Are people allowed to change their minds?

[TemplarKormac]

Let's say you are in a political thread, you have a set position on a certain issue. Let's also say you've held that position forever. When someone makes a more compelling argument as to why your position is wrong, are you allowed to change your mind? For me, it is quite easy to change my position. I find that being too rigid in beliefs tends to make one cynical and obsessed.

What certain people label as my "mea culpas" are acknowledgements that there are in fact superior arguments to my own. I myself am not perfect, unstable persona and all. But even still, I can admit when I'm wrong. My dad taught me that, and it's easier to admit a mistake than to hold it in and let it eat you alive.

So, why is it seen as a weakness to admit a fault? Is there something wrong with changing your mind? Let me know what you think below. And don't forget to vote in the poll!

 

[Pedro de San Patricio]

Politics isn't about facts in this country. It's about team affiliation. Tow the party line and your party will be happy with you. The other won't, but they're evil anyway. Admitting that one aspect of the party line is mistaken compromises the entire ideology and is seen as treason by your former team.

 

[TemplarKormac]

Politics isn't about facts in this country. It's about team affiliation. Tow the party line and your party will be happy with you. The other won't, but they're evil anyway. Admitting that one aspect of the party line is mistaken compromises the entire ideology and is seen as treason by your former team.

Of course. But that's like throwing fastballs down the middle of the plate, all the time. You're gonna get hit, and if you keep throwing those fastballs, you'll be hit harder. But then when you realize you have a curveball, a slider, or a sinker, you start using them in different combinations, then it becomes easy to do so. It isn't bad to throw a different pitch every once in a while.

 

[Mac1958]

Let's say you are in a political thread, you have a set position on a certain issue. Let's also say you've held that position forever. When someone makes a more compelling argument as to why your position is wrong, are you allowed to change your mind? For me, it is quite easy to change my position. I find that being too rigid in beliefs tends to make one cynical and obsessed.

What certain people label as my "mea culpas" are acknowledgements that there are in fact superior arguments to my own. I myself am not perfect, unstable persona and all. But even still, I can admit when I'm wrong. My dad taught me that, and it's easier to admit a mistake than to hold it in and let it eat you alive.

So, why is it seen as a weakness to admit a fault? Is there something wrong with changing your mind? Let me know what you think below. And don't forget to vote in the poll!

Admitting weakness, especially in this nasty, often juvenile environment, is far more an indication of strength, maturity and self-awareness than weakness.

.

 

[TemplarKormac]

Let's say you are in a political thread, you have a set position on a certain issue. Let's also say you've held that position forever. When someone makes a more compelling argument as to why your position is wrong, are you allowed to change your mind? For me, it is quite easy to change my position. I find that being too rigid in beliefs tends to make one cynical and obsessed.

What certain people label as my "mea culpas" are acknowledgements that there are in fact superior arguments to my own. I myself am not perfect, unstable persona and all. But even still, I can admit when I'm wrong. My dad taught me that, and it's easier to admit a mistake than to hold it in and let it eat you alive.

So, why is it seen as a weakness to admit a fault? Is there something wrong with changing your mind? Let me know what you think below. And don't forget to vote in the poll!

Admitting weakness, especially in this nasty, often juvenile environment, is far more an indication of strength, maturity and self-awareness than weakness.

.

That was quite refreshing. Thanks Mac.

 

[Mac1958]

Let's say you are in a political thread, you have a set position on a certain issue. Let's also say you've held that position forever. When someone makes a more compelling argument as to why your position is wrong, are you allowed to change your mind? For me, it is quite easy to change my position. I find that being too rigid in beliefs tends to make one cynical and obsessed.

What certain people label as my "mea culpas" are acknowledgements that there are in fact superior arguments to my own. I myself am not perfect, unstable persona and all. But even still, I can admit when I'm wrong. My dad taught me that, and it's easier to admit a mistake than to hold it in and let it eat you alive.

