Why Is It So Hard For People to Conceed a Point?

[destinata7]

I've spent alot of time discussing the Holy Bible, Religion, Philosophy and Science among other things to many, many people. Over the phone, by e-mail, in discussion forums and in person as well.

One common trend that remains prevalent with at least 95% of the people I've had discussions with, and other discussions I have observed on this forum go as follows:

1] A topic is decided on

2] A viewpoint is stated

3] One or more alternate viewpoints are established

4] Someone's theory falls apart under scrutiny


For those who fall into the #4 category, I have noticed a few different reactions:

A) They disappear from the conversation

B) They deny the point stubbornly even though they are clearly wrong

C) They ignore the point that decimated their theory and start attacking another point irrelevent to the one they are being defeated on

D) They go to another discussion and reiterate the same weak point they were defeated on to others seemingly oblivious that others have watched this transpire and are quietly shaking their heads


Is it really so difficult to concede a point, to alter your viewpoint???

Or maybe (God forbid) to put up a post congratulating someone for their well laid out thoughts and testifying how their view has been altered forever!!!

Don't get me wrong, there are those noble ones who are really seeking the truth and are not too proud to be susceptible to change......this topic is dedicated to you!

May your attitude be continually multiplied until people from all nations, races and tongues can sit and learn the truth about the great beyond together!

Cheers,

 

[BruceDLimber]

Perhaps the fact that they spell it "concede?"

<g, d&r>

Bruce

 

[michel]

Destinata,
May I congratulate you for your well laid out thoughts and I hereby testify how my view has been altered forever!!!:jiggy:

 

[Tawn]

Pride. No-one likes to be wrong. Actually youll notice that when people do concede smaller points.. they will immediately follow up with an attack on another point.. Thats the best you can hope for I think.

In any event you cant expect a person to change their worldview based on one conversation. It might be that you are being blindsided by the other persons superior arguing skills. Sometimes you need time to mull things over before accepting a remark which puts your position in jeopardy.

Often youll just find that people arent actually arguing the same things. They agree, but theres just been a misunderstanding.

At the end of the day though with most arguments I think youll find that the major point of disagreement is a subjective thing. Its like arguing what the best colour is.

 

[CaptainXeroid]

Is it really so difficult to concede a point, to alter your viewpoint???...

Conceding a point on something so important because it is so personal, like faith, is like conceding a part of who you are. For a lot of people, the answer is yes, and I am not excluding myself.

As for #4 on your list, I would submit that often, neither theory falls apart but rather one or more parties realize they are not going to change anyone's mind, so the debate itself reached an impasse. While some continue to offer the same arguments ad nauseum, others move on to more fruitful discussions.

I've found this particularly true on line. There are too many threads and forums and websites to spend time trying to change a mind that isn't open to change.

 

[Fluffy]

I think Tawn has it down. Arguements are complex entities with many different parts all around a central issue. As such our views on central concepts such as abortion or capital punishment do not change overnight. It is a gradual process.

For example, since I have been on these boards my views have changed from making all drugs illegal to legalising them all. This did not come about from a single post or view but a general logic attack on the views I held, in very subtle ways, over a long period of time.

 

[Engyo]

Buddhism would call this attachment to ego. This is one of the things we work to eradicate through our practice.

 

[capthowdy]

yeah tawn pretty much summed it up.

 

[johnnys4life]

Usually when I leave a thread, the other person is convinced I'm wrong, upon no basis whatsoever.

A lot of times we'll just be throwing statistics back and forth - niether of us being able to agree on the validity of the other's sources. And that gets old real fast.

I've become bored, and I can see that it's a total waste of time trying to discuss with that person anymore. So I focus my energy on more interesting things.

 

[johnnys4life]

Anyway, from what I have seen, it's usually a matter of opinion of who's "right" and who should concede.
Most of the time that's all it is, but if there is something that someone should concede on -stubborn pride is sure to convince them away from doing so. Either that or the point I've proven doesn't coincide well with thier philosophy/religion/ political ideology, and they still want to stand by that ideology, so they just ignore me. When you ARE wrong though, it's better to just come out and say it, it lends more validity to you when you are right.

