[HN Gopher] I want to lose every debate
___________________________________________________________________
I want to lose every debate
Author : Tomte
Score : 447 points
Date : 2023-01-31 07:55 UTC (15 hours ago)
(HTM) web link (sive.rs)
(TXT) w3m dump (sive.rs)
| dtx1 wrote:
| [flagged]
| BjoernKW wrote:
| > > The Muslim explains why Islamic law is a perfect recipe for
| peace.
|
| > I can't even fathom how someone could convincingly argue
| that. And honestly that makes this whole post kind of
| ridiculous to me
|
| This might depend on their definition of "peace". If they -
| very much tautologically - define "peace" as "Everyone is
| living in accordance with Islamic law." then according to that
| definition Islamic law certainly is a perfect recipe for peace.
|
| That'd just not be the usual understanding of peace.
| mihaic wrote:
| I got the same impression, as coming from the modern style of
| "open-mindedness", which seems to be interpreted not as judging
| an idea by its merits alone, but by giving more weight to non-
| establishment ideas.
| trompetenaccoun wrote:
| _Convincing_ is in the eye of the beholder. It doesn 't
| surprise me anymore because at this point I've seen more than
| enough of this sort naivety/idiocy that's massively trending
| again in the West. It's not a new phenomenon:
|
| https://www.timesofisrael.com/museum-acquires-bertrand-russe...
| mpawelski wrote:
| Exactly, Islamic law (and Islam in general) is so out-of place
| regarding women rights that I can't understand how someone from
| western culture can be convinced it's a good thing.
| ajfwe wrote:
| I have no idea how someone could not convincingly accept that.
|
| In modern western society, adultery, one of the worse possible
| civilization destroying crimes, is hardly even regarded as
| truly evil and is glorified in media. Especially when women do
| it.
| messe wrote:
| Can you share some examples of media _glorifying it_? That
| hardly seems to be a common thing.
| dtx1 wrote:
| > In modern western society, adultery, one of the worse
| possible civilization destroying crimes, is hardly even
| regarded as truly evil and is glorified in media. Especially
| when women do it.
|
| Adultery is not a crime. And it's certainly not "one of the
| worse possible civilization destroying crimes". There are
| such things as Genocide, Concentration Camps, War Crimes,
| Human Trafficking, Kidnapping, Engineering Viruses that kill
| humans, destruction of the Eco System,... I could go on but
| you get the point.
|
| Hurting someones feelings because you fucked someone else
| when you promised not to is not even comparable to that.
| Which is why you used a throwaway account for this message.
| Just because some scam artist that calls himself "Priest" or
| "Rabbi" or "Imam" told you so doesn't make it true.
| fluoridation wrote:
| >I have no idea how someone could not convincingly accept
| that.
|
| So you mean that to you it's so obvious that shariah leads to
| peace that you have trouble understanding how someone might
| disagree? Then I assume that you completely agree with all
| aspects of shariah, right? Then why would achieving peace
| require killing homosexuals and apostates? Are those two
| specific groups particularly violent? It seems to me that
| killing is quite a violent act, so homosexuals and apostates
| would have to be _really_ violent to justify outright killing
| them.
| dalanmiller wrote:
| Be curious, not judgemental.
| mihaic wrote:
| The first time I saw US-style collegiate debate, it seemed like a
| great mind-game. Over time I've come to consider it though as the
| sign of a bullshitting culture, where the truth is irrelevant,
| and winning the argument is all that matters.
|
| Professional debating and the article both feel wrong since
| they're missing the key element to me: synthesis of opposing
| ideas into something more than each individual side. It might
| happen that at times this synthesis means that one side is
| completely discarded, but the goal of any debate to me should be
| to achieve the sum of all truths that are held by all parties.
|
| Most places from from schools to success stories seem to fail in
| describing the purpose of debating to me because of that.
| ImHereToVote wrote:
| It's the difference between being right and winning. Not the
| same thing. The best way to be right is to change your mind,
| since the odds that your model of reality matching with reality
| are stacked against you.
|
| If you don't plan for failure, you plan to fail.
|
| If you don't plan for being wrong, you plan to be wrong.
| nhooyr wrote:
| What do you mean US-style? As far as I'm aware, such debate
| clubs exist all throughout the world. The most famous of which
| are probably the Cambridge Union and the Oxford Union both in
| the UK.
| sebzim4500 wrote:
| I don't know about the Oxford Union, but the people arguing
| in the Cambridge Union generally believe the arguments they
| are making. This makes it quite different from debate clubs
| in school.
| mihaic wrote:
| It might be anglo-saxon style. I've never seen them in
| mainland Europe in this format.
| onos wrote:
| I agree. The fun thing for me in "debate" is understanding the
| arguments for and against something. Most often, arguments
| differ through either (1) the axioms used, or (2) there is a
| subjective preference at play. In these cases, there is no
| right side.
|
| Of course, there are cases with an answer, often scientific
| type questions.
| TrackerFF wrote:
| I'be learned to keep an open mind. Whenever I see something which
| I don't understand, or something that screams "that's just
| stupid" I try to wait with being the judge - because by
| experience, there's usually some rationality behind that.
|
| It might not make sense to me, but could make sense - even be
| very important to others.
|
| Probably the people I enjoy the least to interact with, are the
| highly opinionated and cocksure people that simply refuse to
| expand their minds. Listen more, would be my best advice. Wait
| until you see a bigger picture, and don't try to infer everything
| from the go.
| foxbee wrote:
| I try to aim for education with empathy.
| hp6 wrote:
| IMO the author underestimates the positive effects of non
| combative debates between adults. For a long time before we could
| just google, debating was one of the main ways we used to check
| our ideas. Do you believe the sky is red? Try to debate someone
| and see if you can convince them. And while we now can just
| google most of the simpler things, that's not the case for
| complex ideas.
|
| As the author notes by simply listening you will have a better
| view of the other persons arguments. But at the same time you
| deprive them from the opportunity of validating their ideas.
| Which is not a simple tradeoff.
|
| Even worse most people will take silence as a form of agreement,
| which for a debate about C++ vs Rust is no big loss but is not
| true for a lot of other issues. And strangely enough the examples
| provided by the author are complex non trivial ideas no one
| should take for face value or agree by silence.
| rocknor wrote:
| > The Hindu explains why poverty doesn't upset her.
|
| So according to the author me and my community are not upset by
| poverty and hence are not doing anything to fix it.
|
| https://economictimes.indiatimes.com/news/india/india-lifted...
|
| https://gdc.unicef.org/resource/report-india-lifted-271-mill...
|
| Who is this author again and why are people listening to a
| charlatan like him?
| karaterobot wrote:
| > her
|
| I think you're extrapolating. Author is very clearly just
| talking about an individual, not a group. No need to get
| outraged.
| manquer wrote:
| But he is, he characterized that person as a Hindu,he didn't
| say a friend or a neighbour or whatever else he could have
| described her by.
|
| The implication in labelling her hindu is that this a common
| or known position amongst Hindus?.
| karaterobot wrote:
| I have no idea why he chose that signifier to refer to the
| individual he was talking about, that was also confusing to
| me, but it doesn't follow that he means "literally everyone
| who is also Hindu", and I didn't jump to that conclusion.
| fleddr wrote:
| "So according to the author me and my community..."
|
| No, not you and your community. He said no such thing. Don't
| put words into other people's mouth.
| russelldjimmy wrote:
| It seems to me that the author spoke about one particular Hindu
| they met who was not upset by their state of poverty. It's not
| clear to me that they claimed that your community is not upset
| by it, and is not doing anything to fix it. Help me with
| clarity.
