This makes sense for me on the big/philosophical things (politics, abortion, religion, etc) because they do tie into worldview, but not on the small/simple matters of fact things (distance in km between NZ and Australia, whether Nicholas Cage is in a film).

It's the people who dig their heels in for the second category that really perplex me.

[–] absGeekNZ 3 points 1 year ago (1 children)

It comes back to the same thing, what value are they protecting?

Maybe they feel that admitting they are wrong will disturb their sense of self respect "I can't possibly have remembered that incorrectly".

[–] liv 2 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 children)

So, their self respect sort of relies on thinking they are infallible? Seems like an unrealistic/delusional basis.

I can see what you mean though, insofar as I've noticed that people in positions of authority can get like that because they see being question as a challenge to their position and their right to that position - it's the hallmark of a bad teacher, for example, to never admit to not knowing things.

Still, it's very weird. If being right makes you feel good about yourself, wouldn't it make more sense to actually ensure that you are?

[–] absGeekNZ 3 points 1 year ago (1 children)

It should be essential.... But ensuring you actually are correct is not part of the feedback loop. The loop seems to be: l was challenged -> I told them where to go -> therefore I was correct -> my self respect gets a wee tickle

[–] liv 2 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

It just sounds like magical thinking.

Thanks for explaining it. It's not like I have Spock levels of rationality either: I have emotional and cognitive biases myself, but the "therefore I was correct" step boggles my mind.

Lying to yourself is an own goal.