Why do people never yield their position, even on trivial matters?

[Homie]

I can understand why people would not yield on their opinions on religion, morals, and life altering matters. But why would people (often on Off-Topic) not admit that they are wrong in a debate about economics, science or any other matter that will not change the way they life their life one way or the other. Whether this or that scientific theory is correct will not affect how the debater lives his life, but still he clings to his opinion on the matter even when it seems obvious he is wrong and he cannot make any arguments for his case, or debunk any of the opponent's arguments. Why is that?

I suspect some will say that he doesn't want to lose face. This is true for children, but I find it isn't true for adults (in the Western culture at least). I used to work in a kindergarten and noticed this all the time: If you said to a kid, for example: "You don't know the capitol of Indonesia!" in a condescending tone, they would almost certainly reply: "Yeah I do!", and when you asked what it was, they would say: "I'm not telling".
Whereas an adult would simply admit he doesn't know the capitol of Indonesia. Normal adults also seem to be able to admit when they are wrong about something, that comes with maturity, even though they may not like to admit they are wrong still.

If any sociologists or psychologists or anyone for that matter has any ideas, please contribute

Edit2: I think another way to phrase the question better would be: Why don't people concede they're wrong in the face of compelling arguments which they understand, but cannot counter?

Edit: See my post #4 for a potential explanation

 

[Eran of Arcadia]

You're wrong. People sometimes yield. Just accept that I am right and get over it.

(Seriously: I don't know. We're stubborn like that.)

(Also: Jakarta.)

 

[Bigfoot3814]

This forum has a lot of personalities, and they don't want to lose their credibility or reputation or whatever. Plus the permanent nature of the posts makes it easy for someone to bring it up again, even where it isn't really warranted.

 

[Homie]

An idea came to me as I was writing the OP. It seems that people will hold great stock in something that was told to them by a trustable source, i.e. trustable in their mind. So if they have been trained, educated, or even just told something by someone they consider an authority on the matter, they will hold that position on the matter even when someone else points out the error in the position.

So if one is debating something one has limited knowledge and/or understanding of, but have been informed of a position on it by a person considered to be an authority on the matter, one will stick to one's position even when it seems ridiculous to do so, even when one's opponent demolishes one's argument.

EDIT: So basically, they still think they are right, because they put more weight on what they have been told by someone they consider to be an authority on the matter than on some internet poster, even though that internet poster's arguments make more sense to them than what they have been told.

So in sum, people put more emphasis on their faith than in their reason. The faith would have the debater go with what he has been previously told, even though his reason would have him go for the new idea, or the debunking of the old idea. Let me put this in a better way: Even though the opponent's arguments makes more sense to the debater, the debater's faith in what a person he considers to be an authority on the matter told him is so strong that he will not yield from his original position. (His original position being what he was previously told by the person he considers to be an authority on the matter).

Which leads me to think that atheists have as much faith as any religious person, he is just putting his faith in areas not traditionally connected with faith, such as science, academia, or having faith in certain individuals.

 

[DNK]

A lot of adults can be just as proud as children.

Edit: yeah, I said as much in my lying to children thread, thought stealer!

 

[Homie]

This forum has a lot of personalities, and they don't want to lose their credibility or reputation or whatever. Plus the permanent nature of the posts makes it easy for someone to bring it up again, even where it isn't really warranted.

I already addressed this in the OP in regards to adults. Also, when an adult admits he is wrong it often adds to his credibility among other adults, not detracts from it. Reversely, when someone refuses to admit they are wrong they are thought of as silly and stubborn, and it detracts from their credibility.

 

[Homie]

A lot of adults can be just as proud as children.

Edit: yeah, I said as much in my lying to children thread, thought stealer!

Actually I had not seen that thread

Edit: See my edited post nr 4 for more info on the topic. I want to hear your opinions and more ideas.

 

[Defiant47]

Refusal to believe that one could be wrong. If I can delude myself into thinking that I wasn't actually proved wrong, and I'm still right, then I feel better.

 

[Bugfatty300]

I already addressed this in the OP in regards to adults. Also, when an adult admits he is wrong it often adds to his credibility among other adults, not detracts from it. Reversely, when someone refuses to admit they are wrong they are thought of as silly and stubborn, and it detracts from their credibility.

But this forum is lacking in adults. It is mostly teenage males.

 

[Bill3000]

But this forum is lacking in adults. It is mostly teenage males.

Nope, a majority of OTers are older than 18; there's a ton in the early 20s range.

 

[Mowque]

on the internet it is easy to be a jerk cause it is all impersonal.

 

[Homie]

Refusal to believe that one could be wrong. If I can delude myself into thinking that I wasn't actually proved wrong, and I'm still right, then I feel better.

So you would subconsciously delude yourself into thinking you were right in order to make you feel better? Interesting. Because it couldn't be consciously, then you'd know you were wrong. So how would you go about subconsciously delude yourself? Isn't the point of subconsciousness that we cannot control it?

