[HN Gopher] How to have better arguments online
___________________________________________________________________
How to have better arguments online
Author : samizdis
Score : 96 points
Date : 2021-02-20 09:50 UTC (13 hours ago)
(HTM) web link (www.theguardian.com)
(TXT) w3m dump (www.theguardian.com)
| ravenstine wrote:
| One way to improve arguments both online and offline is to not
| assume the other person's intent.
| superbcarrot wrote:
| One rule that I have is that if I need to repeat or rephrase a
| previous comment without adding anything new, I need to stop the
| conversation.
|
| 1. Comment by me.
|
| 2. Response by someone else.
|
| If my reaction to 2 is to reiterate 1, that's a sign that the
| conversation isn't going anywhere and it's better if I don't
| participate further.
|
| Also, if you're on twitter, facebook or reddit, you need to
| heavily restrict your input and output and not take part in
| arguments altogether. Or just not be on those platforms in their
| current form.
| prox wrote:
| I sometimes comment to show a bit of effort, when I agree with
| someone, like yours superbcarrot, something more than an easy
| upvote. Not everything has to be a discussion.
| FartyMcFarter wrote:
| There's a fine line between appreciative agreement and
| something that just decreases the signal to noise ratio
| though.
| i_am_the_ai wrote:
| Wrong!
| prox wrote:
| Absolutely, I don't do this with everything, but it's more
| like an appreciation of effort to the commenter.
| Hacker_IAM wrote:
| Can you tell me how to earn karma points on Hacker news
| please reply me help.
| SuoDuanDao wrote:
| Say something that smart people find edifying.
| csours wrote:
| If you have to repeatedly do this, sure. I guess everyone has a
| different threshold. People with customer facing jobs have a
| lot of practice with this.
| FriedrichN wrote:
| Sure you can try to have a proper discussion online, but too many
| people want to DESTROY people with FACTS and LOGIC. Or in
| practice ad hominems, false equivalencies, and just about every
| other fallacy in the book. If a topic is remotely controversial
| it's just about impossible to have a discussion that would make
| any sense at all.
|
| HN is really the only place I even bother to write a comment, on
| the whole people seem to be at least have a somewhat charitable
| interpretation of other people's comments.
| notapenny wrote:
| That last sentence is what's critical to having decent
| conversation with people in general. You may think their
| opinion/point is wrong or they might just completely
| misunderstand a topic, but give them the benefit of the doubt.
| If you're just stating your opinion versus giving your point of
| view and asking other to give/clarify theirs, you're probably
| doing it wrong. Anytime I'm in an argument I just treat it as a
| way to get a different point of view, even if I don't subscribe
| to it. HN is great for this.
| baybal2 wrote:
| Don't have arguments online.
|
| Trying to persuade anybody over the internet is next to
| impossible.
| notapenny wrote:
| Don't try to persuade people. Most people don't want to be
| persuaded. Get people to think and think about your own views.
| You may find either of you are wrong, or both, or neither, but
| you may learn something.
| pasquinelli wrote:
| that, and, why are you going around trying to persuade people
| anyway? it's a weird way to be. online rhetoric is our
| generation's boob tube.
| baybal2 wrote:
| Get to persuade people offline.
| slx26 wrote:
| Let's imagine we have a group of 100 people and we want them to
| reach consensus on a controverted topic. Let's apply a divide and
| conquer approach: pair people 1 on 1, and if they can agree (even
| if the agreement involves different resolutions depending on
| personal preferences), you join them with another group of 2 and
| repeat the process.
|
| Now, why doesn't this work? Well, this could work if people's
| opinions were static and perfectly stated on the first try. But
| in practice, and even under an ideal setup, people will be
| changing opinions too fast to ever be able to reach an
| equilibrium. They might realize that what they previously stated
| doesn't really match what they believe, or they didn't consider
| certain things that, when revealed, will now be considered
| important.
|
| And even more, this is if they were actively trying to reach a
| consensus while being patient, listening carefully, properly
| considering other people thoughts, expressing their own in a very
| precise and faithful way and being able to keep all that
| information in their heads and prioritize without bias. Which is
| not realistic.
|
| At this point, we might as well say that the problem is that the
| more people and points of view you introduce in a discussion, the
| more precise the consensus needs to be, and precise consensus is
| unachievable in a continually changing scenario. So, when we
| believe there's consensus on something, then it must be because
| either the problem is simple or vague enough, or the consensus
| itself is vague and imprecise. Which is fine too: vague consensus
| is not useless, nor it does make sense to reach perfect consensus
| for everything each time, but that's what we would be lead
| towards if we all tried to have "better arguments online"...
| which is never reached anyway at a big enough scale due to the
| issues previously described.
|
| (yeah, we don't need arguments to reach consensus, you can learn
| from what others say without agreeing with them, but... I don't
| even agree with myself, I'm gonna delete th-
| austincheney wrote:
| If it's 100 random people off the street serving as a fair
| representation of the larger population there are some fair
| assumptions you can make.
|
| 1. Half that population, 50, represent people who abhor
| originality in any form. This could be due to low intelligence,
| poor focus, loneliness, or a variety of other reasons. This
| group will accept any opinion that binds people together, such
| as knowingly false appeals to popularity.
|
| 2. About 12 of the people left over are narcissistic. They do
| not have a personal opinion on any argument. Instead they will
| identify that former 50 and do what they can to influence them,
| which often means fighting with other narcissistic people to
| build tribal factions of echo chambers.
|
| 3. About another 12 people are outsiders. They don't care about
| any of the arguments presented. They will sit in a corner and
| do whatever the fuck they want. These are the hermits and are
| social as necessary for resources.
|
| 4. About 8 of the people are super objective. Weighted
| distribution of evidence and data matter most. These are your
| scientist. Nobody listens to them. These people are a pain in
| the ass to the sheep and wolves.
|
| 5. About another 8 are influencers. They spread ideas around
| and keep people informed. Sometimes they might even offer an
| original contribution, but it's rare.
|
| 6. The final 10 people are comedians.
|
| Really though, the actual subject of any argument provided to
| that population is irrelevant. The motives of the various
| participants dictate the acceptance, validity, and attention of
| any subject.
