Why do most people refuse to accept that they are wrong
I have come across a lot’s of people like these. like 99% of them. Sometimes it makes me think twice if what i am saying is wrong? What’s wrong with them. Is it so hard to swallow your pride and acknowledge that the other person is speaking facts? When they come to know they are wrong they proceed to insult/make fun of others to save their ass. Just why?
The answer is 1: they’re stubborn, but more importantly 2: it’s because the human brainly is wired to hate conflicting ideas. Quite literally, when a belief or idea of yours in countered, your brain tells you “your feeling pain and in danger”, and this applies to every person, though some people feel it more strongly than others.
On the other side of the coin - why do so many people give others shit for being wrong, especially in areas where right or wrong has no real consequences?
Insecurity. People are afraid of being perceived as weak and don’t have the emotional maturity to work through it. They can’t see that it’s a sign of confidence and strength to be able to do so.
Truth is a difficult place to get there and the farther you stray from it the harder it is to get to. This is why those who lie intentionally eventually find themselves not living in reality. IE our worst politicians.
Same here. I don’t call myself a truth seeker because I already know the truth, I call myself a truth seeker because I’m a truth seeker, but I get a more premeditated/artificial vibe from other people. Is it that people forget that leading thinkers actually embraced change? A lot of political theorists, one might say including Karl Marx, are said to have died with different ideas than when they began.
On the opposite end of things, I also get a disapproving reaction when I mention this. I remember long ago I made a fake game picture of a “Pokémon trainer” version of me declaring defeat, which was supposed to be put at the end of discussions to signify I considered myself schooled, and people reacted accusing me of “excess pomp” to quote one person.
More seriously, we tend to make it a Great Big Thing when people are wrong. If we acknowledge it and move on, and let them do the same, I’m sure admitting when we’re wrong would be much less painful.
It depends. Some people will relentlessly mock you for being wrong, no matter how you handle it. At work I have no problem admitting I messed up something, there’s no point and always it’s better to just fix it, right?
But with my ex, he was just dead judgemental. Might as well double down if I wasn’t sure since my accuracy rate was higher than his.
With husband I can just say I don’t know and it’s fine. On the occasion I send him something not factual I do send correction there is no penalty, for lack of a better word.
Best thing my daddy taught me; no matter how confident you are, you could always be wrong. Brains are just unreliable sometimes. Sky is blue? Could be wrong. You’re N years old? Probably… but you could be wrong.
Accepting this allows one to improve. Best we can do is recognize this, and try our best to minimize how often we’re wrong.
This has allowed me to withhold confidence in many situations. Not in deference, but in thoughtful acceptance that I truly might be wrong.
That really warms my heart to hear. I’m trying to be one of the good dads.
Just today my 9 year old and I had a conversation about how I’m always the first to step up and admit when I make a mistake, and communicate what I did or will do to fix it, where I have colleagues who will try to hide their mistakes and front like they never ever make them. Going so far as lying to clients, bosses, and coworkers all the way.
The problem with this is the quiet nihilism baked into it, which is the same reason so many people believe that widely supported science could be wrong.
In the absolute sense, it is true. Though things like “the sky is blue” is more about linguistics, but for a layperson it’s kind of inconsequential either way. While there is a small possibility that scientific consensus could be wrong, there is orders of magnitude bigger chance that unwarranted skepticism is dangerous. Reality does exist, regardless of how much epistemology you choose to wave away.
I don’t think so, and he and I have discussed this in epistemological terms several times over the years. “Sky is blue” example was probably bad as would have been “earth is round” etc. The point isn’t that anything can be wrong, though strictly speaking, I guess it can. What we mean is precisely that our minds have the ability to mislead us and powerfully so. But part of the drive to minimize that is to understand the value of consensus in both scientific communities and wider communities.
To have the best ratio of things about which were correct vs incorrect, being confident in things like the outcome of refereed science is helpful.
There's also the possibility of competing interests. There's no "wrong" answer, but people will argue certain facts to persuade others to take their position. This is called "politics."
Because they’re never taught or encounter the notion that its fun to be wrong and learn more to correct and be able to speak more confidently in future.
I love when people correct me and we have a little discourse and the truth-seeking function of this format is satisfied in the end with everybody playfully (or sometimes testily but still vaguely good-faith) cross-examining each other and leaving space for learning and retaining space to allow people to revise when they are genuine in their attempts to understand.
I read somewhere a while back that it's supposedly an evolutionary thing. In a social competition for resource allocation, confidently arguing your position regardless of its correctness is more beneficial than admitting you may be wrong.
It's probably exacerbated by the internet, where the relative anonymity and psychological disconnection further reduces any benefits to admitting to an error.
This is actually a tricky one. Lying (and I’m going to fold the projection of false confidence in with that one because I’m talking about deception, intentional or otherwise, not a moral concept) is only effective if others believe you.
Humans, as the most highly social of the primates and ranking among the most highly social animals on earth, have adapted to believe each other, because this helps with trust, coordination, shared identity, learning, and so on. However, it also creates a vulnerability to manipulation by dishonest actors. Again, I’m not talking about a moral dimension here. There are species in which mating is initiated with the gift of a nuptial present (eg a dead bug) from the male to the female. Sometimes the male will give a fake present (already desiccated insect, eg) to trick the female, and sometimes it works. Deception and detection are an arms race, and it’s believed by many to be one of the drivers that lead to the development of human intelligence, where our information processing capacity developed alongside our increasing social complexity.
The problem is that when lying becomes the default, then the beneficial effects of communication cease. It’s like when you stop playing games with a kid that just cheats every time, or stop buying from a store that just rips people off. It’s a strategy that only works if few enough people play it. There’s tons of caveats and additional variables, but that’s the baseline. So why do we still see so much of it?
The first component of course is confirmation bias. If 90% of our interactions are trustworthy, the ones that stick out will be the deceptions, and the biggest deceptions will get the most notice. The second is that the deceptions as a whole have not been impactful enough, over time, to overcome the advantages of trust, either in biological time or in social evolutionary time. You will notice that more trust is given to in-group rather than out-group members, and a number of researchers think that has to do with larger social adaptations, such as collective punishment of deceivers - sending someone to jail for writing bad checks, say, is easier if they’re part of your community as opposed to a tourist from another country. We can also see cultural differences in levels of trust accorded in-group and out-group persons, but that’s getting into a lot of detail.
The third major operator is the concept of the self. This is a subject where we are just being able to start making scientific headway - understanding where the concept of a self comes from in terms of neurobiology and evolutionary dynamics - but this is still very much a new science layered on top of ancient philosophy. In the concept of the self there is a component of what I’m going to calll the physical integrity of the structure. People find being wrong painful - there are social situations that activate the same parts of the physical brain as physical pain and distress do. This is especially true of those ideas are seen as being held by other group members, because you now have the group structural integrity on top of the one in idea-space. That’s where you get people willing to literally die on the hill of Trump winning in 2020. For the evolutionary construction and nature of the self I’d recommend Sapolsky and Metzinger - it’s too new and too complex to get into here. If you want to just summarize it in your mind, call this component ego defense.
I think that’s most of what’s going on, at least as we understand it so far.
Interesting. I was thinking more of gray area stuff than outright lying, like playing up the importance of facts that support one's position and downplaying those that don't.
Add comment