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 team mentalilty.
Many people will instinctively disagree just because you happen to be on the other team.
Let’s take political ideologies, they all want the same thing:
Good schools, good healthcare, good geriatric care, good infrastructure and so on.
Where they differ is how they get there.
The left want the government to provide these services, the right want the private sector to do it.
To have a productive discussion on how to solve society’s problems, I find it better to talk about the issue itself and avoid branding yourself as a part of a particular movement.