Once you get fairly strong, you can sometimes even win free points by apologising in front of a big group of people for something that everyone but the other disputant think is completely outweighed by the other disputant’s actions.
Why would this be true? If the other disputant was so clearly in the wrong, wouldn’t it be obvious that that’s what you’re trying to do, thus voiding the effect?
Sure, it wouldn’t always be effective. But things that—when described linguistically to you—sound obvious can be subtle enough when they actually happen to others that they work anyway. Actually believing that you have acted imperfectly and can do better next time and conveying this in apology form makes it less obvious. And in fact, if you are trained to apologise for little things in the face of big things even without an audience, then your outward conduct may even be mostly indistinguishable between the two cases anyway.
Why would this be true? If the other disputant was so clearly in the wrong, wouldn’t it be obvious that that’s what you’re trying to do, thus voiding the effect?
Sure, it wouldn’t always be effective. But things that—when described linguistically to you—sound obvious can be subtle enough when they actually happen to others that they work anyway. Actually believing that you have acted imperfectly and can do better next time and conveying this in apology form makes it less obvious. And in fact, if you are trained to apologise for little things in the face of big things even without an audience, then your outward conduct may even be mostly indistinguishable between the two cases anyway.