Thread by @shrikanth_krish

In most settings be it politics or even corporate life, the downside risk of saying "I did wrong. I'm sorry" is high

Rationalizing missteps pays off better than acknowledging mistakes - the latter is seen as a weakness

Yet few people cogitate on how to reduce this downside risk

One counter-argument to this is -

Rationalization and non-admission of supposed "mistakes" is a good thing, as it contributes to intellectual diversity

Else we sort of acknowledge there is one "right" course - and all other courses are "mistakes" that ought to be shunned

So one can make a conservative case for the status-quo by arguing that greater introspection is merely a cover for supporting the idea of "progress", and a means of suppressing the many varied forms of prejudices that contribute to intellectual diversity

E.g. Parts of the scientific establishment, steeped in "Enlightenment" principles, may complain that religious people have not "reformed" - they have not accepted their mistakes, and still refuse to accept the scientific "truth"

But hang on...if everyone were to toe the "scientific truth" and acknowledge that that whatever was embraced in the past was an "error", then science becomes a new religion of its own

It contributes to a certain ideological totalitarianism

So maybe what seems to us as "pig-headed obstinacy" is a good thing

By refusing to acknowledge error, but rather making a case for our own ideological distinctiveness, we are guarding ourselves against group-think and moral homogeneity

But yes, things can be taken to an extreme, when obstinacy becomes a virtue in itself, and any acknowledgment of error on the part of one's tribe becomes politically unacceptable

There's a point when the benefits of diversity are not sufficient to outweigh the costs of stupidity

So it's a fine balance

This reminds me of a statistical concept - ANOVA - where we often analyze two types of variances -

Within-group variance
Variance across groups

Now tribal unity, and championing of different types of prejudices, ensures against universal group-think.

And it helps increase variance in views across groups

But it comes at the cost of reducing variance within a group - where everyone is supposed to be loyal

In contrast the liberal championing of individualism and individual conscience increases diversity within groups

But by championing the idea of progress and the notion of "objective truth" - it's susceptible to groupthink across groups

It tends to reduce variance across groups

So the framework of ANOVA helps us understand the shortcomings of Scientism, liberal individualism on one hand, but also the blindspots of tribalism, conservative championing of group-level diversity on the other