• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!
  • Welcome to our archives. No new posts are allowed here.

Can't be wrong...

Peter Grimm

Peter Grimm

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 13, 2011
Messages
10,348
Reaction score
2,426
Location
The anals of history
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Progressive
One thing I'm sure most of you have noticed who have been posting here for any amount of time is that hardly anyone ever thinks they have lost a debate. When you ask someone to recall a debate they've had from a while back, they will almost always remember themselves winning that debate.

That's of course paradoxical because everyone can't win all the time.

My question is this: WHY do we do this?

And we all do it. Is it an ego thing? What need are we fulfilling that we delude ourselves in to believing we're right, even when we're not?

What's so bad about being wrong? What's so bad about losing a debate, if the other person has researched the topic more than you have?

Would love to hear your thoughts.
 
Peter Grimm said:
One thing I'm sure most of you have noticed who have been posting here for any amount of time is that hardly anyone ever thinks they have lost a debate. When you ask someone to recall a debate they've had from a while back, they will almost always remember themselves winning that debate.

That's of course paradoxical because everyone can't win all the time.

My question is this: WHY do we do this?

And we all do it. Is it an ego thing? What need are we fulfilling that we delude ourselves in to believing we're right, even when we're not?

What's so bad about being wrong? What's so bad about losing a debate, if the other person has researched the topic more than you have?

Would love to hear your thoughts.
Click to expand...

I often have someone claim victory in a discussion we're having -- I mean, let's face it, we really aren't debating per se. I love that. And when they do that? They're only victors in their own minds.

I don't type my posts in disagreement with a poster in order to change their minds, since that is rarely, if ever, going to happen here. But I do it myself. Just this morning, with Radcen, a subject we'd been discussing for several days ended with my agreeing he'd made his case. I like that. I learned something...got a new perspective...a paradigm shift, if you will. It's why I'm here. (I like to think I'm setting a good example when I "come around.")

As to why others don't do it? Must be an ego thing.

I am wrong. Three little words. We ought to say them more often.
 
If you don't mind, I'd like to broaden this a little bit.

I was listening to Marketplace on the ride home the other night and Kai Ryssdal and Stephen Dubner, in the "Freakanomics" segment, were discussing cars that can drive themselves:

Freakonomics » Baby, You Can Program My Car: A New Marketplace Podcast

At some point in the conversation Dubner cites a statistic of a study that was done where one of the questions that was put to the subjects was to rate their driving ability.

85% rated themselves as "above average" drivers, which is patently impossible.

So it seems that there are a great many arenas in which we overstate or overestimate our success or ability.

Same question applies: "Why do we do this"?

Personally, I do it because I'm exceptional. Honestly. I'm above average in intelligence. Above average in education. Above average in income. My wife is much skinnier and much hotter than the average woman. In most quantifiable ways I'm above average.

I will admit that my dog sucks though. My dog is probably much worse than average as far as dogs go.
 
Peter Grimm said:
One thing I'm sure most of you have noticed who have been posting here for any amount of time is that hardly anyone ever thinks they have lost a debate. When you ask someone to recall a debate they've had from a while back, they will almost always remember themselves winning that debate.

That's of course paradoxical because everyone can't win all the time.

My question is this: WHY do we do this?
Click to expand...

Ego. We want to feel like we have some sort of control over living and dying. Convincing yourself that you are right, reinforces that there is something special that you have, which separates you from the "others".
 
MaggieD said:
I often have someone claim victory in a discussion we're having -- I mean, let's face it, we really aren't debating per se. I love that. And when they do that? They're only victors in their own minds.

I don't type my posts in disagreement with a poster in order to change their minds, since that is rarely, if ever, going to happen here. But I do it myself. Just this morning, with Radcen, a subject we'd been discussing for several days ended with my agreeing he'd made his case. I like that. I learned something...got a new perspective...a paradigm shift, if you will. It's why I'm here. (I like to think I'm setting a good example when I "come around.")

As to why others don't do it? Must be an ego thing.

I am wrong. Three little words. We ought to say them more often.
Click to expand...

I agree with you. It's one of those irrational aspects of human nature that intrigues me. If we were completely rational, we would have no problem admitting when we lose as well as when we win. The average person would be right about 50% of the time.

Of course we know it doesn't work that way with people. Everyone, and I do mean everyone, pumps themselves up to be grander than they are.

The ego can't be a healthy thing. I mean, in essence you're disconnecting from reality, first of all, and you're attempting to live up to a superhero version of yourself that doesn't exist, second of all.

That, and the fact that people are driven by ego implies that people care what other posters think of them - people care whether they're seen as being right and wrong. That's irrational as well, especially considering the anonymous nature of the internet. I don't know who the real Maggie is, you don't know who the real Peter is, etc.

Why seek to impress people we don't even know?
 
A debate is won on the merits of the argument(s), not who gets the last word or walks away in disgust. Ultimately it depends on the perspective of the observer. There was one person in a recent gun control debate who thought that my arguments were completely incoherent. Such a viewpoint is beyond my control.