| slx26 wrote:
| Yeah, and here I was talking about arguments and consensus
| when most people are indeed playing other games on top of it.
| Good points.
| anaerobicover wrote:
| Very interesting. These numbers match my intuition, but could
| you say how you derived them?
| PicassoCTs wrote:
| What is needed is a discussion system, that works like a
| Shipyard, with the preordained goal that consent must be found.
| The various threads/sub-threads of the discussion which hold
| substance form the ribs of the ship, meanwhile elements that are
| valued as "relevant" to all, are auto-marked as a floor-
| contribution and back listed. The set of a society topic, that
| interests all and all can contribute - is not a topic by
| definition.
|
| I felt a great disturbance in the Add-Force. As if millions of
| voices cried out in terror, and were suddenly silenced. I fear
| something terrible has happened.
| qznc wrote:
| I agree with you about the "preordained goal that consent must
| be found" but I'm not convinced that a technical aspects, like
| Arguman, can help here. You need the humans in board.
| jcelerier wrote:
| I think you could kinda get there with Arguman, maybe with some
| small UI modifications ? e.g. see how
| https://en.arguman.org/following-a-rule-is-a-practice-ground...
| works
| AussieWog93 wrote:
| The problem with following a system bound by the logical
| rules of modern philosophy is that modern philosophy itself
| is an ineffective tool for making real-world, moral
| decisions.
|
| It's no accident that the most respected public intellectuals
| are all economists, linguists, (former) politicians,
| activists, authors, Canadian clinical psychologists, or even
| gay, bipolar quiz show hosts...
| EvilEy3 wrote:
| You don't need to have arguments online. It is fool's errand to
| argue with idiots.
| bserge wrote:
| How to have better arguments online: Don't.
|
| Not worth it. Waste of time. Useless. Do anything else.
|
| Just my experience of over 10 years having heated arguments about
| a lot of stuff. Nothing came out of anything.
| peruvian wrote:
| Anyone who has spent a substantial amount of their free time on
| internet forums will laugh at this article with cynicism.
|
| It's not wrong per se but I've found most people come to online
| forums to blow off steam or waste time, not to have fair
| conversations or arguments. Also, you see the exact same debates
| over and over. It becomes tiring.
|
| My solution has been to just post less responses on forums, and
| to suppress the urge to argue with someone about the same topic
| I've argued about hundreds of times before. I still fail at it
| but I have gotten better.
| anaerobicover wrote:
| Completely agree that willingness to walk away is crucial.
|
| I'd suggest, too, that two of your points combine: people
| _rationalize_ to themselves that they 're on forums to have
| fair, intellectual conversations, but actually unconsciously
| are looking for that opportunity to blow off steam.
| disabled wrote:
| This sort of stuff is why I refuse to participate in
| "traditional" social media, which is clearly unhealthy. I refuse
| to take my mind to bad places, where it could become unhappy. I
| simply cannot afford to be unhappy.
|
| If I want to want to watch YouTube videos, I search for such
| videos on a traditional search engine via video search and get
| the YouTube link. Then I do a sentiment analysis on the comments
| of the video. If the video has greater than or equal to 10% of
| the comments containing negative sentiment (whether it be mildly
| or strongly negative), then I don't watch the video. If I decide
| to watch a video, I use youtube-dl.
|
| Likewise, I use an Nvidia Jetson with a webcam to monitor my
| emotions when surfing the internet. I simply do not go to pages
| that take my emotions for a spin. I have found that social media
| always makes me unhappy, ultimately.
| solipsism wrote:
| _the video has greater than or equal to 10% of the comments
| containing negative sentiment (whether it be mildly or strongly
| negative), then I don 't watch the video_
|
| This seems a rather arbitrary limiter of the content you're
| willing to expose yourself to. What makes you think a high
| negative sentiment percentage in comments indicates a video
| that will make you unhappy?
|
| A specific video's commenter base is nothing like a
| representative sample, that could be used to make predictions.
|
| _If I decide to watch a video, I use youtube-dl._
|
| Why? Youtube comments aren't put in your face. It's very easy
| to watch a video without watching the comments.
|
| _I simply do not go to pages that take my emotions for a spin.
| I have found that social media always makes me unhappy,
| ultimately._
|
| It's your life and I won't attempt to tell you how you should
| live it, like many others here will.
|
| As for me, I think being sad and even angry is part of the
| human experience, part of being in touch with reality, and I
| wouldn't sign up for a "keep you happy 100% of the time"
| machine.
|
| In a sense, I'm serving a _higher_ (less immediate) happiness.
| disabled wrote:
| > This seems a rather arbitrary limiter of the content you're
| willing to expose yourself to. What makes you think a high
| negative sentiment percentage in comments indicates a video
| that will make you unhappy?
|
| That is the point: clearly it is a very arbitrary limit. I do
| that on purpose. If I want to expose myself to negative
| feelings and emotions, I do that in real life with real,
| actual people.
|
| This is the definition of sentiment from Merriam-Webster:
|
| a : an attitude, thought, or judgment prompted by feeling :
| predilection
|
| b : a specific view or notion : opinion
|
| Videos prompt feelings. Comments give serious sentiment
| clues.
|
| > A specific video's commenter base is nothing like a
| representative sample, that could be used to make
| predictions.
|
| I am not using this to make predictions.
|
| > Why? Youtube comments aren't put in your face. It's very
| easy to watch a video without watching the comments.
|
| Social media platforms, in general, in the most basic sense,
| play in to your hopes and fears, to keep you on there as long
| as possible. It is a form of abuse, and for children, it is
| literally a form of child abuse. Even the sidebar that is
| displayed on YouTube videos (whatever it is called), that
| "suggests videos", does this.
|
| These platforms know what your hopes and fears are, based on
| your data, and especially things like your likes. This
| "psychographic research" via Cambridge University and
| obtained from social media data from 2013 resulted in the
| technology that was Cambridge Analytica, for example. Things
| like your IQ and sexual orientation could be determined by
| your Facebook likes alone.:
| https://www.wired.com/2013/03/facebook-like-research/
|
| >As for me, I think being sad and even angry is part of the
| human experience, part of being in touch with reality, and I
| wouldn't sign up for a "keep you happy 100% of the time"
| machine.