 

[Melody]

4] Someone's theory falls apart under scrutiny

For those who fall into the #4 category, I have noticed a few different reactions:

A) They disappear from the conversation

B) They deny the point stubbornly even though they are clearly wrong

C) They ignore the point that decimated their theory and start attacking another point irrelevent to the one they are being defeated on

D) They go to another discussion and reiterate the same weak point they were defeated on to others seemingly oblivious that others have watched this transpire and are quietly shaking their heads

Or perhaps it is that while *you* believe they are clearly wrong, they still do not believe so but are unable to argue their point with as much facility as those who "win" the debate and/or recognize the futility of getting you to see the error of your thinking.

 

[robtex]

Destinata7,

What have you personally learned and gained from your research, and has it altered your beliefs? I divorced my belief in God after being victim to #4 four a few times. Did you get clocked by # 4 ever and if so what did you do?

For the record I have had a lot of experiences just like what you described in post # 1. Very well articulated post ya got there.

 

[Tawn]

When you ARE wrong though, it's better to just come out and say it, it lends more validity to you when you are right.

I like that.

 

[Yerda]

Sometimes when you don't really understand what you're talking about it's difficult to see when you're wrong. People often debate on half-baked premises and misconstrued evidence, I have done it myself, and I recognise it occuring here and elsewhere regularly.

 

[Petros2]

The whole thing about making points, defending, attacking, conceding - sounds familiar. This is what war is about - it's just being done on a smaller less violent scale here. We think it's safe to do so - no one seems to be getting hurt really.

But if we see this 'harmless' process of self-promotion/other-denegration as the seed of violence and warfare, why don't we drop it like a snake? No, we persist in our self-rightous belief. I'm right (because I'm a Christian, a Jew, a Muslim, a Communist) - you're wrong (because you're a Christian, a Jew, a Muslim, etc). I am pretty sick of it personally - in myself and in others.

There must be another way. This world can't take much more of this kind of thinking.
Petros

 

[BUDDY]

I was thinking along the lines of pride and ego, the same as some of you. I also thought maybe it has a lot to do with personal insecurities. Some have built everything that they are into their personal beliefs, whether they are political, ideological or religious, and when those beliefs are proved to be wrong, it becomes very detramental to them in a personal way. Some people can't handle coping with that and sipmly deny the fact that they are wrong, or they choose to ignore it.

 

[BUDDY]

Personally, I don't have to worry about it, because I am never wrong:sarcastic .

 

[Tawn]

I'm right (because I'm a Christian, a Jew, a Muslim, a Communist) - you're wrong (because you're a Christian, a Jew, a Muslim, etc). I am pretty sick of it personally - in myself and in others.

That would be bigotry.. theres absolutely no point debating if you have already decided that the other person is 100% wrong. Though you would do well to listen and let your self certainty drop to 99.99% certain you are correct.

No I prefer to say - I think you are wrong because there is this flaw in your reasoning. If im wrong about that observation please point it out to me... even if I dont word it exactly like that.. that is the way I like to think about arguing.

 

[Feathers in Hair]

I fear I'm so easy-going that I have no problem conceeding a point. I'd usually prefer to do that (even when I think I'm right) than risk offending the other person, even if I dislike them. I fear the few times I've 'stuck to my guns', the other person is equally convinced of their own correctness on the issue, and I wind up looking like I'm harassing them. (See: entire conversation of 'Book of Wiccim'.)

 

[stemann]

I think I agree with almost all of what people have said in this thread. I have always told myself that ignoring a good argument against my views would be like kicking myself in the head. The whole point of a debate is that 2/3/4/5 heads are better than one when thinking about things like this. And, it's good to hear other people's sides of the argument when coming up with counter arguments of your own.

I also agree with something someone said, about if you're having a debate in person with someone, it's often hard to think of a retort immediately and they might take it badly if you say 'I just need time to think of a reply to that.' It could make you seem like a bad loser. But, hopefully, anyone who doesn't appreciate that isn't worth arguing with.