So, why is it seen as a weakness to admit a fault? Is there something wrong with changing your mind? Let me know what you think below. And don't forget to vote in the poll!

Admitting weakness, especially in this nasty, often juvenile environment, is far more an indication of strength, maturity and self-awareness than weakness.

.

That was quite refreshing. Thanks Mac.

Any time!

One of the primary tenets of partisan ideology is "avoid any sign of weakness at all costs, regardless of how obvious it is."

One of the many reasons politicians, politicos, pundits and partisans have zero credibility.

Makes it kinda tough to communicate with 'em, but I must admit they're fascinating to observe.

.

 

[Derideo_Te]

So, why is it seen as a weakness to admit a fault?

Actually it is a strength, not a weakness, to admit when you are wrong.

Those who perceive it as a weakness only do so because they are emotionally invested in their positions. Studies have shown that when provided with factual evidence that they are wrong they will resort to stubbornness instead. They will switch to tradition, faith, sources of disinformation and anything else that reinforces their beliefs that they are not wrong because they are incapable of admitting that what they believed to be true has turned out to be false.

From a political standpoint the only sane position is to be an Independent. That way you are never invested in either side because both sides screw up one way or another. As an Independent you can be an equal opportunity decider of what is best for the American people without having to support a party platform that was drafted by those with an agenda.

FYI current polling shows that those who identify as Independents has reached it's highest recorded levels.

Admitting a mistake is never a sign of weakness. Only the weak are afraid to admit that they are wrong.

 

[Derideo_Te]

Let's say you are in a political thread, you have a set position on a certain issue. Let's also say you've held that position forever. When someone makes a more compelling argument as to why your position is wrong, are you allowed to change your mind? For me, it is quite easy to change my position. I find that being too rigid in beliefs tends to make one cynical and obsessed.

What certain people label as my "mea culpas" are acknowledgements that there are in fact superior arguments to my own. I myself am not perfect, unstable persona and all. But even still, I can admit when I'm wrong. My dad taught me that, and it's easier to admit a mistake than to hold it in and let it eat you alive.

So, why is it seen as a weakness to admit a fault? Is there something wrong with changing your mind? Let me know what you think below. And don't forget to vote in the poll!

Admitting weakness, especially in this nasty, often juvenile environment, is far more an indication of strength, maturity and self-awareness than weakness.

.

That was quite refreshing. Thanks Mac.

Any time!

One of the primary tenets of partisan ideology is "avoid any sign of weakness at all costs, regardless of how obvious it is."

One of the many reasons politicians, politicos, pundits and partisans have zero credibility.

Makes it kinda tough to communicate with 'em, but I must admit they're fascinating to observe.

.

Oddly enough I have actually seen that happen. If I recall correctly it was Micheal Steele on MSNBC who called out someone in his own party for screwing up. It was such an exception to the rule of never admitting that you are wrong that it stood out. It hasn't happened again so maybe he just dropped the ball and was subsequently reprimanded for doing so.

 

[Mac1958]

Let's say you are in a political thread, you have a set position on a certain issue. Let's also say you've held that position forever. When someone makes a more compelling argument as to why your position is wrong, are you allowed to change your mind? For me, it is quite easy to change my position. I find that being too rigid in beliefs tends to make one cynical and obsessed.

What certain people label as my "mea culpas" are acknowledgements that there are in fact superior arguments to my own. I myself am not perfect, unstable persona and all. But even still, I can admit when I'm wrong. My dad taught me that, and it's easier to admit a mistake than to hold it in and let it eat you alive.

So, why is it seen as a weakness to admit a fault? Is there something wrong with changing your mind? Let me know what you think below. And don't forget to vote in the poll!

Admitting weakness, especially in this nasty, often juvenile environment, is far more an indication of strength, maturity and self-awareness than weakness.

.

That was quite refreshing. Thanks Mac.

Any time!

One of the primary tenets of partisan ideology is "avoid any sign of weakness at all costs, regardless of how obvious it is."

One of the many reasons politicians, politicos, pundits and partisans have zero credibility.