|
| As I said, that is why I talk to actual human beings, for
| exposure to negative thoughts/feelings/emotions. I just
| refuse to have social media play into my emotions. Instead,
| if I want exposure, besides actual real life direct human
| exposure, I read the newspaper or an actual book.
| throwawayboise wrote:
| Am I unusual in that I find that the "suggestions" on all
| these media platforms are boringly predictable and rarely
| offering anything really interesting? I watch a video about
| "A" and I get 10 suggestions of other videos about "A". Big
| deal. They aren't very compelling.
|
| Or, on shopping sites, I buy a chair. You'd think maybe I'm
| outfitting an office and get suggestions for a table, a
| desk, or stuff like that? No, I get 10 suggestions for
| different chairs.
|
| Maybe it's because I use ad blockers and clear cookies
| frequently, so they don't have anything to really work
| with. But it seems that even the first guesses they take
| are pretty devoid of context.
| disabled wrote:
| > Maybe it's because I use ad blockers and clear cookies
| frequently, so they don't have anything to really work
| with. But it seems that even the first guesses they take
| are pretty devoid of context.
|
| Yeah, I use uBlock Origin, along with other extensions. I
| also block 3rd party cookies.
|
| Maybe I should add some context: I have 2 rare immune-
| mediated neurological diseases affecting my peripheral
| nervous system, plus type 1 diabetes.
|
| I just cannot afford to be stressed out by stuff on the
| internet, as I need to be successful with my ambitious
| plans in life. Having these ambitious plans also keeps me
| alive, as it keeps me motivated.
| MikeSchurman wrote:
| This is a very interesting way to use a computer. I'm currently
| exploring other sorts of novel(?) ways of using computers, so
| this intrigues me.
|
| What tools do you use for sentiment analysis?
| disabled wrote:
| I hope this helps, with respect to ideas.
|
| While I can technically create my own scripts using AI, I
| tend to utilize others' scripts, as programming this stuff is
| not the best use of my time. This sort of stuff is almost
| always exclusively posted on GitHub. I do not use a ton of
| packages. I do have to keep this concise (check my profile
| for my email, which I will keep available for a couple of
| days).
|
| -Video: It should be noted that all video hosted in the cloud
| can usually be downloaded, one way or another, using scripts.
| I have an ongoing, organized, paper list of video
| types/genres that interest me and keep me happy, which I try
| to stick to. I frequently update it though. I know when to
| give myself neurochemical "hits", from the stuff I accumulate
| online, from reading books like "The Molecule of More" and
| "HOY PA DEG SJAEL: ENDORFIN SOM MEDISIN" (HIGH ON YOUR SOUL:
| ENDORPHINS AS MEDICINE) [I used a cloud service to translate
| it into English...I find out about various books in different
| languages via deep searches using foreign language keywords
| via DuckDuckGo.]. For video searches I use DuckDuckGo video
| search: https://duckduckgo.com/video?ia=web# (with
| "site:youtube.com" [without quotes] in the query box)
|
| Here are some scripts I use. I really do not use many
| scripts.
|
| YouTube: https://github.com/aksharbarchha/Only-for-Youtubers
|
| IMDB Movie Reviews: https://github.com/RubixML/Sentiment
|
| I have Plex (and other database/recommendation engines) on my
| computer, Synology NAS, and Nvidia Shield TV Pro. I transfer
| the videos typically to my NAS and stream them on the Shield
| via Plex. I can also access all of this via my NAS and stream
| on mobile data via Plex, for example, on my phone/tablet, as
| there is also a Plex app.
|
| -Nvidia Jetson: I use an NVIDIA Jetson AGX Xavier Developer
| Kit (32GB). Likewise, I do not use many scripts. I just
| started using it. I generally use an Intel Realsense camera
| as a webcam. However, sometimes I do use a standard Logitech
| webcam.
|
| AI pose and facial emotion analysis:
| https://github.com/raymondlo84/nvidia-jetson-ai-monitor
|
| Sentiment analysis for web browsing:
| https://github.com/nickbild/browzen [I have to VNC into the
| Jetson when using my laptop and have the webcam pointed at
| me: https://github.com/Aravindseenu/Nvidia-jetson-VNC-remote-
| acc... ]
|
| Intel Realsense Emotion Analysis:
| https://github.com/intel/ros_openvino_toolkit
|
| Driving-DBSE Monitor: Drowsiness, Blind Spot and Emotions
| monitor: https://github.com/altaga/DBSE-
| monitor/tree/master/Jetson
| MikeSchurman wrote:
| Thanks for the detailed response. I too generally feel bad
| using most social media (doomscrolling, etc..), but there's
| probably a lot of other things I do on the computer that
| make me feel bad, I just have not noticed.
|
| I've written a simple script to record most of what I do on
| my computer (ie what I type, what windows/tabs have focus,
| etc...). Correlating that info with Emotions monitor seems
| like it could find patterns I'm not aware of. Not sure if
| I'll get around to do that but you never now.
|
| You've given me lots to look into, thanks again.
| disabled wrote:
| You're very welcome :-)
|
| This suggestion may be much more practical to implement:
| I highly recommend RescueTime. This implementation is
| likely one of the best ways to go:
|
| ADHD tech stack: auto time tracking
|
| https://medium.com/@pmigdal/adhd-tech-stack-auto-time-
| tracki...
|
| There are other very interesting articles about
| RescueTime on Medium that you may want to check out: http
| s://duckduckgo.com/?q=%22rescuetime%22++site%3Amedium.co.
| ..
|
| For staying organized with goals and stuff, digitally, I
| use Notion: https://www.notion.so/
| baxtr wrote:
| One thing that works in my experience is to find common ground
| first, meaning find things that both agree on and then take it
| from there. It sometimes create a joint problem solving mode.
| rapnie wrote:
| Yes. I see that very often with tech-minded people when they
| take the kind of pointed logical reasoning that works best when
| discussing a technical solution in an issue tracker, to other
| media. With responses that start like "I strongly disagree..",
| bringing the other immediately in a position of defense.
| bitshiftfaced wrote:
| Yes definitely. I try to find some more generalized, non-
| controversial statement that we both agree on. It's easier from
| that point to figure out what exactly we disagree on and why.
