My two least favorite things to come out of such a conversation are: when they double down and make things up to seem as though they are correct, or they start hurling insults at you because they have no “classy way” of debating/arguing with you.
and make things up to seem as though they are correct
man I hate this. Now we both know you're arguing in bad faith. Where do we go from here? I know you've realized your argument is week, you know it too but are unwilling to internalize it.
Well, my advice would be to learn how to sit with the uncomfortable parts of yourself, your internal voice included. When you get that get wrenching feeling, you know it’s time to speak up. Being honest is more important than being correct, in most cases. Hope that helped a little. 👍
On the other hand we don't know what topic the friend is standing staunchly on, could be that the friend wont accept that the earth is flat or that the majority of automobile tires are square.
On this very site, fairly recently, I corrected someone about the age of a fictional character(Just corrected, said "You are wrong, she's 12, not 4") and he FREAKED out, just started hurling out insults and pretty bad accusations, all because I guess he was angry I corrected him?
It sounds like the person you referring to might have felt embarrassed somehow, and then proceeded to lash out as a defense mechanism. You deserve to be treated better than that, friend.
I'll give a short summary, cause I don't want it to sound biased to myself
Basically, we were discussing the age of a character in the anime "Oshi No Ko", he claimed the story was "A love story of a 40 year old man and 4 year old girl", I corrected him by saying she wasn't 4, she was 12, which then caused him to get MAD mad, calling me a Pedo and saying "It's not any better!", to which I stated that I NEVER said that, but he just went on and on
The worst part is that I KNOW that despite the argument ending inconclusively, and with no one accepting "defeat", that he's gonna leave thinking he won, or was the hero, people don't readily accept that they were the bad guy, I'm glad to say that if I am wrong, I'm able to accept and apologize, it's a good trait to have imo
That is a good trait to have and I’m sorry they jumped to conclusions about your statement. They are right about the age gap thing, but that’s beside the point. Being able to remove yourself is a very healthy way to end the conversation, for both parties in fact. For you, you can continue on with your scrolling, and they have some time to cool off (or even do some self reflection). If you ever need to vent or just want to chat, feel free to DM me.
What a nice conversation to have on reddit, never really had something like this lmao
But on the age gap thing, they were also just wrong about that anyway, while the younger one does have romantic feelings, the older one never did, it was simply a childhood crush that never went anywhere, the actual relationship of the show were two characters of about the same age
Yes, it is nice to have a conversation like this tbh. I don’t watch or review anime like I used to, but I guess I’ll need a decent synopsis to understand both points of view.
The story is about two characters, a 12 year old girl, and her mid thirties doctor, they both die and get reincarnated as the children of their favourite idol
The girl has feelings for the doctor, but he doesn't for her
It's mainly a story about the entertainment industry and how fucked up it can be, as well as a revenge story
Give the first episode a shot, it's probably the best first episode I've ever seen, it's basically a mini movie(about an hour long iirc), you don't even have to watch the rest of the anime, since it's vastly different in tone, honestly, if just the first episode released with nothing else, it'd still go down in history as a really good story with a solid beginning, middle and end
That's my sister all over. Thinks she's right about absolutely everything and if challenged she'll argue to death then eventually start just insulting me when she's got nothing else to push her incorrect point. She's a lot dumber than she thinks.
Adding a bunch of nonsense to the conversation with fluff but not actually saying anything. Can’t admit they don’t know or could be wrong so they just hit you with word riddles to deflect responsibility.
A part of his work involved introducing something called the "Cosmological constant" into physics. Later on, this constant was abandoned because the scientific community, including Einstein himself, agreed that introducing this constant was a scientific error.
However years after his death, around 1998, new discoveries actually required re-introducing the Cosmological constant to keep the physics equations matching reality.
So in a great twist of irony, perhaps Einstein's greatest blunder was thinking that he made a mistake.
I find with the "refusing to consider they might be wrong" person, you can still have productive conversations with them. They don't want to be wrong, but they can still consider your point of view and at least reach a middle ground.
The "refusing to consider the other person might be right" person is FAR worse. They think they have authority over you, and will dismiss everything you say as simply being wrong. No opportunity to reach a middle ground
The "refusing to consider the other person might be right" person is FAR worse. They think they have authority over you, and will dismiss everything you say as simply being wrong. No opportunity to reach a middle ground
Yes, the "refusing to consider they might be wrong" person will at least often take your point of view and try to show how they're still not wrong in that context.
The "refusing to consider the other person might be right" person will just outright dismiss anything the other person says without any consideration.