Makes it kinda tough to communicate with 'em, but I must admit they're fascinating to observe.

.

Oddly enough I have actually seen that happen. If I recall correctly it was Micheal Steele on MSNBC who called out someone in his own party for screwing up. It was such an exception to the rule of never admitting that you are wrong that it stood out. It hasn't happened again so maybe he just dropped the ball and was subsequently reprimanded for doing so.

That's where we are now. Go outside the reservation and you're a pariah.

Not exactly helpful.

.

 

[TemplarKormac]

Makes it kinda tough to communicate with 'em, but I must admit they're fascinating to observe.

Don't communicate. Just laugh.

 

[Mac1958]

Makes it kinda tough to communicate with 'em, but I must admit they're fascinating to observe.

Don't communicate. Just laugh.

Yeah, I know.

What I've done is turn this forum (and partisan politics in general) into an amateur psychological/sociological/anthropological study. I admit to being fascinated by the behaviors, and I spend more time and effort analyzing the reasons behind the behaviors than the actual posts.

There is so much lying going on, it's a waste of time taking much seriously.

.

 

[TemplarKormac]

What I've done is turn this forum (and partisan politics in general) into an amateur psychological/sociological/anthropological study. I admit to being fascinated by the behaviors, and I spend more time and effort analyzing the reasons behind the behaviors than the actual posts

Well, you have a wellspring of patience. I found that there are two groups on this forum. Rational and reactionary. And both sides have them. The bad thing (or good depending on how you look at it) is that the all the reactionaries are on my ignore list. What motivates their behavior is the ability to repeat, repeat, repeat. When they don't like facts, they react with hostility. You can't communicate with someone who only has establishment talking points for an argument. My guess as to the reason behind this behavior is that some of these reactionaries lack direction, they need to be led by someone or something.

Those who are rational though, are people who can differentiate between what the party says they should think, and what the reality of the issue is. Instead of being led by the hand they debate with solid arguments that deserve honest responses. It's all a pattern.

This forum is like an atom smasher. Beliefs and ideologies collide, some repel, some meld. Some cancel each other out completely.

 

[Derideo_Te]

Makes it kinda tough to communicate with 'em, but I must admit they're fascinating to observe.

Don't communicate. Just laugh.

Yeah, I know.

What I've done is turn this forum (and partisan politics in general) into an amateur psychological/sociological/anthropological study. I admit to being fascinated by the behaviors, and I spend more time and effort analyzing the reasons behind the behaviors than the actual posts.

There is so much lying going on, it's a waste of time taking much seriously.

.

The motivations are transparent and so are the "hot buttons" that pushing them becomes boring.

I would much rather get into a substantive debate on a topic but they are few and far between.

The SDZ held promise until it was exposed as a cover for the Libertarians to post their drivel and report any legitimate criticism as an "infraction of the rules". The irony was amusing that only they were "free" to violate the "rules" and everyone else was punished for doing the exact same thing.

Oh well, at least there is always the amusement factor.

 

[Mac1958]

What I've done is turn this forum (and partisan politics in general) into an amateur psychological/sociological/anthropological study. I admit to being fascinated by the behaviors, and I spend more time and effort analyzing the reasons behind the behaviors than the actual posts

Well, you have a wellspring of patience. I found that there are two groups on this forum. Rational and reactionary. And both sides have them. The bad thing (or good depending on how you look at it) is that the all the reactionaries are on my ignore list. What motivates their behavior is the ability to repeat, repeat, repeat. When they don't like facts, they react with hostility. You can't communicate with someone who only has establishment talking points for an argument. My guess as to the reason behind this behavior is that some of these reactionaries lack direction, they need to be led by someone or something.

Those who are rational though, are people who can differentiate between what the party says they should think, and what the reality of the issue is. Instead of being led by the hand they debate with solid arguments that deserve honest responses. It's all a pattern.

This forum is like an atom smasher. Beliefs and Ideologies collide, some repel, some meld. Some cancel each other out completely.