|
| It also serves as a litmus test. If the other person isn't even
| willing to take an agreeable tone to something that's not
| controversial, then I know I'd be spending my time more wisely
| by doing something else.
| lapcatsoftware wrote:
| If you state your opinion in a room with 3 other people, the
| chance that at least 1 of those people vehemently disagrees with
| your opinion are probably low. Especially since people self-
| select who to congregate with in rooms.
|
| If you state your opinion in a virtual "room" with 300 million
| other people, the chance that at least 1 of those people
| vehemently disagrees with your opinion is a certainty.
|
| Conflict is almost unavoidable on mass "social networks". Some
| people claim that you shouldn't live in an online "bubble", but
| I, uh, vehemently disagree. The only way to keep your sanity
| online is to live in a bubble, just as you do in real life, self-
| selecting which people to congregate with in rooms.
|
| You may ask, having said that, why am I here in the HN comments?
| That's a good question, and the answer is obviously that I'm
| insane.
|
| Does anyone find it weird that the author of the article claims
| that we actually need online arguments to "hone our thinking" or
| some such nonsense, but then immediately goes into an extended
| analogy about hostage negotiations? I don't know why we all need
| to become online hostage negotiators. If you want to learn
| something useful from a different perspective, go offline and
| read a good book.
|
| The author says, "Taking a disagreement offline can work, but it
| should only ever be seen as a second-best option." Why????
| Everything else the author said suggests it's actually the best
| option. I really don't see the point in online arguments. Do they
| ever get resolved? Not in my experience. In fact I fully expect
| the same (non-)outcome in any replies to my comment.
| Barrin92 wrote:
| to a degree being able to associate with like-minded peers is
| good for peace of mind, but the author is right that conflict
| is also productive.
|
| This also applies in the real world. The actual Greek meaning
| of the word _idiot_ is 'private person'. Someone who had
| withdrawn from the life in the _polis_ , the political
| community.
|
| Over the last few decades we've seen a trend of this
| privatisation and segmentation or what Michael Sandel called
| 'skyboxification'. Everyone sorts into their own group, often
| commercially, rather than having shared experiences with people
| from different walks of life.
|
| The promise of the internet was that it would be easier for
| different people to have these interactions. It's sad that in
| reality it has devolved into a shouting match (it should be
| noted very often between people who are actually alike and
| engage in some Girardian terror of small differences, rather
| than between genuine strangers)
| natmaka wrote:
| There is a middle ground: alone is not enough, and too much
| is too much.
|
| IMHO every really useful-and-not-harming work happens thanks
| to a small group of workers (where a little bit of
| 'conflict', let's say disagreement about a given subject, is
| often useful because it creates emulation).
|
| A major promise of the Internet may be to alleviate the need
| for such a group members to be in the same place at the same
| time.
| lapcatsoftware wrote:
| > the author is right that conflict is also productive
|
| Could you explain why?
|
| > The actual Greek meaning of the word idiot is 'private
| person'. Someone who had withdrawn from the life in the
| polis, the political community.
|
| The Greeks put Socrates to death, so call me skeptical.
| SuoDuanDao wrote:
| Regarding conflict, I think it's certainly true that some
| ideas are so poorly understood that it can be useful to
| have someone else approach the same idea from a different
| perspective, so as to 'pin it down' as it were. Martin's
| 'The Opposable Mind' is a great discussion of this dynamic,
| the book describes a single person changing their mind on a
| topic deliberately so as to 'grasp' it but a similar
| dynamic can work with two people.
|
| Of course, disagreement doesn't necessarily mean conflict
| if the rules of civil discussion are agreed upon. I wish we
| had a way to filter our bubbles by what we find acceptable
| behaviour when disagreeing as opposed to what we agree
| with.
| thazework wrote:
| This is a common misconception, idiote was often used
| interchangeably with citizen and should be understood as a
| citizen operating in his capacity as a citizen (and not say
| in a formal poltical or emissary function) but by no means
| one who wishes to disengage from the polis. As for
| Socrates, as he is at pains to emphasize in the Apology, he
| was no 'idiote'.
| bengale wrote:
| Agreed. As for the reason I'm on the comments here, it's
| because this place selects for slightly more intelligent than
| average commenters and a community that does a good job and
| maintaining a reasonable tone.
|
| Everywhere else I run a plug-in that removes all comment
| sections from the web and I don't use social media.
| bulleyashah wrote:
| Could you share the plugin?
| bengale wrote:
| https://rickyromero.com/shutup/
| disabled wrote:
| Not the OP, but I did a search for Firefox extensions and I
| found this:
|
| Hide Comments Everywhere-An anti-social social extension to
| hide commenting systems like Disqus, Livefyre, Facebook,
| Twitter, WordPress, YouTube, etc.
|
| https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/hide-
| comments...
|
| Obviously uBlock Origin is a necessity, too.
|
| Another tip: Prior to going to a shopping website (such as
| Amazon), I go to my Firefox browser settings, and I disable
| all images. This keeps me from buying useless junk via
| addicting recommendation algorithms, and removes the
| temptation very well. I also never go to one of these
| websites, unless I know exactly what I am planning on
| buying. In other words, I make a paper list of things I
| need to buy before I get onto one of these sites.
| bulleyashah wrote:
| That plugin is for desktop browser. My biggest
| distraction is the phone actually. And firefox for phone
| doesn't support it yet. Somebody should really port it.
| Grease monkey also doesn't work on mobile browsers.
|
| What a great idea. I have myself disabled colors on the
| screen to avoid those addictive contrasts.
|
| I also try to do a phone fast every Sunday, where I give
| my phone to my wife and just live without it for a day.
| It's amazingly rewarding. You should give it a try :)
| disabled wrote:
| > I also try to do a phone fast every Sunday, where I
| give my phone to my wife and just live without it for a
| day. It's amazingly rewarding. You should give it a try
| :)
|
| Amazing :-)! You know this is exactly the correct way, to
| reset your brain, to be motivated, so that you can work
| hard! I will definitely give it a try! Thank you :-)
|
| > That plugin is for desktop browser. My biggest
| distraction is the phone actually. And firefox for phone
| doesn't support it yet. Somebody should really port it.
