4 ms·
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 mistak
by 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 agoUnfortunately, 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 agoThe 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.