Believe me, I'd much rather have honest, interesting, stimulating, enlightening conversations.

Not gonna happen here.

.

 

[TemplarKormac]

Believe me, I'd much rather have honest, interesting, stimulating, enlightening conversations.

Not gonna happen here.

.

I agree. But it doesn't stop one from trying

 

[Skull Pilot]

In politics being rigid and inflexible is actually preferred

That is why government is the worst place to effect change

 

[Ringel05]

Makes it kinda tough to communicate with 'em, but I must admit they're fascinating to observe.

Don't communicate. Just laugh.

Yeah, I know.

What I've done is turn this forum (and partisan politics in general) into an amateur psychological/sociological/anthropological study. I admit to being fascinated by the behaviors, and I spend more time and effort analyzing the reasons behind the behaviors than the actual posts.

There is so much lying going on, it's a waste of time taking much seriously.

.

The motivations are transparent and so are the "hot buttons" that pushing them becomes boring.

I would much rather get into a substantive debate on a topic but they are few and far between.

The SDZ held promise until it was exposed as a cover for the Libertarians to post their drivel and report any legitimate criticism as an "infraction of the rules". The irony was amusing that only they were "free" to violate the "rules" and everyone else was punished for doing the exact same thing.

Oh well, at least there is always the amusement factor.

What's funny (pathetically) is I read this from both sides, yet that requires an open mind and from both sides it's always belied but the closed minded statement about the opposite side; "post their drivel"............
Typical Human nature is so much fun to watch........ We can all be so hypocritical and not even be aware of that fact.

 

[Delta4Embassy]

Let's say you are in a political thread, you have a set position on a certain issue. Let's also say you've held that position forever. When someone makes a more compelling argument as to why your position is wrong, are you allowed to change your mind? For me, it is quite easy to change my position. I find that being too rigid in beliefs tends to make one cynical and obsessed.

What certain people label as my "mea culpas" are acknowledgements that there are in fact superior arguments to my own. I myself am not perfect, unstable persona and all. But even still, I can admit when I'm wrong. My dad taught me that, and it's easier to admit a mistake than to hold it in and let it eat you alive.

So, why is it seen as a weakness to admit a fault? Is there something wrong with changing your mind? Let me know what you think below. And don't forget to vote in the poll!

Consider it a sign of character and strength if a person exposed to another's ideas conceeds their's is better and changes their mind.

Wouldn't be on this site if I thought otherwise.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

DERIDEO_TE SAID:

“From a political standpoint the only sane position is to be an Independent. That way you are never invested in either side because both sides screw up one way or another. As an Independent you can be an equal opportunity decider of what is best for the American people without having to support a party platform that was drafted by those with an agenda.”

Correct.

Pragmatism is always the best course of action – where policy is based on facts and objective, documented evidence, not subjective, errant political dogma.

 

[kiwiman127]

Let's say you are in a political thread, you have a set position on a certain issue. Let's also say you've held that position forever. When someone makes a more compelling argument as to why your position is wrong, are you allowed to change your mind? For me, it is quite easy to change my position. I find that being too rigid in beliefs tends to make one cynical and obsessed.

What certain people label as my "mea culpas" are acknowledgements that there are in fact superior arguments to my own. I myself am not perfect, unstable persona and all. But even still, I can admit when I'm wrong. My dad taught me that, and it's easier to admit a mistake than to hold it in and let it eat you alive.

So, why is it seen as a weakness to admit a fault? Is there something wrong with changing your mind? Let me know what you think below. And don't forget to vote in the poll!

Admitting weakness, especially in this nasty, often juvenile environment, is far more an indication of strength, maturity and self-awareness than weakness.

.

I have never had a problem admitting being wrong and I was only chastised once for admitting I was wrong (by Rabbi, of course). This place often does have a juvenile environment, which is surprising considering we have a lot older posters, but it's not right to assume the whole place is like that. That was one of the mistakes I had made..