| manquer wrote:
| If it has nothing do with her being hindu or beliefs
| generated from religion then why is that fact she is hindu
| relevant ?.
|
| It is like saying a short or bald person came to me and said
| poverty doesn't bother them.
|
| If I was short or bald then I am going to be offended by
| that.
| semireg wrote:
| This TED talk "on being wrong" has stuck with me over the years.
|
| https://www.ted.com/talks/kathryn_schulz_on_being_wrong
|
| Especially the part about the coyote in loony tunes running off
| the edge and not falling until they realize they are wrong.
| That's what feeling right feels like... until you realize you're
| wrong.
| noduerme wrote:
| I'm sorry, but I just can't read this.
|
| Ever since I put out an album on CDBaby in like 2004, which was
| Mr Sivers project at the time, I have been subjected to an
| endless stream of daily self promotion from this man. Somehow he
| evades all spam blocks and all attempts to remove myself from his
| lists. I have never seen another human being so self absorbed who
| consistently just had to have their meandering thoughts manually
| junked from my inbox for so many years. Not even my father who
| forwards shit from fox news every morning. My pure level of
| irritation at seeing Sivers name must be a great credit to his
| ability to evade every spam block on earth; it's almost like
| every attempt to block him just makes him stronger.
| stingraycharles wrote:
| Can't you just block his emails?
| noduerme wrote:
| I've tried. I've even contacted him personally. I run my own
| mail server so you think it should be trivial. A year or two
| later, he's gotten past my filters again. We're talking about
| 20 years here. I don't understand it but he's got some form
| of email jujitsu.
| [deleted]
| romanovcode wrote:
| You don't have to read anything. One does not have to be a
| genius to guess EXACTLY what the blog post is about.
| noduerme wrote:
| [dead]
| depot5 wrote:
| I remember an interview with a smart man at some medical device
| company. His most memorable thing started with the pretty boring,
| "what do you like least about work?" So, I replied, "arguing
| about plans for projects. Many co-workers get emotional there and
| resist bringing in facts." And his reply to that is what made me
| think he's pretty smart.
|
| Arguing and debating about what to do is one of the biggest ways
| that managerial types can add value to a workplace. And it's even
| right to get a bit emotional, because the things decided in the
| meeting is probably going to decide stress, money, and life
| quality for everyone there. It's hard to change plans after
| deciding what to do in a big meeting. Bad managers will use
| debate tricks, but so will good ones. Everyone must be aware of
| these things, otherwise it's out of control. The expectation for
| senior employees is to be responsible and contribute important
| arguments in debate.
| jagrsw wrote:
| There are debates which are illuminating (esp. when you first
| time hear some ideas), you get new POVs and see excitement in the
| speaker's eyes, and even numbers/data might add up to a point,
| but the overall ideas might be harmful/dangerous/impractical/too-
| nuanced/in-theory-sure-but
|
| Examples: - People should believe in god(s) b/c
| people believing in god(s) are more stress-resistant and are
| overall happier -> improvement of life quality - Everyone
| should pay the same amount of taxes - since they get from the
| state on avg the same amount of services -> fairness -
| Everyone should be paid the same for any kind of job if they put
| the same amount of effort/time -> fairness - Geopolitics
| can be described in a few catchy phrases (esp. in hindsight) -
| zero-sum games, rimland/heartland etc. - Richer and more
| achieved should have more kids (by law or consensus) than poorer
| ones -> it'll improve human gene-pool wrt cognitive capabilities
|
| People formulating and believing (and sometimes acting on) such
| and similar ideas are not rare. Having them as family, friends,
| colleagues, random interlocutors at a party and entertaining
| their train of thought, sure. But considering them as a partner
| in a company, advisor, someone you elect for public office... not
| so much.
| lazyeye wrote:
| I think the completely radical idea being rediscovered here is
| called humility.
| Malky wrote:
| > don't debate at all, just listen.
|
| Just loved this.
| collyw wrote:
| Get yourself over to reddit, the best debaters ion the world.
| Appeal to authority almost every time.
| hendry wrote:
| "The Singaporean in the three-piece-suit explains why clothing is
| like the SMTP protocol.", that must be Meng Wong of RFC4408
| a_c wrote:
| I come to ask this. Why is it like SMTP?
| zxcvbnm wrote:
| Insu
| avaika wrote:
| This is all fun until you talk to someone who is absolutely
| brainwashed or alien to a peaceful behavior.
|
| Do you really want to lose the debate to flat earth advocate? Do
| you want to lose a debate to a war aggressor supporter? Do you
| want to lose a debate to a serial killer?
|
| I bet you don't.
|
| PS. Maybe I didn't get something right, but I suffered a lot in
| conversations with close relatives who are denying that killing
| other people is bad in the light of ongoing war in Ukraine :(
| FlyingSnake wrote:
| Of course the will be outliers and edge cases for most of the
| advice you receive. This observation from Derek is more or less
| a guideline, not an iron rule. He's not advocating to forgo
| common sense when dealing with people.
| jnsaff2 wrote:
| I think that the fact that Derek found this interesting
| enough to write about and people find it controversial to
| discuss about here kinda proves that his wish is the outlier
| and the norm is arguing with bad faith actors or people who
| have made up their mind and want to convince you, not really
| learn anything.
|
| Maybe this is an internet thing but genuine enlightening
| discussion is kinda hard to be found on internet.
| zepolen wrote:
| ...who are denying that killing other people is bad in the
| light of ongoing war in Ukraine
|
| I wonder what your point of view would be if your family was
| killed by people who have no intention of listening to another
| person's point of view.
| iinnPP wrote:
| >close relatives who are denying that killing other people is
| bad
|
| Nobody, except people with legitimate mental health issues,
| thinks killing is a "good" thing.
|
| Your close relatives believe Russia is on defense. Kind of like
| how the US was on defense in Iraq. So, from their perspective,
| the way to save lives is to negotiate an end to the war where
| Russia takes that tiny bit of land, and Ukraine stops being
| considered for the UN.
|
| Come to the discussion using human life as the topic. Figure
| out where solutions exist that save the most lives. Talk about
| how many die and what is gained or lost as a result.
|
| Moving the conversation from nations to humans will not only
| help the argument make more sense, it will have you coming away
| with far superior respect for your incredibly important family
| unit.
| yakshaving_jgt wrote:
| That bit of land isn't tiny, and the russians aren't going to
| stop at 20% of Ukraine.
|
| The aim of fascist russia is the total erasure of Ukraine.
| That means genocide. Trying to make a "peace deal" means more
| dead civilians, not fewer.
|
| Anyone who does not understand this is clueless, and it is
| quite frustrating how many Chomskys love to indulge
| themselves pontificating on such a serious issue with sweet
| fuck all real insight.
| iinnPP wrote:
| I don't hold an opinion on this worth sharing, I was merely
| stating what I have heard from people beforehand as
| reasoning.
|
| I look at maps showing between 10-15% of Ukraine being of
| the Donbas region from 5+ random Google-provided sources.
| What source do you get the 20% from?
|
| As to the total erasure of Ukraine I am also unaware of any
| evidence that this is true. I always appreciate being
| informed and would love an authoritative source on this if
| you(or anyone) can provide it.
|
| Based on the personal attacks at the end, I'm not expecting
| a reply. My comment is for others mostly with a small hope
| that you can help further my understanding.
| yakshaving_jgt wrote:
| > What source do you get the 20% from?
|
| The 20% figure might be outdated now after the Ukrainians
| liberated Khersonks'ka Oblast north of the Dnipro. The
| NYT most recently put the figure at 18%[0].