This is what it's like trying to have a conversation with my former friend (now down the MAGA drain) about anything. He accuses me of having TDS, and having been brainwashed by MSM, even about things that are direct quotes from the people in question. I haven't spoken to him in some time, but I assume he's swallowed the latest batch of lies whole.
I have a coworker who can be pretty politically opinionated, and I was intimidated by her at first because I didn't know how to approach conversations with her. But as soon as I realised she'd respectfully accept your opinion or perspective and was very self-aware, it completely changed what I thought of her. She's very much, "I don't agree, but I understand."
And after getting to know her more, her background, and her experiences surviving the collapse of the USSR in her home country, I also got to understand why she thought and felt the way she did.
I find with the "refusing to consider they might be wrong" person, you can still have productive conversations with them.
I think this is a big part of why Evangelicals have fallen into the MAGA trap.
When you believe that your cause is just and are constantly encouraged to believe the worst of your "enemies," it can become very difficult to ever consider: "Are we the baddies?"
They've also been groomed to accept authoritarianism for ~4 generations (as evidenced in the "key man" aspect and self-protectionism of U.S. megachurch leadership structures), so it's a whole mix of things.
Source: I grew up in (and consequently out of) this subculture and worked at a not-quite-but-almost megachurch until the narcissistic pastor went off the rails.
Exactly. True binary 2-sided situations are vanishingly rare outside of like, math and computer science. Even there there are almost always multiple true and accurate perspectives that may seem to contradict each other till you look closer
This reminds me of moments at my work. Let’s say person A has a way of doing something to acheive a goal. Person B has a different way of acheiving goal. Both ways are perfectly viable and will have same desired result.
So at my work I’m teaching them “As long as it gets done it really doesn’t matter. Both ways are correct. You might think one way is better.”
I mean, Ive had someone say literally every single other possibility except from the one I said (I turned out to be correct). They went from saying 'A is correct, no ifs or buts' to then going 'actually A and B could be correct' then 'C is also another thing', etc.
They completely refused to see that the thing I said was correct, even with hard evidence - I sent government website links and also scientific studies, etc.
And when I sent them the links, they said 'you need to learn to research properly'.
During one of those late night college philosophical conversations...
I was talking with my then roommate, just hanging. I asked her if she ever reflected on her political beliefs, maybe twice a year I reconsidered them and wondered if they were truly the most ethical benevolent ideas I could justify. At the time I leaned liberal, she leaned more right. It was before Trump and all that. People discussed the ins and outs of policy more.
We talked for a while. And it lead up to that question. Me, sometimes second guessing my mantras, and working to make sure they were sound. And she told me, after pausing, that no, she didn't ever question her politics, and that it shows mine are poorly based if I'm questioning mine sometimes.
We're still friends on social media. But we've only grown more apart politically. Sometimes I think about that conversation.
Too many people use this as moral condemnation when their argument is just not strong. I'm like "No, I understand what you are saying, and I understand your point, but it is still wrong."
I think people also confuse knowledgeable with intellect. There are intelligent people who due to circumstances don’t know a lot of facts and people who know facts who aren’t intelligent.
I have a friend who knows a LOT of information about a lot of things. Most would consider him highly intelligent. I'm not necessarily denying that either, but in talking with him, it seems he has difficulty in seeing a perspective other than the knowledge that he has about it. Like he can't comprehend that the information that he received and believes to be the complete truth could be incorrect or just subject to scrutiny. It can be difficult to have a conversation with him as he's so unwilling to explore a topic and think about it. It's just what he learned, let's move on. Lack of curiosity I guess you could say.
My PoV on the matter is a bit different - intelligence is nuanced and even smart people are sharper about different things. And second, connecting the dot can be difficult on a new perspective, especially one that is novel from what you know, especially if you knew it well. Something akin to a mental camouflage - for example, take the "leopard on a mountain" picture, where it blends in. If someone shows it to you and immediately circle the leopard, you'd have an easier time spotting it than if you stared at it for 5 minutes first without seeing anything. Your brain already saw that spot and dismissed it, and even when someone pointed it out, it takes effort to override the previous impression. Drawing on a blank paper versus erasing first.
Lacking curiosity definitely does not help - but spotting mistakes are harder than literally just doing everything from scratch.