 

[Homie]

Nope, a majority of OTers are older than 18; there's a ton in the early 20s range.

Yeah, I thought so too, and a great deal who are older than that too.

on the internet it is easy to be a jerk cause it is all impersonal.

So you are saying they do think they're wrong but they are just being jerks?
I think that may be true in some cases (I've encountered it), but not in most.

Edit: OP edited again

 

[Evie]

Nope, a majority of OTers are older than 18; there's a ton in the early 20s range.

Anonymity makes people 5 to 10 years less mature than they would try to appear to be in real life, though.

 

[Bugfatty300]

Nope, a majority of OTers are older than 18; there's a ton in the early 20s range.

Could'a fool'd me.

 

[LucyDuke]

So in sum, people put more emphasis on their faith than in their reason.

It's a lot easier to maintain a position than it is to come to one.

 

[Masquerouge]

Hey Homie,

what's your stance on the Theory of Evolution again?

 

[Mise]

I can understand why people would not yield on their opinions on religion, morals, and life altering matters. But why would people (often on Off-Topic) not admit that they are wrong in a debate about economics, science

Science is about facts. If you state the facts, and state the mechanisms, and the other person STILL doesn't understand, then the problem is with that person's ability to understand the facts or the mechanisms. If that person doesn't understand the facts or the mechanisms, then he will continue to believe that he is correct, because he doesn't know any better. If that person can't understand the facts or the mechanisms, then no amount of explanation will convince him that he is wrong.

There's no way around it - some people just cannot comprehend things, even when walked through it step by step from start to finish. Some people continue to be blinded by whatever gut feeling they received before any of the facts were laid out, and no amount of explanation will sway them. Some people will make their mind up, and then cherry-pick facts to fit their preconceptions. Some people will never understand things, because their minds are closed to any information, insights, and explanations beyond their initial, base reaction, even when presented with incontrovertible fact.

The trick is to make your mind up AFTER reading the facts and mechanisms, not before.

 

[Earthling]

I have to disagree and also say that the OP is wrong. From what I've seen, CFC is full of people who admit they are wrong about trivial things. Just wonder out of OT over to, say, Civ4 General Discussions. Every day people ask things like: "How come I can't x?" and the answer is, "It's not part of the game." Then, "Ok, I'm wrong."

The problem in most types of internet arguments like on OT is that people believe they are serious to their lives. You said yourself that you don't expect people to change their minds like that on things like religion, or morality. Well, economics and science also fall into the same category for many people - they are not trivial things where you often admit you're wrong.

As for that other type of internet argument, the stupid meme/hypothetical/logic puzzle or whatever, the problem is that nobody debates or states anything clearly. Some of the most "famous" internet debates are because every single person interprets the concept differently, and there's no authority to say who's right (in fact, different people can be right with different interpretations of a situation). People are not going to yield when they think the other guy is "violating the laws of physics" or "misunderstanding basic principles or our goverment," even when these problems are simply because no one stated the original premises clearly (in short, an example is a bad OP).

Finally, I agree that people do get the notion that they are usually right, and lend authority to their own beliefs ("I'm usually right, so when I say x I'm also right"). On simple, dichotomous polls of opinion and the like, it's statistically and psychologically true that most people are in the majority most of the time. So, for really trivial things such as "Pepsi or Coke?" people are used to being in the majority/being "right" really often. Next, for really controversial things, like abortion, people are sure of their own beliefs and convinced they are right, and won't change. So, for the things in the middle, not completely trivial but maybe not as serious or essential to a person's worldview, people are simply in the habit of believing they are right.

Also, wherever you go on the internet idiots will always challenge people even on something clearly, 100% right (eg. conservation of energy), so people become insensitive to challenges and dismiss them as trolls/fools. On, the other hand, people also refuse to recognize situations that are clearly a matter of opinion/interpretation (the guy who insists endlessly that either Pepsi or Coke HAS to be right). Combined with how vague and ambiguous internet debates can be, and the real problem may be with the person who insists on right and wrong - there can simply be too many variables or too big of an issue for one short response to be "right."

 

[Defiant47]

While evaluating the people that DO act like this...

So you would subconsciously delude yourself into thinking you were right in order to make you feel better? Interesting. Because it couldn't be consciously, then you'd know you were wrong. So how would you go about subconsciously delude yourself? Isn't the point of subconsciousness that we cannot control it?

Well you do it once or twice, in an actual stubborn setting, and notice that it feels better. The mind then proceeds to do the same thing next time, going through the path of least resistance (or greatest "feel-good"). You end up using logical fallacies to convince yourself that the other person is wrong, most likely not posting your reasoning (else they'd be shut down more and you'd have to find something else).

"Well, it may look like he's proven me wrong there, but because of [logical fallacy I'm not posting], I know that I'm right, and I don't need to discuss the issue further." Should the logical fallacy actually be posted, it might likely get shot down, resulting in once again the mind subconsciously doing what makes you feel good, and compelling you not to post your reasoning in the first place next time, assured of your correctness.