When faced with a contrary point of view to the one we have, we have the option to either hold ground and argue for our position, or to concede ground and shift our position. 

When to hold ground and when to concede ground depends on the confidence we have in our position and the trust we have in the opposing party about their knowledge and experience in the domain related to the topic at hand.

When our confidence is not high, and the trust in the opposing party is high, it is best to concede ground as the opposing party is likely right here. 

When our confidence is high, and the trust in the opposing party is high, it is still best to concede ground as our confidence is probably misguided. We should treat this as an opportunity to learn, and in the odd case, correct an expert if we still have confidence in our point of view after reconsideration.

When our confidence is not high, and the trust in the opposing party is low, it is best to ask specific questions to establish the basis of the opinion both parties hold. Perhaps it is a learning opportunity to both.

When our confidence is high, and the trust in the opposing party is low, it is best to hold ground and share our perspective so that the other person understands the reasoning and can potentially correct their own position.

We all learn to operate with this framework naturally as we grow up. However, where we trip up is in evaluating our confidence objectively and in evaluating the reliability of the opposing party objectively. 

When we find ourselves in an argument, it is best to take a step back and see which of the four cases we find ourselves in, and act accordingly.

Inspiration: Principles by Ray Dalio