|
| > As to the total erasure of Ukraine I am also unaware of
| any evidence that this is true. I always appreciate being
| informed and would love an authoritative source on this
| if you(or anyone) can provide it.
|
| The russians are only rarely going to state their aims so
| blatantly. It is only recently that kremlin officials
| admitted that the soldiers who invaded Ukraine in 2014
| were indeed kremlin-backed. Until recently, they denied
| it.
|
| You can see fact #2 here[1] for a more detailed
| explanation, but to really understand the kremlin's
| perspective, there's quite a lot of material you need to
| follow and digest.
|
| More explanation from Carnegie[2]:
|
| > The Kremlin's logic appears to stem from its thesis
| about the "artificial" nature of Ukrainian statehood. If
| Ukraine was "constructed" by Lenin in 1918, as Moscow now
| insists, then it can be just as easily and legitimately
| "deconstructed": its neighbors have the right to claim
| Ukrainian territory, which Russia will not oppose.
| Indeed, it has already made a head start by declaring the
| annexation of four Ukrainian regions in September.
|
| I have Ukrainian residence and I was living in Ukraine
| for most of last year. I also have many personal and
| professional relationships in the country, so this
| imperialist war and the innumerable war crimes committed
| are of special importance to me. I have literally watched
| missiles fly and explode in the sky from my kitchen
| window.
|
| > Based on the personal attacks at the end,
|
| Sorry, my outrage isn't directed at you specifically. It
| is directed towards _anyone_ who parrots kremlin
| propaganda. For some reason, this is all too common among
| _intellectuals_ like Chomsky and his ilk who struggle
| with the painfully basic principle that the enemy of your
| enemy is not your friend.
|
| ---
|
| [0]: https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2022/world/europ
| e/ukrain....
|
| [1]: https://mfa.gov.ua/en/10-facts-you-should-know-
| about-russian...
|
| [2]: https://carnegieendowment.org/politika/88585
|
| More:
|
| - https://kafkadesk.org/2022/05/08/russian-invasion-to-
| continu...
| iinnPP wrote:
| Thank you for the very thoughtful reply. I am reading it
| now but wanted to respond in a timely manner. I do try to
| keep my opinion on important events informed, but have
| been finding it increasingly difficult since Jan 2020.
|
| I lean towards promoting a solution that doesn't turn
| this invasion into WW3. Preferably a solution that
| results in fewer deaths. That does also include worldwide
| deaths that for example may stem from the financial
| fallout of the war itself. As well as a comparison of
| lives saved/saveable using the money being spent.
|
| I'm very aware this is a privileged position that I can
| justify while living in Canada. Knowing I would find it
| incredibly difficult if not impossible to maintain my
| position if the conflict was localized. I like to believe
| I would still lean to societal benefit, but for that I
| have zero confidence.
|
| I primarily ponder on the options allowing for an
| eventual de-escalation being limited or even non-
| existent. Is there a route to an end of the invasion that
| you see as viable? What is needed to get there and who do
| you think could make it happen?
|
| Thank you again for the informative response. I've come
| out with better information than I had this morning.
| xiphias2 wrote:
| What's interesting in this is how many people still think
| that in politics there's a ,,good side'' and a ,,bad side''.
|
| Europe would stay much stronger together with Russia, so it
| was worth for US to increase the conflicts between the two
| powers (destroying Nordstream wasn't the nicest move).
|
| Putin was used to high gas prices making his power the
| highest, but he wasn't used to the power of LNG that US has,
| as it's the first time that LNG comes into geopolitics in
| Europe so strongly.
|
| But as you wrote, nobody wants to kill people, it's a
| terrible consequence of geopolitics.
| BlueTemplar wrote:
| Russia has been developing its own LNG with the French
| know-how and with Chinese money, and while the volumes that
| EUrope imports are still relatively small, they are now
| only an order of magnitude smaller than pipeline methane at
| its peak... and growing.
|
| It's also questionable just how long the US will be able to
| afford to export that methane (phase change isn't free),
| since the related tight oil seems to already have peaked ?
| (Maybe a few decades still ?)
| rhaway84773 wrote:
| So why did Putin attack Ukraine if it was so obvious that
| it would benefit the US?
| iinnPP wrote:
| That's a great question worth a full deep dive. A debate
| where losing is beneficial and where being a spectator is
| worthwhile.
| xiphias2 wrote:
| He probably expected an easier win and smaller help from
| US, but again that's geopolitics, it's still not about
| ,,people liking killing people''
| BasedGroyper99 wrote:
| > Nobody, except people with legitimate mental health issues,
| thinks killing is a "good" thing.
|
| But what if a woman wants to kill her unborn child?
| iinnPP wrote:
| They don't see it as a person.
|
| Canada as a country doesn't see an unborn baby as a person
| for example.
|
| That is not a statement I am making or denying. Though I
| have noted that this definition could be used as a
| justification in someone's view.
| ameister14 wrote:
| >Nobody, except people with legitimate mental health issues,
| thinks killing is a "good" thing.
|
| I know a lot of people that believe killing can be justified
| and in that sense a "good."
| [deleted]
| artemonster wrote:
| I wish debating skills were taught better in schools. A lot of
| people see debates as a personal attack on themselves and are set
| to win, no matter the cost. Then comes every dirty manipulation,
| trick and foul play. This is infuriating.
| canada2us wrote:
| Now here is a new problem: The other side wins. The examples are
| that there are no consequences of the debate, which is great. But
| in reality, there are consequences (some of them are negative) if
| you lose the debate, e.g., job interview.
| amelius wrote:
| Given the current level of political polarization in the US, we
| can conclude that Americans are very bad at this.
| nicbou wrote:
| Great perspective.
|
| This is why I love browsing HN. Despite its relatively
| homogeneous userbase, people manage to stay civil when they
| disagree
|
| Elsewhere it's harder, but it still happens.
| Cthulhu_ wrote:
| To a point; I have seen some greyed-out comments that just
| devolved into trolling. Thankfully, HN is self-regulating and
| has good moderators that help filter out these things.
| nicbou wrote:
| The quality of the moderation can't be overstated. Dang holds
| this place together.
| noam_compsci wrote:
| How self congratulatory. So many people, most people hope and
| assume they are this way. We all think we are super progressive
| and smart and just want "growth". It's a bit redundant to spell
| it out. So what? Big clap. You have a growth mindset. You want to
| embrace "regret". How intellectual of you.
| nordsieck wrote:
| There's a sort of hidden weakness to "losing": it's extremely
| difficult for people to correctly filter out BS at scale.
|
| I'm not talking about on an individual encounter level - BS
| almost always loses to truth. But the percentage isn't so high
| that smart and/or successful people never fall for BS in their
| lifetime.
|
| Especially since BS is under evolutionary pressure to be
| extremely believable.
|
| That's a big part of the benefit of being part of the mainstream
| of knowledge. It's almost certain that large swaths of the
| mainstream are BS. But the mainstream is also exposed to the most
| criticism (at least the parts where criticism is acceptable),
| which means that BS tends to get filtered out more quickly as
| well.
|
| In contrast, looking at "alternative" knowledge communities, they
| all generally have that whiff of being scammy. There's probably
| some truth in there, at least in some of those communities, but
| there's also a lot more BS.
|
| So, I'm not saying to never lose. Losing is generally good. Just
| take care to make sure that you're actually losing.
| The_Colonel wrote:
| > But the mainstream is also exposed to the most criticism (at
| least the parts where criticism is acceptable), which means
| that BS tends to get filtered out more quickly as well.
|
| This is what I worry in relation to ChatGPT. Producing quality,
| believable BS is currently expensive, and the price of exposing
| it is relatively manageable. But with ChatGPT, it will be
| possible to produce huge amounts of BS which will be extremely
| believable and simply uneconomical to critique and expose.
