I notice in many people an inability to confess they were wrong or to see the right in the other person's position. The world is not made up of black and white. It is shades of gray. I believe it is important to stake out your position clearly so that people will know on what principles you base your conclusions, and to hold firm to your convictions. But without the ability to appreciate the forthright spirit and correct points held by the opposition, there can be little hope for arriving at healthy coexistence. I fear failure to see the flaws in our own position and the strengths in the opposition reflects a personal inability to admit fault, as though to err is to diminish ourselves. The religious perspective, as I understand it, is that we are all flawed and therefore we sin. What's more: the position of wholeness is expected to be the flawed self, that to adhere to absolute correctness is an indication of failure to perceive correctly, because few if any truths are absolute. But through self-examination we find our way back to God and truth. It is said of Rabbi Meir, a major second century mind, that he could take both sides in a debate with equal accuracy. And indeed, talmudic learning assumes that we distinguish the truth in both sides of the argument. 
The correlate is that when we fail to find truth in the position of a worthy opponent, or find that we experience negative emotions about admitting that the other may be partially correct, then we must examine our stubborn disregard for the image of God in the other, and the hubris of inability to admit the variety of truths -- even those that offend or damage us.