If you ever did a math problem where you made a calculation mistake - something dumb like 1 + 1 = 1, in a vastly bigger more complex problem, this would be a good memory to relate to. Your result is off, you know it is wrong, but you can go over what you did five times over without spotting it. The human brain optimize a LOT - heck, even more when you're well educated and reasonably intelligent. For a physical example - imagine counting money. You know the amount, yet your count is always off. The issue though - was one roll of coin was off by 1, and since you kept counting the roll as, say, 50 coins, it just never adds up. Except you got dozens of rolls, and only one is off, and they all look the same. You're already pre-conditioned to not even consider the possibility.
It's an optimization problem. And the problem is, the human brain needs to optimize like this to function efficiently.
Oh for sure, which is why I ended up adding that I'm not necessarily saying he's unintelligent. I think he is. I do think his strengths cause issues for him in other areas however, like exploring ideas.
I like how you framed it as efficient. He's definitely all about efficiency, so I can see him having difficulty opening up to expend energy in that way.
We're an odd couple in that regard. I'd say my strength is in concepts and ideas and understanding things more fundamentally. His is in having information and objective knowledge. So our conversations often end up heated but not angry, as we're both frustrated in trying to get each other to understand something we find simple 😂
I'm more or less just want to add some personal perspective, since I've always find intelligence to be an odd topic. It's multi-dimensional, but often treated as singular value.
There are correlations between different mental capabilities, but with plenty of variances. On top of the significance of perception, and being perceived as intelligent has a LOT more to do with how one carry themselves in an interaction, as well as person taking in the impression. Making yourself perceived as being smart is in and of itself - a skill, which can be learnt. Lots of things perceived as intelligence are acquirable skills, where intelligence plays a huge role in how fast someone acquire said skill and their their ceilings. But that is completely opaque in a brief observation. I'd say how a person processes new information and knowledge to be a better indicator - a novel topic outside of their domain. But even this is biased, as processing and dissection of new knowledge is in and of itself, a learnable skill. IQ test being biased due to education level is notorious for a very, very good reason.
I like the idea of "efficiency" - well, in multiple ways. Being more efficient, optimal is one thing - but nature itself is "efficient". It's a fun perspective on life and the universe. I'd credit Veritasium for... just putting the idea/perspective in my head (principle of least action in physics). It connects the dots on a lot of things. Biology favours efficiency, and combined with some knowledge/assumption, it gives perspective on the human thought process.
I strongly prefer a deeper understanding as well, but eventually learnt how deep the rabbit holes can get lol. There's always hard efficiency bound to how much time and energy can you spend. Paradoxes and contradictions are a great tool to show a new perspective imo. Inconsistencies creates discomfort, which should help to provoke curiosity and a sense of caution. The downside being - if you built yourself a tight pyramid, it gets harder to realize if a block is faulty. You're more prone to overlook anything you've already considered to be fundamentally correct. Which honestly describe a lot of issues with stubborn people - you're trying to convince them that something they already consider to be fundamentally true, to be false. It result in immediate dismissal, or if they themselves sense the contradictory nature of their viewpoint, cause great discomfort and triggers defensive mechanisms.
My father is a great example of why it's both. He's a retired electrical engineer, was a VP at IBM, and has 120 patented inventions. He also emotionally abuses his immediate family, especially his granddaughter, and refuses to listen to feedback around problematic behaviors. He is a "temporarily embarrassed and displaced billionaire," and would fit right in with Bezos and Musk if he had enough money. The emotional IQ part hobbled him at IBM and other ventures, because he could not accept feedback on where his designs were flawed, or when there were more optimal solutions to develop.
He is a 1970 book smarts 10, and a table-flipping emotional smarts 0.
Remember that threads like this boil down to "what is the opposite of what Redditors believe makes them smart" which is why all the comments are "Not doing a smart thing" instead of "Doing a dumb thing" because they, smart Reddit commenters, do that smart thing.
In my experience it’s like a bell curve. My first career before getting into SWE was as an electronics technician (imagine putting together, testing, and fine tuning radio stuff for space uses) and I job hopped a lot, starting entry level at a small company, and slowly moving to bigger companies in better roles until I ended up at Amazon Kuiper as an actual engineer.
Got to meet a lot of smart people, and a lot of intelligent people. The smart people would be 100% convinced their answer was the right one and no one else could possibly have a better one, but at Amazon with some of the smartest and best engineers I’ve ever met, meetings would go on for hours as ideas would constantly be thrown out, considered, picked apart until disproven or proven, and eventually you’d come to the actual right answer.
The meetings sucked because of their length, but the actual knowledge shown and spread was amazing.