| Grease monkey also doesn't work on mobile browsers.
|
| I do not know if this is helpful for your situation, but
| I keep my laptop [Windows 10 Professional] always on. I
| always keep my Synology NAS on. I usually remotely access
| these devices on my iPhone or my iPad. I prefer the iPad
| though. I essentially VNC in, and I then get on the
| internet via Firefox Desktop with extensions loaded.
|
| Sometimes the remote connection is not an ideal
| situation. I keep a Rock Pi X, with a Windows 10 variant
| loaded on it, with me, when I am out and about. I have it
| configured with the Desktop browser extensions that I
| like to use and I basically VNC in:
| https://liliputing.com/2020/10/the-59-rock-pi-x-is-like-
| a-wi...
|
| A smaller form factor like a Raspberry Pi Zero with an
| Ubuntu variant may be a better option, though.
| hooande wrote:
| Nothing gets resolved in offline arguments either. That isn't
| the point. The idea of a non-factual disagreement is that both
| sides get to make a case and state their perspective, and
| everyone learns from it.
|
| You self-selected to be here on hn, just like the rest of us
| did. In a sense, this is a bubble of a certain kind of thought
| and perspective. But it's a really big bubble that has some
| diversity.
|
| I think the key is to avoid situations where you're constantly
| exposed to vehement disagreement. On hn we mostly respond to
| posts individually and get into various disagreements along the
| way. I think this is far preferable to something like a
| political discussion site, where both sides end up arguing the
| same philosophical issues over and over again.
| lapcatsoftware wrote:
| > and everyone learns from it
|
| Do they?
|
| > where both sides end up arguing the same philosophical
| issues over and over again
|
| Funny, I would describe HN as the same.
|
| I'm on HN because the _topics_ interest me as a computer
| programmer. But I don 't share the common HN conceit that
| _commenters_ on HN are better than elsewhere. IMO there 's no
| evidence of that. Some of those within the HN bubble think
| very highly of themselves, but they may not be aware of the
| utter contempt that many outside the HN bubble have for "the
| orange site". (By the way, I could share a little CSS to add
| dark mode support and a few other tweaks to HN, if anyone is
| interested.)
| MaxBarraclough wrote:
| > Do they?
|
| If the participants are doing a good job of explaining
| where they're coming from, then yes. If they're just
| talking past each other, or worse, angrily insulting each
| other, then of course the answer is no. At that point it's
| no longer really a discussion at all, it's the online
| equivalent of monkeys throwing filth at each other, and it
| debases all involved.
|
| > > where both sides end up arguing the same philosophical
| issues over and over again
|
| > Funny, I would describe HN as the same.
|
| Sure, some hot topics will keep coming up until the end of
| time. Copyleft vs permissive licences, for instance. I
| think that's fine though, and the ongoing discussion isn't
| pure retreading, it will evolve over time as the
| surrounding circumstances change.
|
| A discussion forum like HackerNews shouldn't aim to be the
| equivalent of StackOverflow where there's a single
| authoritative page for each question, and duplicates are
| rebuked and shut down. That approach makes sense if you're
| trying to build a question/answer repository, but a
| discussion forum is something different.
|
| > I don't share the common HN conceit that commenters on HN
| are better than elsewhere. IMO there's no evidence of that
|
| My opinion is no more well grounded than yours, but I
| disagree. HN discussions very often have input from
| experts. Anecdotally I think this happens less often on
| other forums. HN also has uniquely good moderation.
| lapcatsoftware wrote:
| > HN discussions very often have input from experts.
|
| Who are predictably downvoted!
|
| I think the upvoting/downvoting mechanism by itself makes
| discussions unnecessarily competitive and hostile. Here's
| a crazy alternative: make the order of comments random
| and rotating. Of course you could still have flagging and
| moderation to remove bad comments, but otherwise get rid
| of the voting. You could still have nested conversations
| (though the UI for this is really bad on HN when the
| conversations become long), but the comments at each
| level would also be randomly ordered.
|
| The theory is that the "best" comments rise to the top
| and the "worst" to the bottom. In reality, that rarely
| seems to be the case. It's typically a combination of
| popularity, controversy, accidental timing (some
| variation on "first!"), and the existence of replies to
| the comment.
| bulleyashah wrote:
| Let me chime in on the voting issue (or I think what you
| mean is mob voting issue?)
|
| Imagine a discussion on Linux and Torvalds comments on
| it. But due to randomisation, it doesn't get enough
| traction. Note that this problem will become bigger the
| more top level comments you get.
|
| This is the same problem with democracies also. Everyone
| gets to vote but the outcome might not be the best.But
| the alternative of randomly selecting people to govern
| also has its problems.
|
| Do you know any platforms which have successfully done
| the randomisation thing?
| lapcatsoftware wrote:
| > Imagine a discussion on Linux and Torvalds comments on
| it.
|
| This seems like a rarity. The vast majority of HN
| discussions don't have this situation, and it seems odd
| if the only purpose of HN voting is to upvote "celebrity"
| comments. There are much better places to follow the
| comments of celebrities than on HN.
|
| > the alternative of randomly selecting people to govern
| also has its problems.
|
| I strongly believe this is actually the least bad form of
| government, and vastly superior to elections, which are
| glorified high school prom royalty pageants.
|
| > Do you know any platforms which have successfully done
| the randomisation thing?
|
| No, though I have no idea what "algorithm" Twitter uses
| to determine the order of replies in a thread. (Probably
| not totally random.)
| bulleyashah wrote:
| I didn't mean celebrity but more like knowledgeable
| people. A random system, just like random election, does
| not guarantee best or betterness in any form. It's not
| important however, because I agree it's unlikely and I do
| see where you're coming from (I also share your sense of
| cynicism about democracy).
|
| I don't use Twitter that much but I hear that twitter is
| really toxic. Assuming some part of twitter tweet section
| is random, does that inspire confidence that such a
| system might work.
| lapcatsoftware wrote:
| > I didn't mean celebrity but more like knowledgeable
| people.
|
| That's my point though. A celebrity like Torvalds will
| likely get upvoted, but in my experience, non-celebrity
| knowledgeable commenters often get downvoted by people
| who are much less knowledgeable.