|
| BS can be tailored to the audience, imagine a Wikipedia written
| by ChatGPT specifically for your which takes into account your
| own biases. It doesn't even have to be factually wrong, it can
| just modify the writing style, a word here and there to evoke a
| different sentiment, play on your personal preconceptions to
| move slightly your political position in a certain direction.
| People will claim they are immune to such subtle manipulations,
| but I don't believe that.
| concordDance wrote:
| It's also worth noting that ChatGPT is a BS generator that's
| only allowed to generate BS for one side of a number of
| modern arguments.
| concordDance wrote:
| > at least the parts where criticism is acceptable
|
| This is an important effect to note. If criticism of an idea is
| not socially allowed then you cannot rely on mainstreamness as
| a proxy for truth.
|
| There's also another effect worth noting: if an idea is relies
| on building blocks outside daily experience (e.g. anything
| about the large scale) and requires quantification as part of
| the argument then its going to struggle to propagate (both the
| guys with the megaphones and your average Joe are bad at
| thinking quantatively). Incorrect ideas about the dangers of
| nuclear power being the classic example.
| KingLancelot wrote:
| [dead]
| pdpi wrote:
| I don't like the position of "losing is good".
|
| I want to _win_ every debate, because I define winning a debate
| as coming out of it knowing more that I did going in. Debating
| isn 't a zero-sum game, me winning doesn't make you the loser.
| Cthulhu_ wrote:
| Yeah but what if you're wrong and you "won" by attrition? This
| is the problem with a lot of debates; they don't end with one
| party being convinced of the other party's point of view, they
| often end because one party just gives up.
|
| I mean your point does apply if you actually acknowledge your
| lack of knowledge on a subject and do your research before
| bringing in an argument, but a lot of people don't, they have a
| standpoint and will stick to it.
|
| Losing isn't good, but neither is winning if that was your goal
| going into a debate; the goal should be to learn and come to a
| consensus.
| pdpi wrote:
| I think you misunderstood me.
|
| The point I'm making is that you should redefine "winning a
| debate". Learning (and hopefully coming to a consensus) is
| exactly what winning should mean in your head. Just
| altogether abandon the notion that you win by convincing the
| other party you're right.
| heleninboodler wrote:
| Derek's right here. Being willing to be wrong is one of the best
| ways to grow. I have a lot of strong opinions and a lot of
| knowledge, and I used to think that meant I had to be an absolute
| warrior defending my side of an argument. Turns out you're
| stronger if you're willing to consider that you don't know
| everything.
|
| Yet another Derek Sivers post that makes me think he's a freaking
| genius.
| beebmam wrote:
| Even better yet: don't presume (virtually) any of your beliefs
| are 100% right in the first place.
| bluedino wrote:
| This is some Seth Godin, LinkedIn level stuff right here.
| hungryforcodes wrote:
| Loose every debate. When you are on your deathbed you won't be
| reviewing these debates. You'll be either reliving those great
| experiences you had, or regretting the experiences you didn't
| have. Key word:
|
| "Experiences"
|
| Words don't count for anything. They're just sounds we make....
| paulpauper wrote:
| Usually losing the debate means losing to the pig who has better
| experience. I prefer to just avoid debates. they tend to never be
| productive except maybe in academia. A common criticism you see
| online is people avoiding debate and blocking, but consider that
| usually this is from being tired of bad faith, obtuseness, etc.
| At some point, patience runs thin. You don't have time for the
| one or two good, productive debate out of dozens bad, pointless
| ones, so blocking or ignoring is easier. And no one changes their
| mind anyway.
| nicbou wrote:
| It's not a debate but a conversation. Treat it like an exchange
| of information, not something you can win or lose. If the other
| person doesn't follow, then you can stop replying.
| croes wrote:
| So the articles title is misleading
| nicbou wrote:
| I didn't write the article, I'm just joining the
| discussion.
| croes wrote:
| I'm just stating the obvious, wasn't targeted at you
| fluoridation wrote:
| "Debate" doesn't have to mean just an organized
| discussion between two people in front of an audience. If
| two people are having an argument where they're trying to
| convince each other of their own position, that's also a
| debate.
| aflag wrote:
| That's missing the point. The author is not taking about a
| heated exchange, but mostly just listening so closely to the
| point you actually get convinced you agree with someone else,
| at least from their perspective.
| paulpauper wrote:
| hmm...but just listening is not a debate though. it's part of
| a debate, but the debate is the back and forth process. I
| have found the 1-10 ratio to hold up and this is as being as
| polite as possible.
| zxcvbnm wrote:
| Agree if no consequence. But imagine, what if there is. And the
| debate's winner gets to implement his BS.
| personjerry wrote:
| Remember, if you're winning, if you're correct, if you're
| talking, then you're not learning. Only when you're wrong and you
| recognize you don't have the full picture can you grow. I think
| our education systems and parents often frame being wrong as bad,
| but it's precisely the opposite.
| tsylba wrote:
| Dialectic is where things happens, it's where people meet.
| Dialectic is the dancing space between two perspectives.
|
| We all know the saying "It's not about the nails", where one
| person try to solve an appearing problem for another one who
| secretly just need an ear to be listen to. Yes, listening is
| important as a human skill to relate & connect, but ultimately
| living together is dancing between perspective. We hardly all be
| passive or let others strongly shape our shared narratives.
|
| We know we're not right, how can we be ? we share a narrative
| about the world and try to make sense of it. Like the Tao symbol
| Yin & Yang interlacing, everything we do, we tell contains a part
| of truth and a part of wrong. The issue is when one identifies
| too strongly to one's perspective. We're always at least partly
| wrong but living is deciding which path to take at any moment,
| and accepting it's not right.
|
| Politic is how we organize ourselves & Democracy aims to listen
| to everyone, the only way to do that is to share our perspective
| and enable true dialectic. Sure, sometimes positions are strongly
| held, but there is no true freedom without a bit of a fight isn't
| it ? how can we all relate all the time ? share the same taste,
| share the same vision ? it's boring and borderline dangerous.
| That what anarchism tell us, not as a dogma to political utopia
| but as a way to relate politically : we differ so we need to
| talk, we need to dance everytime to build a better shared
| perspective, with as many vision there is.
|
| Anarchism is a dialectic of every moment, inhaling and exhaling,
| sharing and dancing, but we cannot dance alone, and we cannot
| just all listen (and say nothing), and we cannot all talk (and be
| deaf to others perspectives).
|
| And this is what we are all doing just now, what the authors of
| the post did too. He speaks his truth and wait for people to
| dance with it.
|
| (But as anything goes, what I just typed is neither completely
| true or false, and that's ok)
| paganel wrote:
| > The sex worker explains why she loves her job.
|
| I'm not going to comment on the other stuff, but we should stop
| with the sociopathic neo-liberal glorification of "sex work",
| which in the majority of cases is just human trafficking.
|
| I come from a town in Eastern Europe where one of the local mob
| guys has been caught with trafficking hundreds of (I guess mostly
| local) girls in Spain. I'm pretty sure many of those girls, if
| asked, would have told a nice story of "I earn good money out of
| this! It's liberating!" to any Westerner techie client who would
| have bothered to ask, what else could have they said? They were
| still the victims of human trafficking.
| aflag wrote:
| The fact that some prodtitutes are victims of human trafficking
| doesn't mean that all are. In fact, there are countries where
| sex work is legal but not human trafficking. So it's possible
| to even have a legal distinction there.
