> "The stress of not getting thier way immediately leads them to these other health issues in my opinion. And it takes thier argument up a notch (prove they don

> "The stress of not getting thier way immediately leads them to these other health issues in my opinion. And it takes thier argument up a notch (prove they don't have a headache)." so kinda like the fervent supporters (most news outlets included) of lockdowns, pervasive mask-wearing, and long-covid (as if post-infection complications are something new and unique)? or the opposite faction defiantly anti-mask and anti-vaccine? people exaggerate and then fall into a hole of argumentative sunk cost, where they then view their own reputation being on the line, so they double-down rather than back down. in the moment, we don't realize that it's actually not that costly to concede to exaggeration, that a matter of degree almost never bolsters an argument. the curious part is not that, but that we've yet to solve this collecctive dilemma (reason vs. dignity) that's seemingly been with us since the dawn of time. in a private conversation, it's possible to recognize the dilemma and redirect the conversation to a more productive line of reasoning by just asking questions and unraveling contradictions with the respondent. 'giving face' is somewhat related, but isn't necessarily concerned with veracity and reason, only dignity, especially for the (perceived) higher class person. i've always liked the 'wisdom of crowds' concept because it could be exactly this collective dignity-preserving redirection, but it defies power and expertise, so doesn't get enough merit and employment.