|
| > A random system, just like random election, does not
| guarantee best or betterness in any form.
|
| I don't think any system guarantees betterness. :-) But
| random seems to be at least pretty fair and least subject
| to abuse.
|
| > Assuming some part of twitter tweet section is random,
| does that inspire confidence that such a system might
| work.
|
| There are different parts of Twitter. The Twitter
| timeline is definitely not random. It's either reverse
| chronological or "algorithmic", depending on your
| settings. But any given tweet can have any number of
| replies, and I don't know how Twitter determines the
| order of display of replies to a tweet. But it's overall
| a very different format from HN, so comparisons are
| difficult.
| bulleyashah wrote:
| I see. My only contention would be that abuse is stopped
| but use is also equally degraded (due to randomness).
|
| But I see what you're saying. Some combination of voting
| and randomness might br worth it. Also, another thing is
| maybe some sort of sentiment analysis can help (abuse
| mainly comes from trolling, virtue signalling etc).
|
| I don't know, if ther was a way to figure out what value
| a comment adds (or inverse), then that, combined with
| voting and some sort of randomness might make the system
| fairer and better?
| chordalkeyboard wrote:
| > But I don't share the common HN conceit that commenters
| on HN are better than elsewhere.
|
| I think this is better expressed as "people almost
| everywhere else are terrible." Its not that HN is better
| (although the crowd here is learned, intelligent, and
| generally aspires to professional behavior), its that most
| places online with more than 20 average daily users are
| trash.
|
| > I could share a little CSS to add dark mode support and a
| few other tweaks to HN, if anyone is interested.
|
| Please
| shawnz wrote:
| > Do they ever get resolved? Not in my experience. In fact I
| fully expect the same (non-)outcome in any replies to my
| comment.
|
| Consider that it might be to the benefit of the reader to hear
| all the different possible ways of expressing the different
| arguments and counter-arguments, even when the participants
| themselves don't budge.
|
| Also, I often find that while I don't usually change my opinion
| in the middle of an argument, it still helps me to have the
| weakest areas of my opinions highlighted so that I know not to
| invest too strongly in those aspects as time goes on. After
| reading a compelling counter-argument online _and then_ seeing
| first-hand evidence of the strength of that counter-argument
| later on, I think I 'm much more likely to change my opinion.
|
| During an argument I think it actually benefits all
| participants to stick to a consistent viewpoint and defend it
| as strongly as possible to make sure that its strengths and
| weaknesses are fairly represented.
| lapcatsoftware wrote:
| > During an argument I think it actually benefits all
| participants to stick to a consistent viewpoint and defend it
| as strongly as possible to make sure that its strengths and
| weaknesses are fairly represented.
|
| My feeling is that a "debate" format -- under which we can
| include online comments and replies -- is actually one of the
| worst ways of informing people, and vastly inferior to other
| educational methods. I was serious when I said "go offline
| and read a good book".
|
| Debates almost invariably become a show. It's about
| entertainment, about "scoring points", winning and losing.
| But the biggest loser is always the truth, which becomes lost
| in the back and forth. Debates encourage taking sides. They
| encourage the mistaken view that there are only 2 sides to
| every subject.
|
| You can try very hard to avoid these pitfalls, but it's
| important to note that they come with the territory. Debates
| inevitably fall into these pits without very hard work. It's
| just not a great format for information and education. But a
| lot of people enjoy them immensely, which is why they happen,
| regardless of value.
| jancsika wrote:
| > Some people claim that you shouldn't live in an online
| "bubble", but I, uh, vehemently disagree.
|
| You've crossed the digital divide here and misused the word
| "bubble" in the process. It's not anything like a "self-
| selected" group of like-minded people in a room. It's more like
| a group of people snookered into working for a pyramid scheme.
| At worst-- as with Qanon-- it's like a cult.
|
| And even cult de-programmers-- people who know the "creation
| myth" of a cult, know its tactics, know its adherents, and are
| skilled and patient enough to "snap" cult members out of their
| stupor-- know not to physically put themselves in the midst of
| a cult for any extended length of time. Because given enough
| time (and you can't easily predict how long that is) _anyone_
| will fall prey to those tactics, and then it 's near impossible
| to get out using will alone.
|
| There's something creepily similar about the people who helped
| build online bubbles outright banning their children from using
| the devices/social networks they helped to create. They do that
| because the systems they built are quite literally the opposite
| of self-selecting.
| lapcatsoftware wrote:
| > You've crossed the digital divide here and misused the word
| "bubble" in the process.
|
| Yeah, well, you know, that's just like, uh, your opinion,
| man.
| jhardy54 wrote:
| > Because given enough time (and you can't easily predict how
| long that is) anyone will fall prey to those tactics, and
| then it's near impossible to get out using will alone.
|
| Where did you learn about this? I'd love to be better
| informed.
| throwawayboise wrote:
| I would guess it's an evolved survival strategy. You need
| to go along with the tribe you're in. It's just part of our
| nature to do this.
| kc0bfv wrote:
| I've resolved several online arguments that started in response
| to opinions I've shared. The methods the article mentions are
| methods I've used, usually because they seemed like natural
| ways to chill the situation.
|
| I'm not sure I've ever changed anybody's mind online, but I try
| to always keep in mind that that is not my goal. When others
| disagree I try to make sure my opinion is understood, and I try
| to understand their opinion too.
|
| One benefit to online argument over in-person is that it's
| easier to take time to reflect on my own reactions to others. I
| can take time to decide how to react. In-person it's often
| impossible to do that.
|
| I agree with most of what you wrote - I like being able to
| choose when to be "in the bubble" and when to not be in. I
| think we'll really benefit over time as people learn how to use
| these different forums better.
| darkerside wrote:
| > Do they ever get resolved? Not in my experience.
|
| I've found this to be less true than perhaps it used to be,
| particularly in places like HN. I don't think you'll change
| anyone's minds overnight on a big issue like climate change or
| racism, but I regularly see people share insights and
| perspectives in a reasonable way. Over time, these add up into
| real change, even if you don't see it happening in the course
| of a single thread.
