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?
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.
That’s exactly the outcome we need in the world. Thank you for sharing this.
that’s what they’re supposed to be for
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.
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?
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.
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.
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.
I have never had this happen because I have never made a mistake once /s
I’ve had it happen before but I can’t think of any specific examples.
My reaction to it however has evolved over time. When I was younger I’d be way more embarrassed over it and just stop debating, accepting defeat at the next opportunity, only to shrink away in shame.
Nowadays though, I’ll still be embarrassed, but immediately admit fault, laugh at my stupidity and issue any necessary retraction. People are usually disarmed when you can admit you were wrong and they were right. Even more if you throw a little joke about being dumb or something in there.
Yeah, I think everyone has. Unless they are astoundingly arrogant.
Several times! And not necessarily wrong, but missing a perspective that changes my opinion. That’s how we learn and grow. It’s also why you and more people should read books.
Yes. My partner at the time had brought something up and I started to disagree.
Mid retort I realized I was speaking from my shitty upbringing again, paused to mull that over, and then rejected my own retort right there in front of her.
It’s not often anymore, but I’m still surprised by the occasional stupid idea put into my head by religious indoctrination as a know nothing child that I have to deprogram from even decades later.
How did your interlocutor react?
She values my ability to self reflect on the spot like that, so she reacted with love.
How would you like someone to react if you concede errors?
Without malice.
Oh yeah. Happens to me not infrequently, though less as I get older and choose my battles more wisely.
On my best days, I apologize and bow out of the discussion. On my worst days, I just ghost the entire thread.
Choosing your battles wisely seems to be good advice. I think it’s a good quality, if people can concede if they were wrong. I hsbe the impression that being wrong is too often sanctioned or frowned upon, whereas a more accepting, forgiving stance might make it easier for people to admit their errors.
Absolutely! And I kid you not, it’s one of my favorite experiences, for a few reasons.
First, there’s an instant feeling of relief. I immediately have the power to conclude the argument (debate, discussion, whatever) with a productive result. There’s no burden of truth or anything that remains. I was just wrong! The only possible thing left to discuss might be why, like if there was a miscommunication or something, but otherwise, poof! Done and dusted.
Second, a bit more selfishly, it’s a chance to demonstrate how OK with being wrong I truly am, which most people simply find it hard to believe until they’ve seen it for themselves. So I’ve learned to jump on these opportunities aggressively, in case I miss the window due an additional thread of conversation I can’t agree with or because for some reason they acknowledge a misunderstanding first, after which my change of mind loses some luster (again, selfish, but I’m being honest here).
Third, sometimes the other person flips to take my original stance, like “not so fast!” and that just makes the original debate more fun, because then we’ve both acknowledged that being right isn’t really that important. They result is a more demonstrably pure discussion with seeking truth as the goal, rather than a zero-sum match of wits with a “winner” and a “loser.”
There are additional reasons and scenarios, depending on the context, but the ones I mention above are pretty consistent. The point is that being wrong is a trophy to add to your collection of all the times you learned something and, by that token, became slightly less wrong than you were before.
Edit: flesh out #2 a bit more, especially with respect to why immediacy might matter to me personally.
No…wait, yes.
I have a tendency to mix things together, especially if the two things getting mixed in my mind are already pretty similar. Sometimes I realize this mid-way through a sentence.
