My experience that is people have a very difficult time being humbled and admitting something they did or said was wrong. I've seen this quite often in life, and it is especially prevalent here on RF. Rather than being humbled and admitting they made an error or were incorrect about something, they will continue to argue in an attempt to "save face," often leaving a debate with pie on it as a result.
If I make a mistake or am proven wrong on a point, I find it more productive to simply admit I was wrong and learn from the experience.
I'm not sure anyone particularly likes being humbled, but why, in your opinion, people will risk their reputation for honesty in order to not be seen by others as having been wrong about something?
As for me, I have more respect for someone who can admit to being wrong than I do for someone who belabors a point even though they know they're wrong just so people don't think they were wrong.
Of course, I might be wrong about all of this.
Your thoughts?
Well a lot of it has to do with the way it's done.
What I mean is, if you're going to take it upon yourself to "correct" someone, might ask yourself:
--- am I trying to be helpful? Are the details that I'm trying to straighten the other person out about relevant to the conversation? Are they necessary for understanding what's being talked about? Or am I just playing "gotcha"?
--- should I do this in front of a group of people? Or would be better done in private?
--- is it possible that I may be unaware of a few details myself? Should I explore that possibility before making any definitive declarations?
--- if I were on the receiving end of this would I see it as somebody trying to be helpful by providing some details I may have missed? Or would I wonder if I were being called a liar?
Presentation has a lot to do with it.
People generally respond better to requests for clarification then they do to being put into a position where they have to defend their claims, or for that matter their integrity.