| lapcatsoftware wrote:
| > Over time, these add up into real change, even if you don't
| see it happening in the course of a single thread.
|
| Without evidence, this is a difficult claim to accept.
| darkerside wrote:
| Live long enough and you get it. It's just how people work.
| Seeing it happen is the evidence.
|
| You don't need a study to prove gravity or magnetism.
| leetcrew wrote:
| I have certainly changed my own positions as a result of
| civil discussions. it never happens after a single
| exchange, but over time people can be convinced.
| ouid wrote:
| I'm sorry, but where's your argument here? Virtually every
| stable system humanity has ever devised is stable precisely
| because that stability is adversarial.
|
| Your argument against people becoming hostage negotiators
| relies, as far as I can tell, on this being an extreme state
| for humans, and therefore totally unsustainable, but like...
| why? It's like arguing that bridges can't stand up because they
| are subject to extreme forces from all sides.
|
| The sanity to which you speak is actually just passivity, In
| the hostage negotiator analogy, it is what happens when the
| hostage negotiator hangs up before the negoatiation is over. In
| the bridge analogy, it is what happens when one of the forces
| acting on the bridge stops acting on the bridge.
|
| Sustained human existence is _work_ , your proposed sanity
| preserving option is just nihilism, and it is unsustainable, or
| at least mutually unsustainable with existence.
| lapcatsoftware wrote:
| > Virtually every stable system humanity has ever devised is
| stable precisely because that stability is adversarial.
|
| Where's your argument here?
|
| > Your argument against people becoming hostage negotiators
| relies, as far as I can tell, on this being an extreme state
| for humans, and therefore totally unsustainable, but like...
| why?
|
| No, my argument against people becoming hostage negotiators
| is that it sounds very stressful, unpleasant, and dangerous.
| I simply don't want to do it. Kudos to professional hostage
| negotiators, to be sure, but it's not a job most people want.
| At least professional negotiators get paid, I assume.
|
| > It's like arguing that bridges can't stand up because they
| are subject to extreme forces from all sides.
|
| Why are you comparing people to inanimate objects? I'd rather
| not be walked on, thank you.
|
| > Sustained human existence is work, your proposed sanity
| preserving option is just nihilism, and it is unsustainable
|
| This is a weird attitude. Humans have existed for thousands,
| hundreds of thousands, maybe millions of years. All without
| online social networks. We could ditch them all and be fine.
| Arguably better than now.
| garbagetime wrote:
| The online arguments I get involved in are resolved often.
| Because I try to have them resolve. Plenty of times it's
| totally easy to resolve an argument. It can go like this: you
| spend some time thinking, realise that the person you're
| arguing with is correct, then you say "Oh, I see your point
| now. I didn't realise _x_ which is what lead me to think _y_.
| Thanks for helping me realise this mistake and gain a better
| understanding of the issue. "
| lapcatsoftware wrote:
| > Thanks for helping me realise this mistake and gain a
| better understanding of the issue.
|
| Are you on Twitter? I'd like to follow you. :-)
| rtlfe wrote:
| To me, the thing that really makes online arguments different
| than in person ones is that I'm usually not trying to persuade
| the person I'm directly replying to, I'm trying to present an
| alternate viewpoint to the other people who might see the
| comments. This happens all the time in FB groups for my
| neighborhood. Somebody will say a ridiculous NIMBY thing that
| sounds good on the surface, and I know I can't persuade them
| based on years of knowing their online persona, but I feel a need
| to reply in case somebody who doesn't have an entrenched opinion
| reads it.
| SunlightEdge wrote:
| I think learning to ignore posts that are or will become toxic is
| a helpful skill to learn. I have similar feelings about certain
| newspapers & articles too.
|
| As for discussion, no one ever wins an argument in my opinion. So
| whenever a discussion looks like it's heading that way the best
| thing to do is to drop it. Discussion is at its best when it's
| two open minded people politely exploring ideas
| Viliam1234 wrote:
| People have this instict that "silence is consent".
|
| Which makes sense _in some circumstances_. Like, when the whole
| group is paying attention to the same speaker, the speaker says
| something, there is an opportunity to object, and no one
| objects... you could conclude that either everyone agrees, or
| perhaps the speaker has so much social power that no one dares
| to object. -- So the idea is backed by either consent or power.
|
| This doesn't work on internet, where millions of people keep
| saying millions of things, and there is simply no time to
| respond to all of that. So you see something that was said,
| publicly, and no one objected... but that doesn't imply consent
| nor power.
|
| On the other hand, you can have an idea that 99% of people
| agree with, and the 1% would think twice to oppose it under
| their real name, but with anonymity someone is going to write
| "lol, if you think this you are a moron", and it's their
| comment that will likely remain unopposed. And one such person
| can make such comments on thousand places each day, if they are
| sufficiently obsessed with the topic.
|
| Our instincts are built of some assumptions that no longer work
| on internet. One possible approach is to learn new skills.
| Another possibility would be to design online interaction so
| that it better matches our instincts. (For example, any comment
| would disappear after one day, or after it was seen by 50
| people.) This could potentially be interesting, but there is
| little financial incentive to explore this, because companies
| optimise for advertisements and virality, not user experience.
| specialist wrote:
| > _People have this instinct that "silence is consent"._
|
| Absolutely.
|
| Part of my impulse to speak up IRL comes from the example of
| the activism to tackle HIV/AIDS. Literally, silence meant
| death. That left a huge imprint on me.
|
| There a few times in my life when I didn't speak up, didn't
| act. And it fills me with shame.
|
| Examples (of failure) help:
|
| At a music festival. Mid '90s. Two white guys were harassing
| two black couples. I thought one of the white guys was going
| to get physical. I was so flabbergasted. I had no idea what
| to do. I was also in no physical condition to get into or
| break up a fight.
|
| I saw a young parent assault her kids. Like punches, not
| spanking, Kids had signature abuse victims response. I should
| have called the cops.
|
| Young gay couple were being harassed in a movie theater. I
| didn't act.
|
| Old white dude at a public townhall talking about "those
| people" and advocating Jim Crow laws (in Washington State! in
| the early 2000s!).
|
| > _Our instincts are built of some assumptions that no longer
| work on internet. One possible approach is to learn new
| skills._
|
| Absolutely.
