of tests can we do to isolate the problem?", or "I think it's A, not B, but let's test and find out."...Evidence shows B, he then says "Okay, I was wrong, it's B.  How do we fix B?".

As a result, we all know he's a genius.

And yep.

Sort of an extension of the Dunning/Kruger Effect.

Sort of.  The attitude of the crew is positive toward the guy who questions his ideas, and then changes them if they're wrong.  The attitude toward the guy who takes being wrong as a slam against his genius and digs his heels in is extremely negative.

Russel just got his degree.  Mike has been doing this for 35 years.

Russel is the better engineer.  Experience is good, but not as important as the ability to think.

[P3nT4gR4m]

All our greatest heroes were convinced they were right and stuck to their guns when all around them was wrong.

All of our greatest dickheads did exactly the same thing.

It's a crapshoot 

[Mesozoic Mister Nigel]

I don't think it's a crapshoot, and I intend to prove it.

[P3nT4gR4m]

I don't think it's a crapshoot, and I intend to prove it.

Was kind of a joke but, at the same time, I wonder if some of the greats just lucked into being right and, if it'd turned out they was wrong, would have stuck to their guns regardless.

I totally agree that the ability to accept being wrong makes you much more powerful. Seems to be whether you have something (ego/financial/status) invested in being right or if you can shuck that shit and focus on the end objective, using what you know about the problem as a working model, subject to change, until you get there.

[Phox]

I don't think it's a crapshoot, and I intend to prove it.

Was kind of a joke but, at the same time, I wonder if some of the greats just lucked into being right and, if it'd turned out they was wrong, would have stuck to their guns regardless.

I totally agree that the ability to accept being wrong makes you much more powerful. Seems to be whether you have something (ego/financial/status) invested in being right or if you can shuck that shit and focus on the end objective, using what you know about the problem as a working model, subject to change, until you get there.

I've been thinking about this, and I would imagine that you would be able to figure out which of the "modern era greats" at least, would or would not do so. I guess it depends on to whom you refer, but a great many probably have all sorts of private correspondence revealed to the world these days.

[Mesozoic Mister Nigel]

Today my psych prof was talking about the common critical thinking error of refusing to expose oneself to opposing arguments, and I to ask her a question about the neurology of the resistance to being wrong; she's going to see if there are any research papers on the topic for me to read.

In the meantime there's also my favorite, the crazy wrongness lady (neither crazy nor wrong):

http://www.ted.com/talks/kathryn_schulz_on_being_wrong.html

[Mesozoic Mister Nigel]

(Now that you're on TED anyway, look up Brene Brown, the vulnerability and shame lady. She's awesome!)

[Bebek Sincap Ratatosk]

Roger, if you post your content to the blog forum, it won't get rolled over by the crap (well it will in the forum view, but not in the Aggregator view).

As for the OP, I think we've hit on several of the points already.

If you say that you're wrong, western society has tied the admission to "failure" and most people don't want to be perceived as failures. Further, if we consider reality tunnels/grids/BIP's the "wrong" may well appear right to the individual (depending on the objective nature of the debate). Libertarians might be "wrong" in an argument, but only if you accept certain assumptions. Sometimes too, especially on the Internet, mis-communication plays a big part. Someone may be trying to argue X, but appear to be arguing X^y and thus a refutation of X^y doesn't (in their mind) make them incorrect.

There is also the idea of "communication only being possible between equals". If both people in a debate see each other as equals, then admitting that you're wrong tends to happen more frequently. If the two people don't see each other as equals, then territorial circuits kick in and excretions are deposited to mark territory. Roger's example with the engineers in his department tend to match my experiences in work as well... the individuals that see themselves as part of a equal team rarely have a problem saying that they were wrong. The individuals that see themselves as 'better' (more experienced, bigger title, etc) may often have more of a problem with admitting that they were wrong.

Dishonest Wanker's point that society has done a poor job of programming our social circuits probably has some merit as well. It seems to underlie both of the points I made.

I suppose it could be seen as "how you play the game". If you play to win no matter what the cost, you're never going to give up a position willingly.

[The Good Reverend Roger]

Post-surgical bump.