|
| I don't know how things are in Spain, but in the US there's a
| huge stigma associated with being a sex worker besides it being
| illegal and actively enforced. In these conditions it would be
| very difficult to have sex workers who are not somehow a
| product of sex trafficking. However, in societies where it's
| not really a taboo, some people will pick that profession, at
| least for a while.
| glogla wrote:
| I'd like to believe that the people who are against sex work
| are actually thinking of the good of the sex workers and
| because of human trafficking.
|
| Yet there is a lot of human trafficking in other areas, like
| farmwork or maids in the Western world, and the non-Western
| world is filled with sweatshops and literal slaves. And you
| never hear them mention it.
|
| Which makes me convinced these people are just anti-sex work
| for religious or moral reasons (because they have
| internalized that sex is sinful or bad), reasons they then
| lie about.
| quickthrower2 wrote:
| Good test of the OP's point, hope you both lost this one
| :-)
| throw_m239339 wrote:
| > Yet there is a lot of human trafficking in other areas,
| like farmwork or maids in the Western world, and the non-
| Western world is filled with sweatshops and literal slaves.
| And you never hear them mention it.
|
| > Which makes me convinced these people are just anti-sex
| work for religious or moral reasons (because they have
| internalized that sex is sinful or bad), reasons they then
| lie about.
|
| > thinking of the good of the sex workers
|
| Good for whom? for the johns and a handful of high profile
| female "socialites"? It certainly brings nothing good for
| females as a class.
|
| You blame "religious" morals for opposition to
| prostitution, but even Marx was opposed to prostitution,
| nobody can't accuse him of being very religious...
| paganel wrote:
| > Which makes me convinced these people are just anti-sex
| work for religious or moral reasons
|
| If it matters I'm an atheist. I'm against "sex work"
| because women (it's women in the majority of cases) are
| trafficked and taken advantage of, in both a material and a
| direct physical way.
|
| I see this "sex work" non-sense mostly coming from people
| who have had no direct contact with the reality/materiality
| of it all, i.e. mostly from the Western middle-classes.
|
| Later edit: Because this has touched a close nerve with me,
| copy-pasting some stuff related to that reality/materiality
| I had mentioned from a news article about Romanian
| prostitution rings in Spain [1]:
|
| > The women were freed from brothels in Malaga and Girona
| where they had been sexual exploited by their compatriots
| and made to work for up to ten hours a day under the threat
| of violence.
|
| > Some had come to Spain after being falsely promised
| better lives by the Romanian sex traffickers while others
| had fallen victim to the so-called 'lover boy' scam,
| according to a police statement.
|
| > This method involves one of the sex traffickers forming
| an intimate relationship with the woman to earn her trust
| before later forcing her into prostitution.
|
| > One of the women freed, who was only 18 years old, had
| been reported as missing by her family in Romania.
|
| > Police described the 'iron control' exerted by the 'well-
| organized' sex-trafficking ring and said that the women had
| been kept completely isolated from the outside world.
|
| I don't know of any sane person who would call that legit
| "work" and "liberating".
|
| [1] https://www.thelocal.es/20140812/spanish-police-smash-
| romani...
| hbrn wrote:
| > I'm against "sex work" because women (it's women in the
| majority of cases) are trafficked and taken advantage of,
| in both a material and a direct physical way.
|
| That's a very naive and harmful take.
|
| Criminalizing sex work means that only criminals would be
| involved in it, hence the trafficking.
|
| Given that you can't do anything about supply and demand,
| the only sane solution to trafficking is decriminalizing
| sex work.
| midasz wrote:
| It's just when I pragmatically think about solutions to
| the very real problem of human trafficking, banning sex-
| work seems like the least effective thing to do. And what
| constitutes sex-work? Any sex where payment is involved?
| Any sex act outside of marriage?
|
| Human trafficking is already illegal. Fund investigators
| and get rid of traffickers.
|
| Empower sex-workers instead of banning the practice,
| because it will still happen but just more in the
| shadows. Bring it to the front and truly regulate it.
| acatnamedjoe wrote:
| Perhaps we should credit OP with enough intelligence to assume
| that their debate with the sex worker didn't happen in a
| context where OP was their client.
|
| Also the fact that sex work can be linked with human
| trafficking doesn't necessarily mean that sex work is bad.
| Working on a construction site can be a meaningful and
| rewarding career, but could also be utterly miserable if you've
| been trafficked there and are working in conditions of modern
| slavery. But that means human trafficking is bad, not that
| construction work is bad.
|
| If anything, I think the human trafficking thing is an argument
| for NOT demonizing / criminalizing sex work, so that it becomes
| part of the visible, regulated economy, which would it turn
| make it harder for traffickers to exploit and control people.
| quickthrower2 wrote:
| I totally assumed it was a friend of his, for some reason.
| Having read his stuff I get the impression he spent a portion
| of his life being highly social and trying to meet a lot of
| people. In an intentional way. His life is a bit like a lab!
| midasz wrote:
| If you value freedom and equality you cannot be against sex-
| work. Being against sex-work means that police someone elses
| bodily autonomy. Human trafficking is a framework issue, not
| specific to sex-work.
| majikaja wrote:
| What about just young women making stupid life choices? Like
| putting off meaningful relationships or long-term careers for
| easy short-term cash to fund their vices. Would they count as
| liberated individuals that middle aged men should feel no
| qualms about availing themselves of?
|
| Even if it's normalized, women will just be tossed aside when
| they get old (pass 30) in such environments...
| DoctorOW wrote:
| Do you oppose agriculture as an industry? Do you oppose factory
| work? Globally a lot of forced labor ends up being used to cut
| costs for international companies.
| BasedGroyper99 wrote:
| You're opening a can of worms, but that's basically what every
| debate does. The idea of "sex work" has other, larger
| implications. For example, in my country, if you are
| unemployed, the government gives you some money, but less money
| if you don't try to find work. If "sex work" is a legitimate
| form of work, can the government suggest you seek such a job,
| if you can't find work otherwise? Will your friends and your
| family pressure you? It may seem far-fetched at first, but if I
| think back to all the other things that were liberating
| alternatives and now have become mandatory. Cars gave us the
| freedom to quickly get from A to B, but now a commute of 1 hour
| is acceptable. Phones gave us the freedom to reach everyone
| almost instantly, but now you have to be available 24/7 for
| everyone else. You can get the latest news at any time, but you
| also have to stay up-to-date. It is no coincidence that most
| women put on make-up every single day.
|
| What I'm trying to say is that everything that is "liberating"
| only shackles you to a new framework eventually.
| temptemptemp111 wrote:
| [dead]
| mnsc wrote:
| Sex work is a very good example of a topic where you can change
| your mind completely from one debate/conversation to another
| depending on examples and framing and the ulterior motive of
| the conversation partner.
|
| I think it has to do with morality of course and the problem of
| defining "sex work" but mostly I think it's the fact that we
| humans are sexual beings and that our sexuality often is a
| "dark" place. In the sense that we don't shine a light there
| ourselves out of fear what we could discover (eg. why did I get
| a tingly sensation when two people of the same sex kissed in
| the latest mega hyped tv show everyone is talking about).
|
| Edit: and due to this our reasoning abilities are kinda off and
| we are more subject of swaying to different sides based on
| subconsious feelings. Eg. "so you are saying prostitution
| should be legal and protected by laws and unions, YES, that
| seem like better for the sex workers (then I could hire a male
| sex escort and finally find out...)"
| psychphysic wrote:
| It bothers me that people argue so poorly.
|
| That's why debate exists. And why some people excel at podcasts
| Joe Rogan being an examplar.
|
| His best debates have very similar formats.
|
| "Tell me about"/"why do you think"
|
| "What about X"
|
| "So you're saying Y?"
