Why do most people find it so hard to admit to making a mistake? It's interesting; this one most bipedal and mature and confident maneuver, that can, with a few simple words, restore dignity, earn respect, smooth conflicts, resolve misunderstandings, and soothe hurt feelings is also one of the most difficult things for most people to do. Instead of admitting to being wrong, most people will try any amount of verbal acrobatics to try to defend, justify, distract, or to move the goalposts in order to preserve the illusion of having actually been right, and in the process may alienate people, make themselves look increasingly foolish and/or pathetic, and lose the respect of their community... the very opposite of the desired effect.
No matter how mature, wise, enlightened, flexible, or intelligent we are, we all fall prey to this sometimes. We all dig our heels in and screech, at least for a while. The reveal is in how far we are willing to go to defend the indefensible... are we willing to alienate those around us in order to cling to the belief that it's not US, it's EVERYONE ELSE?
There is tremendous power, and tremendous relief, in being able to say, "Oh. Yeah, I was wrong about that" or "I need to rethink my position" or "What you said convinced me, I changed my mind" or "Yep, that was a stupid thing to say" or, simply, "I'm sorry". It ends the fight. It restores respect.
Admitting to being wrong allows someone who made even the most egregious mistakes to reclaim their dignity and walk away from the battlefield intact, their mistakes forgiven and, usually, forgotten.
I do not even know, lady. Can't even hazard a guess. It's a really good question, though.
Western society - particularly America - equates "being wrong" or "making a mistake" with being a "loser", and that is the one unforgiveable sin. People are conditioned with this attitude from birth, and not everyone can break that conditioning, or even recognize it.
A retraction is therefore taken as a sign of weakness, and an apology for saying something offensive is taken as rolling on your back like a defeated puppy.
What this accomplishes:
1. People can't communicate.
2. People are loaded with bad signal.
3. People are unhappy.
Admitting you are wrong carries a huge reputational modifier. It's pride, and embarrassment.
The thing to remember is that we Discordians don't share the same values as the general population.
For example, I can openly respect Cain's expertise on geopolitics or ECH's expertise with cooking, without feeling the need to compete with them.
I suppose it boils down to the fact that people's self-assessment is more important than how they look to everyone else. While screeching and heel-digging, in their own minds, they are fighting for the TRUTHTM. They are RIGHT, and even if they aren't, they couldn' live with themselves if they backed down now. Far too much time and effort invested in it. So, the solution is simple. Rewrite the narrative in their own head until they actually believe that gravity is actually gremlins. It's easier to convince yourself that you are infallible, than it is to admit that you've been bested, isn't it?
What's the actual payoff from not admitting you were wrong? Walking around lying to yourself after you've managed to make yourself look like a stupid asshole? Fuck that, I'll take "human and fallible but trying to do better."
Four words: North Coast of India.
In my own experience, the more quickly you admit to being wrong, the more quickly everyone forgets it ever happened. I learned this the hard way, after a number of knock-down drag-out fights in which I insisted I was right even though I was wrong. I am not immune from that tendency! But, I have found that IF I am able to rationally re-assess the situation as soon as possible, and say "I was wrong about that" and/or apologize if it's called for, it gets forgotten almost instantly. That is, the footprint left by my wrongness is so small as to be quickly washed away, whereas if I dig in and flail and screech, the trench I leave is going to take a looong time to erode into nothingness.
Also, relevant
http://wiki.lesswrong.com/wiki/How_To_Actually_Change_Your_Mind
QuoteA sequence on the ultra-high-level penultimate technique of rationality: How to actually change your mind.
Quote from: A Very Hairy Monkey In An Ill-Fitting Tunic on September 27, 2012, 05:53:04 PM
In my own experience, the more quickly you admit to being wrong, the more quickly everyone forgets it ever happened.
And people view you as more intelligent if you back off of an obvious mistake as soon as you see it, even after the forget the incident.
Does this apply to the Internet or life in general?
Quote from: Cain on September 27, 2012, 05:54:59 PM
Also, relevant
http://wiki.lesswrong.com/wiki/How_To_Actually_Change_Your_Mind
QuoteA sequence on the ultra-high-level penultimate technique of rationality: How to actually change your mind.
Oooh, I'm gonna read that after class!
Quote from: Internet Jesus on September 27, 2012, 06:07:31 PM
Does this apply to the Internet or life in general?
Both, IMO.
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.
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.
Quote from: LMNO, PhD (life continues) on September 27, 2012, 06:29:11 PM
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.
Quote from: LMNO, PhD (life continues) on September 27, 2012, 06:29:11 PM
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.
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on September 27, 2012, 06:29:17 PM
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.
Quote from: A Very Hairy Monkey In An Ill-Fitting Tunic on September 27, 2012, 06:35:10 PM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on September 27, 2012, 06:29:17 PM
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.
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 :lol:
I don't think it's a crapshoot, and I intend to prove it.
Quote from: A Very Hairy Monkey In An Ill-Fitting Tunic on September 28, 2012, 07:17:33 AM
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.
Quote from: P3nT4gR4m on September 28, 2012, 09:50:54 AM
Quote from: A Very Hairy Monkey In An Ill-Fitting Tunic on September 28, 2012, 07:17:33 AM
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.
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
(Now that you're on TED anyway, look up Brene Brown, the vulnerability and shame lady. She's awesome!)
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.
Post-surgical bump.
Fan fucking tastic, thank you!
I gotta watch the crazy wrongness lady TED talk again, I love it. "Weird Chinese symbol". :lulz: That's some good shit.