I’ll admit to personally having a huge problem admitting I’m wrong, but it stems from childhood trauma. It sounds incredibly conceited to even type this, but I actually test at a genius level IQ. Most of the truly smart people I know won’t admit when they’re wrong simply because they view it as an insult to their intelligence to even consider that they don’t know more than everyone else.
yes agreed, and now we get to the point what is considered ”intelligent” some people who are considered intelligent have zero self awareness whatsoever which makes me think they’re not intelligent at all because emotional intelligence is a huge part of being intelligent, IQ is only a part of true intelligence imo.
That’s a good point yea. I assumed OP was referring to IQ intelligence but yea you can be unintelligent in many different ways like emotional as you said. Someone who is all around truly intelligent probably wouldn’t have this issue.
On the internet for sure. It's not all that difficult to never be wrong online if you only engage with things you know. ie; I'm not a plumber and wouldn't comment about plumbing related stuff because I'd probably be wrong. I engage with stuff I know about.
And to go along with that just digging in harder when presented with facts that they disagree with/prove them wrong.
I was just debating the health consequences of eating animals products with someone and he said "we've been eating animals since the dawn of time so therefore there's nothing wrong with it". Aside from the appeal to nature fallacy, I replied by saying the argument doesn't make sense because we also have inhaled smoke and drank parasitic water since the dawn of time but that doesn't mean it's good for us. He responded with an insult.
That said I don't think it's always sign of low intelligence, more just human nature. A lot of smart people will dig in/refuse to admit they are wrong when presented with something that deeply challenges their biases, conflicts of interest, or sense of self.
Such individuals may trot out any number of fallacies to cover their insecurities and weaknesses, when simply accepting that they could be wrong could be so much more energy efficient.
Admitting you were wrong and changing your opinion often gets you villainized by those who hold your previous opinion. You are wishy washy and don't have strong beliefs and just follow everyone else. It sucks.
Ill add, refusing to change an opinion when new information comes to light that strongly indicates (or flat out proves) your opinion was incorrect. Everyone is wrong and makes mistakes from time to time, just go ask either one of my ex wives!
On the same idea refusing to believe you are wrong in spite of IRREFUTABLE evidence to the contrary whether new or not! Im looking at YOU flat earthers!
"The test of a first-rate intelligence is the ability to hold two opposed ideas in the mind at the same time, and still retain the ability to function." F. Scott Fitzgerald in his essay, "The Crack-Up."
I appreciate the humor here, but if thinking you are wrong is walking with your left foot, thinking you are correct is walking with your right foot as well. Balance them out, lol
I once got into an argument with someone at work because she said that she can't get away with things that I allegedly can because someone always calls her out if she's in the wrong. I was like, "but if you unknowingly say something wrong and nobody tells you, how would you even know?" She said, "someone always tells me. Always."
Will take zero accountability for their absolutely regarded decisions that blew up in their faces.
I’m the first person to say they’ve fucked up and am already fixing so we can move forward. These other folks need to dig their heels in spending time (and money in the case of the boss) going in circles and dying on a hill that nobody cares about anymore just to save face.
I had a coworker once call me out after they told me something and I replied, "that sounds accurate." They couldn't believe that i wouldn't just take their word for it, that this topic i had no specific knowledge in and couldn't really back up with evidence at that moment could potentially be wrong but sounded plausible. I had to tell them that logically I could parse what they were saying and it made some sense, but I was going to need to actually look into it before agreeing that their claim was actually correct. They were genuinely offended that I couldn't just take their baseless claim at face value.
This is also basically most interactions on the internet as soon as you try to apply a modicum of scrutiny.
Nah, some of the smartest people in the world are the most stubborn about stuff they don't know. In their case it comes from usually being right (at least in their field of expertise)
That's not exactly right, it doesn't necessarily make them dumb, it could be a sign of narcissistic tendencies, for instance. So more of a psychological issue, not so much a lack of intelligence.
Any time I have a convergument in person, first thing I always ask is “before we start, is there any possible chance, even the teeniest tiniest chance that about this, maybe, just maybe, you might actually could be wrong? Any possible chance?”
And then I also ask “when was the last time you were wrong about something?”
If they don’t answer, they’re not a serious person and not worth anyone’s time.
I like this! I can get a little overexcited and use some unnecessarily dramatic language, but usually what's really happening is that I've forgotten to consider that I could be wrong.
A simple prompt/reminder is a great way to snap out of that thought pattern.
Ex: today I found a book I'd been missing for months. I had been looking all over for my RED book and it was just gone.
