We as a whole make mistakes, and we do as such with consistency. A few mistakes are little, for example, “No, we don’t have to stop at the store; there’s a lot of milk left for breakfast.” Some greater, for example, “Don’t rush me; we have a lot of time to get to the airport before the flight leaves.” And some are vital, such as, “I realize it was drizzling and dark, but I’m certain that was the man I saw breaking into the home over the road.”
Nobody appreciates being wrong. It’s an unpleasant emotional experience for us all. The question is how would we react when it turns out we weren’t right: when there wasn’t sufficient milk left for coffee, when we hit traffic and missed the flight, or when we discover the man who sat in prison for a long time dependent on our recognizable proof was innocent from the start?
A few of us imply we were wrong and say, “Uh oh, you were correct. We ought to have gotten more drain.”
A few of us sort of imply we weren’t right, however we don’t do so explicitly or in a way that is fulfilling to the next person, “We had a lot of time to get to the airport on time if the traffic hadn’t been uncommonly bad. In any case, fine, we’ll leave earlier next time.”
In any case, a few people decline to admit they’re wrong, even in the face of overwhelming evidences: “They released him due to DNA evidence and another dude’s confession? Absurd! That is the guy! I saw him!”
The initial two examples are likely well-known to the greater part of us, in light of the fact that those typical responses to being wrong. We acknowledge responsibility completely or incompletely (in some cases, partially), however we don’t push back against the actual truths. We don’t claim there was enough milk when there wasn’t, or that we were not late to the airport
But what about when a person does push back against the truth, when they basically can’t admit they weren’t right in any situation? What in their mental cosmetics makes it impossible for them to admit they weren’t right, notwithstanding when it is evident they were? Also, for what reason does this occur repetitively — for what reason do they never admit they were wrong?
The appropriate response is identified with their ego, their exceptionally sense-of-self. A few people have such a delicate personality, such fragile confidence, such a frail “mental constitution,” that admitting they made a mistake or that they weren’t right is on a very basic level unreasonably compromising for their self images to endure. Accepting they weren’t right, absorbing that reality, would be so mentally breaking, their defense mechanisms do something remarkable to avoid doing so— they actually misshape their view of reality to make it (reality) less compromising. Their resistance systems ensure their delicate self image by changing the specific realities in their psyche, so they are never again wrong or punishable.
Therefore, they think of statements, such as, “I checked in the morning, and there was enough milk, so someone might have finished it.” When it’s pointed out that nobody was home after they left in the morning, so nobody could have done that, they double down and repeat, “Somebody must have, because I checked, and there was milk,” as if someone broke into the house, finished the milk and left without a trace.
In our other example, they will insist that their incorrect recognizable proof of the robber was right regardless of DNA proof and an admission from an different person. When confronted, they will continue to insist or pivot to attacking any person who endeavors to argue generally and to deriding the sources of the contradicting information (e.g., “These labs makes mistakes constantly, and besides, you can’t trust a confession from another criminal! What’s more, for what reason do you generally take their side?”.
Individuals who over and over show this sort of behavior are, by definition, mentally delicate. however, that evaluation is regularly difficult for individuals to acknowledge, in light of the fact that to the outside world, they look as though they’re certainly persevering and not throwing in the towel, things we connect with quality. But psychological rigidity is not a sign of strength, it is an indication of weakness. These individuals are not holding fast; they’re compelled to do as such so as to secure their delicate ego. It takes a certain amount of emotional strength and courage to deal with that reality and own up to our mistakes. Most of us sulk a bit when we have to admit we’re wrong, but we get over it.
But when people are constitutionally unable to admit they’re wrong, when they cannot tolerate the very notion that they are capable of mistakes, it is because they suffer from an ego so fragile that they cannot sulk and get over it — they need to warp their very perception of reality and challenge obvious facts in order to defend their not being wrong in the first place.
How we respond to such people is up to us. The one mistake we should not make is to consider their persistent and rigid refusal to admit they’re wrong as a sign of strength or conviction, because it is the absolute opposite.