|
| "Wouldn't that mean Z"
|
| People are bothered because he rarely ever seems to shoot others
| down just gets them to lay out their points and fleshout
| reasoning.
|
| The only time he shoots you down is if he thinks you don't have
| an explanation around some aspects of your point. But his job is
| done the audience can make up its own mind.
| badcppdev wrote:
| You seem to be stating that Joe Rogan's 'best debates' aren't
| debates so much as interviews.
|
| I'm bothered that you describe that as a debate.
| psychphysic wrote:
| You're nicely applying the JRE method here.
|
| The problem is that the other definition of 'debate' is
| competitive and people have interests to appear correct more
| than to be correct.
| badcppdev wrote:
| To follow the spirit of the original linked article I will
| choose to accept that a debate can be defined as a
| conversation where one person presents their ideas and
| another person listens and asks clarifying questions in a
| generally non-argumentative manner.
|
| With the JRE you seem to be saying that the guest is
| arguing that their ideas are correct and JR is arguing the
| negative but only through the use of questions and
| occasional direct counters to the guests argument.
|
| Seems like a debate to me although also fits the definition
| of an interview.
| psychphysic wrote:
| It's not dissimilar from the socratic method.
|
| But he leaves the direct criticism to the audience.
|
| He will almost never use the phrases "I don't think
| that's correct" or similar.
|
| Louis Theroux?
| badcppdev wrote:
| I always thought the socratic method was where somebody
| (Socrates) was teaching something to a student. I'm going
| to go out on a limb and say that doesn't seem right for
| describing the JRE
|
| But I think Louis Theroux has a not dissimilar style.
|
| (Unless you're asking me if I'm Louis... I'm not)
| Cthulhu_ wrote:
| That's the mark of a good host (or debater), instead of arguing
| directly (confrontational), they encourage the other party to
| think.
|
| You don't win a debate with arguments and counter-arguments,
| you win it by letting the other person come to and change their
| own conclusions.
| mikotodomo wrote:
| The way I always lose debates on social media is when a pedophile
| (or pedophile defender) argues with me. They have an answer for
| everything. I don't have that much time to be on screen to argue
| with them.
| vlowrian wrote:
| Ah, the good old cognitive dissonance between striving to be
| right and the higher goal of learning and progressing as
| humanity. For those interested, I recommend this article from
| Psychology Today:
| https://www.psychologytoday.com/intl/blog/maybe-its-just-me/...
| pictur wrote:
| You can't understand people with empty arguments. on the
| contrary, you get prejudices or wrong impressions about them. I
| think it makes more sense to listen to people to understand. If
| you want to understand.
| college_physics wrote:
| It requires energy to pay attention to others and walk in their
| shoes. Attaching a stereotypical label and switching off / ending
| the debate is the low cost option
|
| Ergo, we must reclaim quality time for engaging with others if we
| want to live in quality societies
| kuu wrote:
| I would say that more importantly than winning or losing a debate
| is to know which debate you should participate.
| Cthulhu_ wrote:
| Great point. A lot of people debate for debate's sake, because
| their opinion is out there. That's probably what I do on HN, I
| post and never look back or respond to any replies. Not a good
| trait, but anyway.
|
| Best thing to do, if you detect you're about to enter a debate,
| is to ask "What would it take for you to change your opinion?".
| If they reply with "nothing" or a vague answer or whatever,
| exit the debate. Likewise though, ask yourself the same
| question.
| nibbleshifter wrote:
| About 99% of the time IRL, debating is pointless and just
| annoying to everyone present.
| whstl wrote:
| Yeah, couldn't agree more. They also can be annoying online,
| so people just ignore. On Reddit you often see very long,
| deep, threads with 1-karma posts that nobody even bothers to
| vote for. On HN those long debates not only take a lot of
| space, and you often see moderators telling people to stop.
|
| Sometimes you gotta preemptively "lose" a debate, by not
| answering at all. At most a "Alright, I get your point but I
| disagree" which also doesn't really add much to the
| discussion.
| jojobas wrote:
| > The Muslim explains why Islamic law is a perfect recipe for
| peace.
|
| Let me rephrase it for a second.
|
| > The Communist explains why global USSR is a perfect recipe for
| peace.
|
| > The Nazi explains why Reich is a perfect recipe for peace.
|
| Sometimes you have to wish for an idea to die, too bad if some of
| its carriers have to go with it.
| bsuvc wrote:
| OP assumes everyone debating him is doing so in good faith.
|
| These "learnings" he is taking to heart could very well be built
| on lies and ill intentions of those he is debating.
|
| Sure, it is good to be open to new information, but it's not
| wrong to develop a worldview based on your own objective
| observations, experience, and research, that is firm and not open
| to sway by agenda-holding groups and individuals who seek to
| "enlighten you".
| eggie5 wrote:
| Years later, still puzzling over Thomas Jefferson's passivity at
| Philadelphia, John Adams would claim that "during the whole time
| I sat with him in Congress, I never heard him utter three
| sentence together"
|
| Jefferson, himself would one day advise a grandson, "when I hear
| another express an opinion which is not mine, I say to myself, he
| has a right to his opinion, as I to mine." And "Why should I
| question it. His error does me no injury, and shall I become a
| Don Quixote, to bring all men by force of argument to one
| opinion?... Be a listener only, keep within yourself, and
| endeavor to establish with yourself the habit of silence,
| especially in politics."
| pjerem wrote:
| > Why should I question it. His error does me no injury
|
| Isn't that an incredibly dangerous behavior especially in
| political debates ? I mean, wrong political opinions do injure
| people. Maybe not the other people in the room but the people
| who elected them.
|
| Do I miss something ?
| eggie5 wrote:
| As Adams agreed, it was quite the perplexing philosophy.
| However, who won in the end? The firebrand Adams or stoic
| Jefferson???
| trynewideas wrote:
| > Do I miss something ?
|
| Yes, the part of governmental politics that involves creating
| and enforcing policy. Jefferson would listen to people's
| arguments in legislature but infrequently debated them
| because his strength (in his own estimation, at least) was in
| writing responses, especially as policy proposals.
|
| Someone _speaking_ a disagreement does him no harm, even if
| what 's being described would be harmful. But someone
| _implementing_ something he viewed harmful in _enforced
| policy_ is different, and he treated it very differently.
|
| Governmental politics tends to emphasize, even glamorize, the
| former, but the latter is what actually affects people and
| Jefferson often focused his attention on it.
|
| One could strongly suggest that Jefferson's preference for
| written arguments and policy over political debate and
| lobbying is why Hamilton had more _effective_ Federalist
| influence over early policies of the United States, and
| manifests even more strongly in Jefferson 's prescriptions
| for the republic -- the Declaration of Independence and Bill
| of Rights, wanting to rewrite the Constitution every 20
| years, his opposition to slavery and promotion of universal
| free education, freedom both of and from religion in
| government, strongly held national liberties and local self-
| government -- many of which were at the time, or have always
| been, ignored in practice.
| MisterBastahrd wrote:
| Thomas Jefferson was as privileged as they come. Of course
| he'd have that opinion. He was at the top of the pyramid.
| Opinions held by his fellow man would have no impact on him
| personally.
| highland586 wrote:
| Listening and taking someone's point of view has nothing to do
| with debating. When you're actually listening, you're not
| debating anymore. It's a life skill.
| zmxz wrote:
| Why post this comment? Asking out of curiosity, trying to
| listen to view your point.
| highland586 wrote:
| Some comments higher up conveyed it better than I did myself.