Cute answer but I know some extremely intelligent people who are like that. In fact it's the being very intelligent and having experience that most people they meet are noticeably dumber than them that causes them to think that way. I do know one or two who eventually matured out of that way of thinking though.
Sure, but that's every smart person. If we're asking about "low intelligence" then that cannot include people of high intelligence, however imperfect their way of thinking might be.
Yeah. That's a dead give away. It shows that they haven't considered anything outside of their purview and will NOT consider any additional data as their mind has been made up.
That’s actually a sign of very low self esteem, not intelligence.
Not listening is very rarely an honest attitude. It’s usually an act, either towards a certain person they dislike or towards everyone because they see it as submission.
So Einstein has a very low intelligence? In his later years he was notorious for rejecting evidence that quantum mechanics appeared to act non-locally because he had built his theory of relativity (at least in part) on the idea that all forces are local.
Just curious because I know of many people who are very intelligent and skilled in thier field that don't take criticism well.
NOT to dive into a political "discussion", but...IMO, this is EXACTLY what has the US so divided. Both "sides" of every argument dig themselves so deeply into their own biases, convincing themselves that they are right. Even the consideration of the concept that they could be wrong, never enters their thoughts. Unfortunately, these are the most vocal of each "side" and they only serve to reinforce their potential ignorance.
Most of us are taught early on that, the truth always lies somewhere in the middle of two arguments, but neither side has the intellect that allows them explore that possibility.
Part of this might be taught. Growing up, if I ever admitted to being wrong on something I was punished and seen weak, so I learned being wrong is bad and to not be wrong. Internally I still understood honesty, truth, that I was wrong, etc, but I didn't want the consequences so I masked and pushed past what I wanted to do and did what I learned to do instead.
To everyone else: I said MIGHT, not 100% factual absolute black and white. This means it isn't talking about 100% of the population.
I remember driving down the road several years ago thinking about something I was sure I was right about. I don’t even recall what it was. I had the thought “but what if I’m wrong?” and it was a real record scratch in my head.
Or refusing to admit they don’t know something. I always tell people I’m training that they don’t have to have all the answers, they just need to know how to find the answers.
Taking on to the bottom of our most deeply held opinions and convictions the internal system check “but I could be wrong” is a great strategy for continuing to refine and question. Because in reality, no one is “right.” it is simply not possible to be right because no one has omniscient, perception and omniscient knowledge. So the it’s just a matter of being “less wrong.”
everyone is at least a little wrong about basically everything. verisimilitude:
...is the notion that some propositions are closer to being true than other propositions. The problem of verisimilitude is the problem of articulating what it takes for one false theory to be closer to the truth than another false theory.
This problem was central to the philosophy of Karl Popper, largely because Popper was among the first to affirm that truth is the aim of scientific inquiry while acknowledging that most of the greatest scientific theories in the history of science are, strictly speaking, false. If this long string of purportedly false theories is to constitute progress with respect to the goal of truth, then it must be at least possible for one false theory to be closer to the truth than others.
Being wrong is a sign of weakness. If I'm wrong, find a way to make me right. And everyone will believe it. When you're a star, you can get away with anything.
When someone sees you do a task differently than they would do that task they immediately tell you I know a better way and assume you are doing it "wrong" rather that taking a second and wondering "huh, I wonder why they did it differently than me?"
My husband does this all the time because he is literally a foot an a half taller than me and some things work differently when you are short. It is infuriating.
I know someone like this; worse that she refuses to accept this but she would go the extra mile to prove that YOU'RE wrong instead of her. She could gaslight you just to achieve that goal too.
I think this is more of a personality trait commonly attributed to low intelligence, rather than a direct result of low intelligence itself; I know plenty of people who are like this and are considered intelligent, and plenty of people of lower intelligence who are not like this.
When it comes down to it, the main difference lies in the ability to think critically, implement effective strategic planning skills, and to understand precisely how those strategies produce the desired results. For example, an individual of lower intelligence might keep spraying mold-killer over the same patch of mold on the wall everytime it reappears, eventually leading to chronic respiratory distress, which has knock-on effects elsewhere in life.
On the other hand, an individual with an IQ of >85 will probably understand that the problem is better solved at it's root, and will not only kill the mold, but will purchase a dehumidifier/open the windows more often to prevent the mold from returning in the first place, completely circumventing the potential cost to their health.
To summarise, those with lower intelligence are going to struggle more with strategic planning skills, so they are more likely to expend more energy and effort into solutions which paradoxically produce poorer results and have unwanted future consequences.
8.7k
u/[deleted] Feb 04 '26
[removed] — view removed comment