Why are people so unwilling to admit when they're wrong?

[kingjoshi]

From what I notice around here, it's not that they're not willing to admit they're wrong, it's that they continue to believe they're right even when they're wrong. I tried to put in my opinion, but a lot of people just resort to name calling.

So when I mentioned to you the problems in your argument in that thread, you failed to see why you were wrong? I'm not trying to name call or anything. I'm honestly curious.

I agree that three is too much direct and indirect name calling. Of which I'm possibly a culprit.

The same reason why the 'willing' are still in Iraq.

I don't get this. By the willing, do you mean the US AND the Coalition, or the Coalition? And I thought we're still in Iraq now because of the insurgency and that the government and religious leaders want the military presence there.

 

[Lambert Simnel]

It's pretty rare that you can actually prove someone wrong here - usually it just comes down to differing premises and differing interpretations. IMHO, when people are genuinely proved wrong in the forums, they quite often accept/admit it.

 

[MobBoss]

Well, I have admitted to be wrong regardless of allegations that I never admit I am wrong.

People need to learn that there is a difference in being factually wrong....and them "thinking" someone is wrong and "wishing" them to admit it. Aint going to happen.

 

[Bootstoots]

There also seems to be a bit of a difference between losing a debate and being convinced that you were actually wrong. I've been known to have trouble articulating my position and might lose an argument on those grounds, but loss of an argument in that manner won't convince me to change my mind on the point.

 

[Xanikk999]

Because of the backlash from who they are talking to. It stems from childhood age when you dont want a kid to laugh at you for being right and you wrong all along.

 

[Sidhe]

I'm wrong alot, but it's usually pedantic points that have nothing to do with the topic, I tend to make a habit of only out and out saying I'm right if it's a matter of opinion, I'm not stupid enough to think anything I read or base judgements on is going to be right, which is why I tend to say I think this is true it may be wrong alot, it means when I do have to admit I'm wrong, I do and will.

I can think of few people here who will never change their opinions or views based on argument and that is lame. If its factually wrong big deal you have to hold up your hands and say your wrong, but I hate people who can't or won't change there opinion based on ego and arrogance. I've seen some people argue the toss on issues and I'm not talking about religion, I wouldn't expect the devout to change there mind overnight. Nor am I talking about the usual suspects, just people who are obviously getting hammered by there outrageous statements, who will be less likely to change there view point the more ignorant you make that statement sound. People who say things like 'I think all Arabs are fanatics and hell bent on destroying us!!' Regardless of the bigotry inherent in that claim. You know what I mean, and to further obfuscate the people I'm talking about I deliberately gave a view that no one has espoused.

 

[Chukchi Husky]

I'm wrong all the time. I just forget about ever being right.

 

[Sidhe]

Impossible no ones ever right all the time including the Pope just as no ones ever wrong all the time that is just so wrong it's scarey

 

[Chukchi Husky]

I'm sorry.

 

[punkbass2000]

I'm wrong all the time. I just forget about ever being right.

No you're not. But you're apologetic nature is refreshing.

 

[punkbass2000]

I'm sorry.

Ah, case in point

 

[Sidhe]

What makes me laugh is the guy has a wicked sense of humour without even realising it. Deadpan witt of the finest order

Why apologise for being right? That's just irony and it makes me lol.

 

[BasketCase]

From the standpoint of the arguments we CFC'ers have here in Off-Topic, the real problem is figuring out which side is right and which is wrong in the first place. After all, nobody can "admit" they're wrong about something unless they first realize it.

The fact that CFC is full of intelligent people who, curiously, hold just about every possible viewpoint on things (smart people who are religious, smart people who are not, smart people who are pro-Bush, smart people who are anti-Bush, etc etc etc), should demonstrate that all intelligent people are not necessarily going to come to the same conclusion about things.

 

[Urederra]

WOW!!! Thanks guys!

I didn't open this thread before because I though what says in the title doesn't apply to me so I wasn't very interested in the issue. And posting something like "I sometimes admit when I am wrong' sounds a bit presumptuous and a bit useless if you cannot prove it.

I post at CFC for several reasons:

• To improve my English.
• Because I don't have anything more fun to do
• Because I like to give my opinion and read other poster's feedback.
  

So, sometimes I post in threads where the issue being treated is new for me, so I put my firsts ideas on paper to see how do they sound. Sometimes they sound good, sometimes they don't sound as good. And sometimes other's ideas I didn't think about sound better than my inicial idea.

I also think that It takes time to assimilate other's ideas. digest them and realize that there are also other points of view besides yours and they might be correct. Unfourtunately, by the time that happens, the thread is not longer hot and you don't feel like bumping it just to write "Yeah... there is a slight possibility of you being correct "

So, more often than not, I let the thread die without admitting that I am wrong.

 

[kingjoshi]

From the standpoint of the arguments we CFC'ers have here in Off-Topic, the real problem is figuring out which side is right and which is wrong in the first place. After all, nobody can "admit" they're wrong about something unless they first realize it.

The fact that CFC is full of intelligent people who, curiously, hold just about every possible viewpoint on things (smart people who are religious, smart people who are not, smart people who are pro-Bush, smart people who are anti-Bush, etc etc etc), should demonstrate that all intelligent people are not necessarily going to come to the same conclusion about things.

Well, I'm not talking about the conclusion (whether death penalty, abortion, euthanasia, etc is moral, or whether dropping the nukes were okay, what to do with illegal immigration, etc). I'm talking about the "facts" that make up our cases. I understand that most people just rationalize what they want to believe.

But if your belief is that abortion is okay because the fetus is not alive: that doesn't make sense. A tree is alive. You can argue that it's not human enough for you to respect its life or whatever, but to say it's not alive? Even the fact it's human seems obvious enough to me, though I wouldn't say it's a sentient being.

On dropping nukes, if you think that it would've save more lives (or didn't), then discussing "facts" about the case is important. What would the Japanese have done to POWs around Asia? Would invasion be necessary? What effects would've sanction had? Etc. those things can be discussed. Those are pertinent to the discussion. I think more lives were saved, but I could be wrong. For sake of discussion, lets say I was right. You may still feel that the nukes were wrong, but you might have other reasons. Some just believe killing so many civilians, regardless of number of lives saved, is wrong. But that's a completely different argument.

There are a million ways we can be wrong. Each admittance will actually, in the long run among rational people, gain respect from the other party. Instead of feeling like you're talking to a brick, we'd be sponges absorbing each other's knowledge. But maybe I hope for too much.

 

[BasketCase]

Well, I'm not talking about the conclusion (whether death penalty, abortion, euthanasia, etc is moral, or whether dropping the nukes were okay, what to do with illegal immigration, etc). I'm talking about the "facts" that make up our cases. I understand that most people just rationalize what they want to believe.

The boldface part highlights another aspect of the problem: that people usually don't agree on what the facts are.

But, yes--in my opinion you're hoping for too much. I've said "I'm not sure whether X is true" in several threads (such as: "I'm not sure whether Saddam had WMD" and "I'm not sure whether global warming is really being caused by humans"), and the result, rather than respect, was flames, trolling, and ridicule. My opponents in those arguments were not willing to accept a "maybe", they required total acceptance of their viewpoint. OR ELSE. Thankfully, I've only had a very few such opponents.

In the threads where this happened, the end result was usually a shouting match between me and a single opponent. Nobody ever won these shouting matches. What were all the other people in those threads thinking? Who knows. Maybe they agreed with me or my opponent ("me-too" posts are rather rare), or they got sick of the shouting and left, or maybe they were simply reading the shouting matches for entertainment.