|
| I feel like losing a debate and understanding someone else's
| point of view/learning from them are separate things. In my
| own experience a debate is not the ideal means of
| communication if I want to empathize or understand someone
| better. But as groestl points out, this is a personal matter.
| groestl wrote:
| That might be your preferred way of learning. As for myself, I
| can't take someone's POV without understanding. And I can't
| understand without exposing my current model to be shaped by
| someone's counterarguments. For me there's no better way to
| learn (apart from explaining and being met with unexpected
| questions, which I enjoy even more).
| brmgb wrote:
| I find this article amusing. I think it puts forward something
| interesting but frame it completely incorrectly.
|
| The author doesn't actually want to lose debates even if it
| doesn't seem to realise it. He doesn't want to have debates at
| all. He just wants to have conversations with people and less
| preconceptions. That's something I'm completely in line with. I
| believe we suffer as a society from a collective excess of
| opinions.
|
| The funny thing is that even when he tries to describe is
| prejudice in an unprejudiced way, he horribly fails at it.
| noduerme wrote:
| Astral Codex he ain't
| chengiz wrote:
| I agree he frames it incorrectly, but he has not failed in
| terms of results. If he framed it as "I want to talk to
| people", it would not be posted on HN, and no one would be
| visiting his site or discussing his shower thought.
| noduerme wrote:
| It's not really healthy to view such a thing as success,
| unless your goal is to become good at bullshitting people (as
| opposed to creating lasting things of value that you can be
| proud of). Lots of great projects show up in HN and receive
| no views. On the other hand lots of self promoters who say
| nothing imortant get tons of views. Ideally you'd want to be
| in the middle, where you made something awesome _and_ were
| good at promoting it.
| robalni wrote:
| I feel like there are two different things that are often talked
| about as the same thing:
|
| 1. Wanting to understand and learn. Here you use the help of
| another person to figure out what the best solution or the right
| answer to something is, or just to understand how something works
| or in other ways improve your knowledge. There is no winner or
| loser; the only outcome is whether the discussion was successful
| or not.
|
| 2. Wanting to prove how much you already know or that your idea
| is the correct one. This is just about showing everyone that you
| (or your idea and therefore you) are better than the other
| person, not about what you learn from it. Here there is a winner
| and loser; you win if you appear to know the right answer from
| the start.
|
| These are two very different things; you could even say that they
| are opposites. In number 1, the goal is to learn. In number 2,
| the goal is not to learn but to stay with your current idea. Why
| don't we have different words for these two things?
|
| It seems like in this article, what he is talking about is doing
| number 1 but talking about it as if it were number 2.
|
| Could the reason that we talk about these two things as the same
| thing be that people often do both at the same time? In that case
| maybe they want to appear as already knowing but secretly still
| trying to learn something. Or maybe they only try to learn but
| others are judging them as if they should already know everything
| from the start, and that way misunderstanding what they are
| doing.
| fluoridation wrote:
| Consider this: You have an idea about how things are and this
| other person has another idea in direct contradiction with
| yours, such that at most one of the two can be right. If you
| want to treat their idea as if it has merit then you have to
| argue with them to understand why they think what they think
| and how well their idea fits in with other facts you already
| know. If you care about the truth then you will need to subject
| their idea to the same harsh trials your own idea (presumably)
| passed, and if there's any possible flaws or inconsistencies
| you'll want to dig in to thoroughly understand everything. You
| _might_ that in fact you were wrong all along and this idea is
| actually better than yours.
|
| Do you see how and why one might want to learn something new
| while outwardly appearing to want to prove themselves right
| (or, more accurately, to prove the other person wrong)? An idea
| that one can't prove wrong is certainly worth considering
| seriously.
| robalni wrote:
| > Do you see how and why one might want to learn something
| new while outwardly appearing to want to prove themselves
| right (or, more accurately, to prove the other person wrong)?
| An idea that one can't prove wrong is certainly worth
| considering seriously.
|
| Yes, this is exactly what I meant by my last sentence. Two
| people may want to learn something and in order to do that
| they have to "attack" each other's ideas so it may look to
| other people like the goal is just to prove how correct they
| are, and that the one who does that is the winner, when the
| real goal is to learn the truth, and proving that you are
| correct is just a way to get closer to that goal.
|
| So it seems like the difference is that in number 2, proving
| that you are correct is the goal, while in number 1 it is a
| tool you use to reach the other goal.
| fluoridation wrote:
| "Always wanting to be right" is something I've been accused
| of since I was little, when all I've always wanted was to
| know as few false things as possible, even before I could
| articulate that thought like that. In my experience, people
| who don't like or want to argue, which is most people, will
| always assume that someone who is arguing is doing #2 no
| matter what. I don't think someone can correctly tell which
| of the two the other person is doing.
| jonathanstrange wrote:
| To each their own, but I prefer argumentative and opinionated
| people and have nothing against discussions even when they become
| heated. In my experience, there is much more to learn from others
| by discussing a topic than by "listening" to them. Good
| discussions take a certain emotional detachment from the topic,
| though, and when that is lost it _can_ become unpleasant. But in
| my opinion "pleasant" isn't a major criterion for good
| conversations.
| SilasX wrote:
| Clickbaity way to say it, but yes, I like to "lose debates" in
| the way Sivers describes here. For the same reason, I'm very
| tolerant of rudeness and disrespect if and when it comes with an
| insight that makes my understanding of something click.
|
| Also for the same reason I like to say, "Don't tell me I'm wrong;
| instead, improve my worldmodel to the point that you no longer
| have to, because the wrongness will be obvious."
|
| But I'm not sure that what Sivers describes here is coterminous
| with "losing a debate". Rather, it's just one way you might "lose
| a debate". In practice, losing a debate more often looks
| something more like:
|
| 1) The other side stubbornly refuses to engage with your point
| while effectively signaling you're a bad person despite endorsing
| the same tradeoffs you do. [B]
|
| 2) The other side points being so muddled that you can't untangle
| what they're disagreeing with or what makes your point wrong, but
| they speak with that confidence that everyone wants to agree with
| them. [A]
|
| I don't like losing a debate those ways.
|
| [A] Example of this kind of misdirection from _Thank You For
| Smoking_ : https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xuaHRN7UhRo
|
| [B] Recent example from HN:
| https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=33900804
| pattisapu wrote:
| Vigorous debate is a good thing.
|
| It's about learning to turn it off afterwards.
|
| Debate at its best is where the issues are at stake -- not the
| relationship. Getting clear on that is an important communicative
| and emotional skill.
|
| The problem with "wanting to lose" in this post is how fake and
| sentimental that attitude can become, against our best
| intentions.
|
| If both sides can put their cards on the table, that's a more
| productive conversation, rather than one side shutting up and
| keeping theirs close to the vest.
|
| Confrontation is not an evil to be avoided. Hurting others is the
| harm to be avoided. Those are two very different things.
| Sometimes avoiding confrontation hurts oneself and others the
| very most.
|
| Furthermore, there is no logical reason why one should default to
| thinking that only others will bring value to the conversation,
| and that one's own experience and judgment are not as important
| to share. By sharing one's thoughts, the other side may hear,
| learn, or rethink something that could change their lives. To the
| extent that "wanting to lose" consciously or unconsciously
| results in one bringing less of a certain energy to a debate,
| that's an opportunity lost for everyone.
|
| Discernment and diplomacy are the valuable skills here. Again,
| rather than check out (whether smugly or earnestly), instead,
| let's make efforts to figure out when, where, why, and with whom
| to turn on the heat, -- and then turn it off.
|
| Sportsmanship among athletes and collegiality among lawyers are
| good examples of this in practice.
|
| "And do as adversaries do in law,
|
| Strive mightily, but eat and drink as friends."