My ego is seldom tied up in any debate, and I frequently concede points that are well-made and supported by evidence.
 
A lot of times it is more a matter of stating your opinions/positions--not really a debate. If you have not changed another poster's minds, I am not sure you can claim to be right whether you are or not. Right and wrong, particularly when it comes to moral stances, can be very gray and nuanced.
 
lizzie said:
Ego. We want to feel like we have some sort of control over living and dying. Convincing yourself that you are right, reinforces that there is something special that you have, which separates you from the "others".
Click to expand...

That's an interesting viewpoint. You could be right. Everyone wants to feel special and different, because they, for some reason, don't like what they see in ordinary people. Hmm...
 
Ego...............
 
Peter Grimm said:
One thing I'm sure most of you have noticed who have been posting here for any amount of time is that hardly anyone ever thinks they have lost a debate. When you ask someone to recall a debate they've had from a while back, they will almost always remember themselves winning that debate.

That's of course paradoxical because everyone can't win all the time.

My question is this: WHY do we do this?

And we all do it.
Click to expand...

No. We don't "all" do it.

Is it an ego thing? What need are we fulfilling that we delude ourselves in to believing we're right, even when we're not? What's so bad about being wrong? What's so bad about losing a debate, if the other person has researched the topic more than you have? Would love to hear your thoughts.
Click to expand...

Actually, this is an entirely fair question. I admit I'm wrong frequently, and one thing that all too often happens is the other side does not accept the concession graciously. If anything it further energizes them to go on the offensive. Too much emphasis is made on being a gracious loser, and not enough on being a gracious winner.

Edit: oddly enough, gracious winners are quite common on this forum. What I was talking about above is in real life.
 
Last edited:
I think there are two different approaches to exchanging words here on DP, or other internet boards. One is debate, the other is discuss. I used to believe in the first. I've come to think of my posts here being more in line with the second. There is an element of debate in a discussion (and of course, the name of the boards may be taken as an indication that debate is to be expected). But a discussion doesn't have clear-cut winners or losers. Perhaps I should say that if the discussion is earnest and sincere, all parties to it are winners in one way or another.

One thing I can say about this approach, again, taking my own case as an example (since it's really the only one I know well enough to found an opinion), is that I've changed due to my interactions here. For one thing, I've gained more respect for conservatives, while simultaneously coming to a deeper understanding of why I think, ultimately, conservativism is wrong. This enriches my understanding of politics and my experience as a human being.
 
Cardinal said:
No. We don't "all" do it.



Actually, this is an entirely fair question. I admit I'm wrong frequently, and one thing that all too often happens is the other side does not accept the concession graciously. If anything it further energizes them to go on the offensive. Too much emphasis is made on being a gracious loser, and not enough on being a gracious winner.

Edit: oddly enough, gracious winners are quite common on this forum. What I was talking about above is in real life.
Click to expand...

Yes, but if you're looking at it from a completely rational perspective, why does it matter whether the other person is a gracious winner?
 
soot said:
If you don't mind, I'd like to broaden this a little bit.

I was listening to Marketplace on the ride home the other night and Kai Ryssdal and Stephen Dubner, in the "Freakanomics" segment, were discussing cars that can drive themselves:

Freakonomics » Baby, You Can Program My Car: A New Marketplace Podcast

At some point in the conversation Dubner cites a statistic of a study that was done where one of the questions that was put to the subjects was to rate their driving ability.

85% rated themselves as "above average" drivers, which is patently impossible.

So it seems that there are a great many arenas in which we overstate or overestimate our success or ability.

Same question applies: "Why do we do this"?

Personally, I do it because I'm exceptional. Honestly. I'm above average in intelligence. Above average in education. Above average in income. My wife is much skinnier and much hotter than the average woman. In most quantifiable ways I'm above average.

I will admit that my dog sucks though. My dog is probably much worse than average as far as dogs go.
Click to expand...

I think you're right that it goes beyond this forum. We're talking about some fundamental, irrational part of human nature that causes us to delude ourselves and lose touch with reality.

I don't like the thought of being out of touch with reality, which is why the topic interests me.
 
Peter Grimm said:
One thing I'm sure most of you have noticed who have been posting here for any amount of time is that hardly anyone ever thinks they have lost a debate. When you ask someone to recall a debate they've had from a while back, they will almost always remember themselves winning that debate.

That's of course paradoxical because everyone can't win all the time.

My question is this: WHY do we do this?

And we all do it. Is it an ego thing? What need are we fulfilling that we delude ourselves in to believing we're right, even when we're not?

What's so bad about being wrong? What's so bad about losing a debate, if the other person has researched the topic more than you have?

Would love to hear your thoughts.
Click to expand...

"Winning" a debate can only be determined if one is in a formal debate setting, and a moderator is present. Even then, if you "win" or "lose" the debate, this doesn't mean you must forfeit your beliefs and concede defeat. I would say this forum is more for discussion than debate, in the sense that on most topics, people are firm in their beliefs and seek only to voice them, rather than leave them open for change.
 
