I think I'd have nodded and read on a couple years ago when I'd only had thoughtful/well-informed/diversely-experienced developers review my code. I've learned since that it's also possible to have your code reviewed by someone without particularly deep understanding (nor awareness of what they lack), who would insist that responding to a critique of (what they think is) a problem is essentially being argumentative because they are certain they've already got the 'correct' answers (in a similar way that a first year philosophy student might think they've already got the answers).

> ... they are stuck in an endless loop of making mistakes and refusing to learn from them

I am probably overfitting to my own recent experience, but to me, while this could be a legitimate problem with the reviewee, sounds equally plausibly like a red flag on the part of the reviewer: someone who has settled into a set of "correct" answers and now sees other people not adopting their personal outlook on code as a failure to learn.

It is not a simple matter to (definitively, non-subjectively) find a 'problem' once the criteria become anything more nebulous than "does it produce the correct result".

There's an analogous situation I've noticed in more casual conversations: someone is describing a problem they have or a situation they're in, and the person they're speaking to keeps smugly offering "solutions" that only sound good because they haven't listened closely to the other person, took a superficial glance and assumed the issue was some common one and so offered a facile/common solution—and then don't understand why the other person isn't appreciative.