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?

  • Valmond@lemmy.world
    31·
    2 months ago

    You have to do the heavy lifting, not them IMO.

    For example the why should we help lazy people?!! I wonder what should we actuallydo with them then? Like you’re too lazy to work should we let them die because of their “stupidness” and errors they made?

    Never changed anyone’s mind right away but you get to talk about the underlying reasons why they hate “lazy” people, and it’s often something (shocker) that has nothing to do with “lazy” people.

    For example.

    Edit: I use the rightwing trope here just as an example. I’m the laziest person I know!