4 ms·

> You dont loose credibility by acknowledging you were wrong Disagree, plenty of organizations and people lost credibility in the eyes of some for doing just t

> You dont loose credibility by acknowledging you were wrong Disagree, plenty of organizations and people lost credibility in the eyes of some for doing just this as new research emerged over the course of the pandemic.

kelnos 5y ago
I agree with that. But I think there's a small gap in credibility loss between "being right in the first place" and "being wrong, but admitting it promptly". And a much larger gap between "being wrong, but admitting it promptly", and "being wrong, and refusing to admit it until everyone has known you were wrong for a long time".
- j4yav 5y ago
  There's also the interesting "being right, but essentially having guessed and tied various other crackpot theories to the reasoning" that muddies the water further. For example, that COVID was always airborne, but it is actually the vaccine that causes it because the microchips they put in it have little propellers on them and they use them to fly around the room.
  - awb 5y ago
    Or, just as bad, making an unsubstantiated claim that turns out to be true down the road. Like saying: “X could be bad for you”, but offering no evidence, theories or studies. Then it turns out X does have some downsides. I don’t think you get any credit for having randomly guessed a correct answer.
makeitdouble 5y ago
Parent's point is that they'd lose these people's credibility either way by the mere fact of being wrong. To me the paths look like: - acknowledge your mistakes: some people will accept based on your attitude, others will resent you being wrong. - don't acknowledge: people who would have otherwise accepted mistakes now resent your stubbornness. Others will still resent you for being wrong.
- awb 5y ago
  Unfortunately, also in the “don't acknowledge” category are people who continue to trust out of momentum or loyalty, or who knows what else. Not acknowledging has some upside for the actor, while it remains harmful to the group.
- anamax 5y ago
  The problem is in the original statement. There's an important difference between "The sky will be red tomorrow" and "Based on {data}, I think that the sky will be red tomorrow." even if the reasoning from {data} to "sky red tomorrow" is flawed. If someone arrives at a conclusion via a process that I can analyse, I expect that they'll arrive at a different conclusion if the data turns out different. When someone says "{whatever} is true", it's on them, and should be, when {whatever} turns out to be false. Here's another way to look at it. Folks who arrive at conclusion in a openly disinterested way can switch conclusions without losing credibility. People who seem to be interested in a given conclusion lose credibility, and should, when they're wrong. Same for folks who don't show their work. If you make it about you, you can't complain when it's about you.
choward 5y ago
They only lose credibility when they state things as indisputable facts. They should have been saying "based on current research this is our new best guess."

kelnos 5y ago

I agree with that. But I think there's a small gap in credibility loss between "being right in the first place" and "being wrong, but admitting it promptly". And a much larger gap between "being wrong, but admitting it promptly", and "being wrong, and refusing to admit it until everyone has known you were wrong for a long time".

j4yav 5y ago
There's also the interesting "being right, but essentially having guessed and tied various other crackpot theories to the reasoning" that muddies the water further. For example, that COVID was always airborne, but it is actually the vaccine that causes it because the microchips they put in it have little propellers on them and they use them to fly around the room.
- awb 5y ago
  Or, just as bad, making an unsubstantiated claim that turns out to be true down the road. Like saying: “X could be bad for you”, but offering no evidence, theories or studies. Then it turns out X does have some downsides. I don’t think you get any credit for having randomly guessed a correct answer.

makeitdouble 5y ago

Parent's point is that they'd lose these people's credibility either way by the mere fact of being wrong. To me the paths look like: - acknowledge your mistakes: some people will accept based on your attitude, others will resent you being wrong. - don't acknowledge: people who would have otherwise accepted mistakes now resent your stubbornness. Others will still resent you for being wrong.

awb 5y ago
Unfortunately, also in the “don't acknowledge” category are people who continue to trust out of momentum or loyalty, or who knows what else. Not acknowledging has some upside for the actor, while it remains harmful to the group.
anamax 5y ago
The problem is in the original statement. There's an important difference between "The sky will be red tomorrow" and "Based on {data}, I think that the sky will be red tomorrow." even if the reasoning from {data} to "sky red tomorrow" is flawed. If someone arrives at a conclusion via a process that I can analyse, I expect that they'll arrive at a different conclusion if the data turns out different. When someone says "{whatever} is true", it's on them, and should be, when {whatever} turns out to be false. Here's another way to look at it. Folks who arrive at conclusion in a openly disinterested way can switch conclusions without losing credibility. People who seem to be interested in a given conclusion lose credibility, and should, when they're wrong. Same for folks who don't show their work. If you make it about you, you can't complain when it's about you.

choward 5y ago

They only lose credibility when they state things as indisputable facts. They should have been saying "based on current research this is our new best guess."