What was it about? Did you admit you were wrong or adamantly insist on your point? How did your interlocutor react? How would you like someone to react if you concede errors?
Yeah. If I think the person isn’t being a dick I apologise.
The only times I struggle to admit I’m wrong is if my interlocutor has an attitude I find grating. Sometimes in online debates I just don’t reply and give people the last word instead of continuing a heated conversation if I think they have a point.
Otherwise happy to admit that I’m wrong if someone cites a study or whatever that says something counter to what I’m claiming.
Sure, it happens all the time. Someone shows me a piece of evidence that I trust, or points out that I missed something in what they had originally said, or whatever. What else is there to do in that situation other then go ‘Oh. You’re right, my bad.’?
But I’m kinda weird, I enjoy having my beliefs and ideas challenged and I have no problem admitting when I’m wrong and updating my worldview to reflect the most accurate information I have access to.
Yes, I’d like to think I’m open to having my mind changed about things. I try to follow both left wing and right wing media (New Statesman and The Spectator respectively in the UK) to try to get both points of view on current affairs.
I almost always immediately admit that I am wrong, if I notice it. I do it often.
“You are right, I didn’t consider x”.
Why the hell would I insist on being right? It serves no purpose. It also just makes me seem like an unlikable idiot.
People always react positively, and it makes constructive discussions possible. They now know that I am a reasonable rational person. They also know that I have good intentions. This makes it possible for me to convince them in the future as well. Everybody benefits.
Not surprisingly, people who couldn’t admit when they were wrong didn’t come into this thread and admit that they have been wrong.
Yeah. But more often I have made mistakes, then come back later to say it was a mistake. I issue corrections a lot. It’s harder to make that connection when in a heated argument.
Have you ever written a proof, only to disproof your original statement in the end?
Yes.
On several occasions, it has hit me like a truck and I’ve instantly reversed my thinking. For this reason, I am open to listening genuinely to other sides, so long as they are not intolerant. But I’m a petty bitch, so I still have strong opinions until they get flipped.
I used to be very wrong about trans people until I talked to a trans person for about 3 minutes
When I realized it had nothing to do with sexualization and all about identity I stopped, apologized and asked a bunch of questions
My interlocutor kind of didn’t know how to handle it and it took a moment for them to defuse, as I’m sure they were expecting shouting or worse. After that we had a real meaningful conversation that gave me a lot to think about.
I think many social “issues” can be resolved with empathy after speaking to an individual on a human level instead of grappling with an abstract “issue”.
What really sucks is how many times this conversation has started, only for the trans person to (very logically and understandably) react internally with “Ohhh boy, here we go, another one of these backwards bigots. I’m just going to yell to make myself feel better.”
Then the ignorant individual feels attacked, gets defensive, and feels satisfied in their belief that trans people are hysterical or something.
I don’t even blame anyone so much for that. Being patient with every single transphobe just in case they’re a reasonable person takes far more energy than I have.
That’s exactly the outcome we need in the world. Thank you for sharing this.
Yes.
I used to be very anti-gay because I was raised religious. One day, someone explained to me that gay people feel exactly the same feelings as straight people, it’s just they’re directed differently. Somehow, that made it all click and it just made sense.
I’m glad that age has given me the comfort to tell people when I just don’t know, and therefore, don’t have an opinion on some things.
I’m glad that age has given me the comfort to tell people when I just don’t know, and therefore, don’t have an opinion on some things.
Yeah it certainly seems to me that as people get older they tend to have fewer shits to give in general. What’s funny about it, is that while that sounds like a bad thing, it’s often a pretty good thing. It means people are more confident, confident enough to show humility, and to say what they actually think.
That’s very interesting, thanks for sharing. If you don’t mind me asking, was there an argument you had with this person or was it rather an explain situation? Did you know each other well?
We came to be good friends but were just Internet friends at the time. They were just a very patient person.
At this point in my life, I’m extremely comfortable admitting when I’m wrong. It earns credibility.
The ability to point out my own mistakes has maybe done the best for my career, long-term.
Yes, it’s a superpower.
Not like wrong wrong, most of my big realisations happen by myself. I consider recognising others points and being willing to modify my ideas when appropriate an invaluable cognitive skill. It’s more difficult sometimes than others, but I’m not going to end up as a closed minded old man at least.
Yeah, I think everyone has. Unless they are astoundingly arrogant.
If people were never extraordinarily wrong about things, we’d have nothing to argue about on the Internet. What a blessing!
I guess the question is how often do you realize that you’re actually on the wrong side of that argument, it definitely happens. And then what do you do next? Dig your heels in, double down and keep arguing? Or acknowledge the realization, make a concession or even apology?
Evidently, it can be hard to be a decent person (hard for all of us), when anonymity means there are no personal consequences to being a dick.
that’s what they’re supposed to be for
One where I realized I was wrong three times. My wife and I had visited a modern art museum. One of the installations was a pile of candy in the corner. We got home, I said it’s ridiculous to call that art, and ridiculous to fund artists to create lazy, self-indulgent nonsense. She convinced me that I am in no position to arbitrate what is or isn’t art (she is right, of course). Then I realized she wasn’t arguing about art, she was upset about something that had happened at work (that was my second miss).
Twenty years later I found out what that candy is all about. It was a piece by Felix Gonzalez Torres called “Untitled (Portrait of Ross in LA) 1991” It is 175 lbs of candy that patrons are free to take. It represents his lover, Ross Laycock, who had wasted away from AIDS earlier that year (Gonzalez Torres would die from AIDS six years later). So long as there is funding for the arts, Ross is replenished endlessly. For the third miss, I was Oedipean-level wrong.
So long as there is funding for the arts, Ross is replenished endlessly.
Holy shit. What a direct and quantivative comparison to the power of memories to keep the spirit of our loved ones alive through giving (in my family’s case, stories; did I enter tell you of the time when my uncle met Loretta Swit?) of ourselves and sharing them with others.
Huh. I’m no judge of art, being a low-born oaf, but in retrospect that is clearly art; and evocative as fuck.
Oh fuck, “so long as there is funding for the arts,” seems very precarious right now.