|
| My IRL impulses are sabotage online. I've been on social
| media since the late 80s. (BBSs, CompuServe, BIX.) Trolling
| and smack talk have always been part of the medium. It was
| fun. But now it isn't. It just keeps getting worse.
|
| Next book on my reading list is Adam Grant's Think Again.
| Some of the recent book promotion interviews (eg Vox Pivot)
| have been great.
|
| Chris Voss' Never Split the Difference, how to use "radical
| empathy" in tough situations, is really really good. I'm now
| looking for workbooks, training, or something. Like role
| playing exercises to practice.
|
| Recommendations please.
| a_random_guid wrote:
| A lot of your examples describe physically violent
| situations, or at least the threat of one. I also struggle
| with how to respond. My parents raised me to never engage
| in physical violence at any cost. I was the scrawny nerd in
| school and was bullied a lot. My parents encouraged me to
| talk my way out of these types of things. As an adult, my
| instinct is to de-escalate verbally and if that fails to
| withdraw. My wife on the other hand was raised in, how do I
| say this, a less nurturing environment. Her instinct is to
| respond to violence with violence. She doesn't care if it's
| a 6'5" club bouncer, she's down to fight (she's 5'2" and
| 110 lbs soaking wet) if she feels threatened physically. We
| had a situation a while back where a drunken, crazed woman
| shoved my wife while she was holding our baby. It was
| completely unprovoked. I got in the middle of them and
| tried to talk the aggressor down from the ledge. Of course,
| reasoning with a drunk person is basically useless. The
| drunken woman then shoved me. My wife knew I wouldn't
| restrain the person physically so she handed the baby to me
| and proceeded to beat this person to the ground. I'd never
| seen someone get beaten up this badly. All I wanted to do
| was withdraw, but with this person's emotional state there
| was no telling if they would follow us and try to engage
| physically again, potentially risking harm to our baby. I
| still don't know how to reconcile what happened. Like,
| instinctually, I still think withdrawing was the right
| choice. But, conversely, there were too many unknown
| variables in how that could've worked out. The best I could
| do to rationalize what happened is that we all have
| different reactions to the fight or flight mechanism. I
| flee, my wife fights. Sometimes maybe there isn't a "right"
| answer and it's all on a spectrum of gray-ness. In the
| moments after that situation, my wife berated me for
| failing to engage physically in a physical altercation that
| threatened our child. I felt an immense amount of shame. In
| the days that followed, she started to understand my
| position and reasoning and now says I shouldn't feel shame.
| Just wanted you to know that you're not alone in struggling
| in how to deal with physically violent situations.
| [deleted]
| SunlightEdge wrote:
| Yeah. I like your way of putting it. It's true that online
| and how people interact can be quite misleading. It's a
| really good point on how we can build better systems to match
| our instincts
| mellosouls wrote:
| This (good article) from The Guardian, who in their ludicrously-
| titled "Comment is Free" section and others ban discussions on
| any articles and opinion pieces they fear dissent on.
|
| In keeping with that - I note there is no comment section on this
| piece...
| uniqueid wrote:
| they fear dissent
|
| There are other explanations than that 'they fear dissent'.
| There's _what you say_ , and there's _how you say it_. It
| reflects poorly on a serious publication if their comments
| section is full of insults and slurs, regardless of whether the
| comments support leftwing or rightwing causes.
| mynameishere wrote:
| It reflects even more poorly on a serious publication when
| the top comment points out all the errors and bias in the
| main article. They understandably don't like that.
| uniqueid wrote:
| They understandably don't like that.
|
| They're fine with it. If you run a newspaper, the
| humiliating thing is to have a _competitor_ point out your
| errors.
|
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Correction_(newspaper)
| jbullock35 wrote:
| > I note there is no comment section on this piece...
|
| The absence of a comment section may be consistent with one of
| the author's pieces of advice: "have the disagreement away from
| an audience."
| RobertKerans wrote:
| As stated by siblings, there's a specific reason it's called
| that. But they used to all have open comments sections. They
| didn't start shutting down replies for articles because of
| civil disagreements. Generally they're shuttered based on the
| expectation, in turn based on experience, that people will be
| absolutely fucking horrible in the comments. That's not always
| the case (comments may just be pointless), but most of the time
| it is -- eg, what's the point of allowing comments on, say, a
| Nick Cohen piece when a large % of those will just be vicious
| personal attacks on the writer? Shuttering is a blunt
| instrument, but why go through the hassle?
| implements wrote:
| The Guardian used to have a fantastic set of talkboards which
| they closed almost ten years ago to the day:
|
| "We didn't have any other viable option on Friday other than
| shutting the boards down without warning. None of us think that
| is good community management, and the reason we have been in
| this thread is because we regret that we had to do it this
| way."
|
| I guess the name of the game is "comments supporting our
| journalism and from which we can extract value from without
| incurring liability or bad publicity".
| JimDabell wrote:
| > their ludicrously-titled "Comment is Free" section and others
| ban discussions
|
| It's a reference to a landmark essay by a previous editor, CP
| Scott, and it's more about sticking to the truth than
| publishing other people's opinions:
|
| > A newspaper is of necessity something of a monopoly, and its
| first duty is to shun the temptations of monopoly. Its primary
| office is the gathering of news. At the peril of its soul it
| must see that the supply is not tainted. Neither in what it
| gives, nor in what it does not give, nor in the mode of
| presentation must the unclouded face of truth suffer wrong.
| Comment is free, but facts are sacred.
|
| [0] https://www.theguardian.com/sustainability/cp-scott-
| centenar...
| switch007 wrote:
| Titbit: the section name comes from the quote "Comment is free,
| but facts are sacred" by C. P. Scott, past editor of the
| Manchester Guardian.
|
| > In a 1921 essay marking the Manchester Guardian's centenary
| (at which time he had served nearly fifty years as editor),
| Scott put down his opinions on the role of the newspaper. He
| argued that the "primary office" of a newspaper is accurate
| news reporting, saying "comment is free, but facts are sacred".
| Even editorial comment has its responsibilities: "It is well to
| be frank; it is even better to be fair".
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2021-02-20 23:02 UTC)