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?
Because people go into these debates online to prove themselves right. They have no intention from changing their opinion from the begining. They only want to prove the others wrong. They have already a defense build up that discredits whatever others says. They don’t care about communication or understanding others they only care about representing their opinions the best way possible. Worst part, the harder they “lose” these debates, the deeper their believes in their opinion grows as they feel the need to defend their believes.
As a tip, if someone wants to debate you on a topic, don’t engage or engange in a communicative & cheritable manner trying to understand them and why they hold their believes. Try to move their opinions a little from their side “I get exactly what you mean, but how abou this and that. Have you considered these possibilities?” Let them reach the right conclussion and not you force them into a conclussion. I know it’s way harder than just straight up debating them but way more productive if you truly care about a topic and want to engage with them in a debate.