MaggieD said:
I don't type my posts in disagreement with a poster in order to change their minds, since that is rarely, if ever, going to happen here. But I do it myself. Just this morning, with Radcen, a subject we'd been discussing for several days ended with my agreeing he'd made his case. I like that. I learned something...got a new perspective...a paradigm shift, if you will. It's why I'm here. (I like to think I'm setting a good example when I "come around.")

As to why others don't do it? Must be an ego thing.

I am wrong. Three little words. We ought to say them more often.
Click to expand...

That's pretty much the way I view things. I know it's a debate site, but I am not a debater. I am a discusser. I like to throw ideas out, and see where they land. I like to exchange ideas, and see where it takes my mind. I'm not trying to change anyone's mind, as I don't believe that change happens except from within. I am a gardener. I plant seeds, then let them grow, or not, depending on the medium in which they are planted.
 
Peter Grimm said:
Yes, but if you're looking at it from a completely rational perspective, why does it matter whether the other person is a gracious winner?
Click to expand...

Because so long as the disagreement is fairly innocuous (admitting we were wrong is not the end of it in the case where we gambled away the kid's college tuition) then it should be expected that a gracious concession should be met more-or-less reciprocally. A minor end-zone dance is fine, but firing up the attack even more is frankly uncalled for.

Anyway, I'm not saying that this should be a reason for not conceding, just that this sort of thing is probably what might flash through people's minds when they consider the option of conceding.
 
lizzie said:
That's pretty much the way I view things. I know it's a debate site, but I am not a debater. I am a discusser. I like to throw ideas out, and see where they land. I like to exchange ideas, and see where it takes my mind. I'm not trying to change anyone's mind, as I don't believe that change happens except from within. I am a gardener. I plant seeds, then let them grow, or not, depending on the medium in which they are planted.
Click to expand...

I'm afraid to ask who represents the fertilizer in this analogy.
 
Peter Grimm said:
One thing I'm sure most of you have noticed who have been posting here for any amount of time is that hardly anyone ever thinks they have lost a debate. When you ask someone to recall a debate they've had from a while back, they will almost always remember themselves winning that debate.

That's of course paradoxical because everyone can't win all the time.

My question is this: WHY do we do this?

And we all do it. Is it an ego thing? What need are we fulfilling that we delude ourselves in to believing we're right, even when we're not?

What's so bad about being wrong? What's so bad about losing a debate, if the other person has researched the topic more than you have?

Would love to hear your thoughts.
Click to expand...

How do you determine a "winner" or a "loser" when it's about arguments? Just because a majority agrees with the winner? Or a jury? A true argument does not become false or invalid, just because a majority does not see it.

And in many cases, there is not even an objective "right" or "wrong", as there are often different preferences or moral convictions at play when it comes to politics.

I think all of us, who discuss with an open mind and are ready to at least try to understand the opposite, and learns one thing or another in the process, is a winner here. Those who seek to bully the opponent into "losing" (via group dynamics, i.e.) are not.
 
I don't think many of the threads on this forum have winners and losers. Without an impartial judge, there's no one to decide the winner. Otherwise, both sides will think that they have made their perfect flawless argument. Very seldom does one side or the other actually change their position. I think the closest thing we have to winners are people who learn more about their argument and the other side's, can refine their argument, or discover common ground.
 
Paschendale said:
I don't think many of the threads on this forum have winners and losers. Without an impartial judge, there's no one to decide the winner. Otherwise, both sides will think that they have made their perfect flawless argument. Very seldom does one side or the other actually change their position. I think the closest thing we have to winners are people who learn more about their argument and the other side's, can refine their argument, or discover common ground.
Click to expand...

And even if there was an "impartial" jury (I doubt such a thing exists), they could just rate the formal correctness of arguments and debates -- coherency, if and how well all the opponent's arguments are addressed, down to grammar and spelling errors ;) -- but not really judge about individual preferences or morals (that would open life-long debates).

For example, both risk-taking approaches and more "conservative" (not in the political sense) proposals have their pros and cons. Would you rather invest your money "on the safe side" despite low profit rates? Or would you accept a much greater risk of losing it, if you could win a huge profit if it goes well? It's a matter of preference, but it often plays a role when it comes to politics.

And then, there are views on human nature and normative assumptions that cannot be proven right or wrong on the spot, as even the most sophisticated political philosophers have not yet found the "theory of everything". ;)
 
Peter Grimm said:
My question is this: WHY do we do this?
Click to expand...

Political ideologies are a lot like religious beliefs. Any challenge to our established views can be upsetting and naturally we deny and resist, even if we clearly lost the debate.


And we all do it. Is it an ego thing? What need are we fulfilling that we delude ourselves in to believing we're right, even when we're not?
Click to expand...

No doubt ego plays a role. As stated above, I think we are trying to protect our established views. To begin questioning one's own views can be uncomfortable and scary for most.


What's so bad about being wrong? What's so bad about losing a debate, if the other person has researched the topic more than you have?
Click to expand...

Nothing bad about being wrong. To admit it is to admit being human.
 
First thing that came to mind when I saw the thread title ... :D

 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom