So I was just sitting here, thinking about how humans interact with each other and it occurred me – quite simply – why it is that humans are so resistant to admit they are wrong.
Humans do not like to admit we are wrong because it implies that we are causing harm, thus introducing potential harm to our self from the community.
The only way to ‘fix’ this issue is to, quite frankly, raise confession to a level of honor. In other words, a person who confesses to being wrong will reduce harm brought to them by the community. We all know it is “hard to admit we are wrong”, and the truth is that admitting it may eventually reduce even more harm than hiding it. But to the individual in the wrong, the perceived harm of admitting may be higher than hiding it and hoping that you are not wrong.
So, this helps us see how confession works. Confession is a social solution to a human’s fear of the community.
Anyway, just some random thoughts for this afternoon…
- Josh
Admitting you’re wrong means you have to change. Change require effort. It’s much easier (lazier) to stay where you are and demand that others descend to your lever. Simply put, it’s gravity: easier to bring down than to rise up.
Admitting you’re wrong means you have to change.
Sure, and that is painful enough. But I think most people don’t like to admit they are wrong because it puts them at the mercy of everyone who wants them to admit it: it opens up vulnerability and potential for harm.
it opens up vulnerability and potential for harm.(Joshua)
Sticks and Stones………………….
TitforTat………………….. exactly.
And Leo, I think you’re wrong. People normally don’t have a problem admitting they were wrong to themselves (as long as admitting it reduces harm), they just have a hard time admitting they were wrong to someone else (because we are rarely sure whether admitting or hiding will introduce more harm). Most Christians, for example, don’t have a problem admitting they were wrong about a theological issue as long as admitting it doesn’t brand them a heretic of some sort. However, they resist quite heavily admitting they were wrong if it could break up their social life or ruin their reputation in some way.
Change doesn’t explain every scenario. The ‘change’ we fear if it introduces pain (either genuine pain or a decrease in comfort). If the change doesn’t cause any pain, then we welcome it. For example, if a factory worker has an extremely difficult process to build a part, and an industrial engineer comes up and explains how he can save 10 minutes on building the part by combining two steps, the person will – barring any tertiary circumstances – accept the change with minimal hesitation (the only painful part is relearning the process and transferring it to the cerebellum). However, if the change is perceived to be generally harmful, it will be resisted.
Most business meetings follow this pattern. Person A proposes change. Person B suddenly feels uncomfortable and can’t figure out why. They resist. Person A asks why they resist. Person B says “well, we’ve done it this way for a long time, and I’m afraid that changing things could mess stuff up.” Person A explains how he has done research and how the change will actually increase person B’s efficiency and get them extra time off. Person B readily accepts the change!
Change can be good or bad, and it is how a person perceives the change that influences whether they accept it or not.
At least that is what I think. I could be wrong…