[vanadium]

I think what separates the two camps is a positive incentive to admit failure, which is where the rarity comes in, as highlighted by other posters. If the group's incentive is integrity and trust, or loyalty and retention, it makes sense as there's a capital (political, monetary, etc.) incentive in doing so.

That's where I think the insight cleanly falls apart and yet holds up pretty well for the vast majority of situations. Rarely are groups actually positively incentivized to admit failure, and therefore they do not, as a cohesive unit, actually admit failure as there's a greater incentive not to, barring force.

[raducu]

Groups can get a life of their own, like a virus. Those who do admit fault can be replaced with others who are vocal about not admitting fault.

The more polarizing, non falsifiable the beliefs of the group, the harder the change.