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?

  • Senal@programming.devEnglish
    5·
    5 days ago

    I think it sometimes depends on how much they have internalised their perspective on a topic as a core part of their personality.

    If they perceive a disagreement with their perspective as a direct attack on their person, that can lead to subjectively bad outcomes.

    There is also the possibility that what you see as a small point is a critical point to them.