|
| --Shakespeare, The Taming of the Shrew, Act I, sc. 2.
| the_af wrote:
| > _The problem with "wanting to lose" in this post is how fake
| and sentimental that attitude can become, against our best
| intentions._
|
| Yes. Plus it can seem condescending. I wouldn't want to debate
| anything with someone adopting some sort of "philosophical
| master" stance that "through losing" will achieve enlightening.
| I prefer the other person gets angry if need be, which at least
| is honest, rather than trying to play some Socratic bullshit on
| me.
|
| It comes across as "I'm better than you, let me show you that
| to lose is actually to win".
| francisofascii wrote:
| > The problem with "wanting to lose" in this post is how fake
| and sentimental that attitude can become, against our best
| intentions.
|
| A better way might be to say, "losing can be good" If you put
| your best forward, and still lose, then you learned something,
| and hopefully became stronger. In the same way tennis players
| always want to play people better than them, because they will
| get better playing a superior player even when they lose.
| AlbertCory wrote:
| Great analysis. I'd extend it to "interview." I had a chance to
| do some interviews on a podcast (for a change, I'll dispense with
| the shameless self-promotion and not link to it), and I had a
| chance to practice this. I tried to remember, "the listener is
| not here to listen to ME; they're here to listen to the
| interviewee."
|
| Also sometimes watching the old Dick Cavett show on OTA. It's a
| miracle that they ever let a guy like him on television. He
| actually _talked_ to his guests, rather than reading off some cue
| cards his producers gave him.
| qrng wrote:
| As a matter of fact, this logic is expedient for those who want
| to brainwash someone. Sure, you may have to listen to the weak
| people you think are "stupid," and that gives you a new
| perspective. But not in the case of some huge media. They just
| want to sensitize people with convenient political and commercial
| propaganda. Punch the strong and sympathize with the weak.
| Octokiddie wrote:
| > ... I don't want to convince anyone of my existing perspective.
| I would rather be convinced of theirs. It's more interesting to
| assume that they are right.
|
| There's no need to assume anything. Ask good questions instead.
|
| It might not seem like it, but asking questions is one of the
| most important skills there is. This skill is not taught in K-12.
| If anything, you're taught to assume that what you read/see is
| right. In many degree programs, you also won't be taught how to
| ask questions but rather repeat what you've read or heard, with
| some level of analysis.
|
| The difference between good questions and bad questions often
| comes down to _leading_. The subtext of a leading question is
| that the asker is trying to push the askee in a particular
| direction. Those question tend to yield bad answers of the kind
| that won 't convince you of much.
|
| Better questions are interrogative-led. They start with words
| like "who", "where", "what" and "why", not words like "do" or
| "are". It takes practice to ask these kinds of questions and the
| follow-ups that are needed to actually be convinced by someone
| else's argument.
| AstixAndBelix wrote:
| The article's title is about debates, but all he gives are
| examples of conversations (except maybe one). I don't think you
| can really compare debates with discussions, thus drawing this
| conclusion from unrelated lived experiences does not make much
| sense to me
| Kukumber wrote:
| you only loose if you refuse to debate
|
| OP got it wrong
| Connor_Creegan wrote:
| Obviously not every convo needs to be a _duh-bate_. but "works
| for me/them" is a pretty low bar for veracity or moral
| permissibility.
| UhUhUhUh wrote:
| Let's not forget the Prime Directive.
| wesleywt wrote:
| Not every opinion is worth your time.
| t43562 wrote:
| In my family we like arguing about things. Our way of doing so is
| quite animated and enthusiastic. We're trying to get our point
| heard of course but the real pleasure is perhaps that it is a
| fight in the sense of a water pistol fight or a game of rugby or
| something like that. It's mental exercise with excitement and
| humor.
|
| It doesn't suit everyone and might seem alarming. Also we sort of
| play the game with the underlying attitude that it is all
| unimportant and that we admire and like each other.
|
| The mind changing never happens then but sometimes it happens a
| few days later.
|
| I HATE changing my mind but usually after I have I'm glad I did
| it. It's very uncomfortable but to say that nothing can change
| what I think would be to admit that I wasn't thinking anymore. It
| would be awful to be like that.
| baryphonic wrote:
| How peculiar that every "debate" this person has lost is in the
| same ideological direction. How would this person respond to:
|
| - the Christian explaining that the resurrection of Jesus is a
| historical fact?
|
| - the prosecutor describing the heinous crimes of the people
| she's put behind bars?
|
| - the sibling of an addict denouncing opiates & opioids, meth,
| crack and the drug trade?
|
| Where's the limit for this person when encountering:
|
| - the pederast who describes his perversion as "love?"
|
| - the practitioner of FGM who praises it as a "tradition?"
|
| - the religious fanatic who believes God has told him to kill?
|
| I hope the person would be at least open to the first set of
| people, and would be willing to "win" against the second set.
|
| Overall, I think the framing is a bit wrong. Having an open mind
| doesn't mean you have to stick your finger in the wind, and
| having firmly held beliefs without experience, knowledge or
| wisdom doesn't mean you need to preach them vociferously. Certain
| things are true, and certain perspectives are not so valuable.
| fleddr wrote:
| Agree, in the same ideological direction and all of them
| inconsequential. It's very easy to have an "open mind" when no
| stakes are involved.
| kypro wrote:
| These days I try to actively confuse myself as to what positions
| I hold in the aim to be more objective with my reasoning. As best
| I can I try to block out thinking in terms of labels completely.
|
| When I was younger I cared a lot about having very clear, well
| defined opinions. I adopted labels to describe my positions and
| would wear these labels with pride as I believed them to be
| correct and well-reasoned. Eg, I am a liberal. I am pro-choice. I
| am anti-war.
|
| But truth was I wasn't 100% liberal, pro-choice, or anti-war.
| There were circumstances where I could hold more nuanced opinions
| depending on the context. But because I adopted these labels I
| was always really reluctant to acknowledge when nuances existed.
| This was especially true the more gray the right answer was. For
| example, a lot of people who are anti-war believe the US was
| right to join the fight against the Nazis. But what about the
| American civil war? What about supporting Ukraine against Russia.
| Are these justified positions too?
|
| Suddenly it's difficult to claim to be anti-war while also be a
| supporter of many major conflicts. How can someone who claims to
| be anti-war be in favour of so many wars? You know rationally you
| can't be anti-war and also pro-war when it suites you so you
| might be tempted to try to rationalise why actually the American
| civil war shouldn't have been fought or why Ukraine should just
| let Russia win to preserve peace.
|
| Equally assigning labels to others is also bad. What if you were
| arguing with someone you consider a racist and they make a good
| point? No matter how correct they are to acknowledge that point
| is difficult because suddenly that risks agreeing with a racist.
| I'm from the UK and I've seen this with the EDL here. While a lot
| of their opinions are awful, they also occasionally can make good
| points about issues like grooming gangs and Islamic extremism
| here in the UK. The problem as no one wanted to agree with them
| about anything so Islamic extremism and grooming gangs got
| labelled a far-right conspiracy. I suppose a more recent example
| of this was with Covid. In 2021 agree with any argument against
| mass government mandated vaccination programs was often
| considered being anti-vax.
|
| My head is far more muddled these days. I believe I'm more
| objective and flexible in my thinking though. I'm saying this
| because while being happy to lose a debate and change your mind
| is great, no one goes into a debate to lose - especially not to
| someone you view as an ideological enemy in some form. As soon as
| you assign labels to yourself and think in terms of "winning" and
| "losing" it's very difficult to think rationally about anything.
| Giorgi wrote:
| >The Muslim explains why Islamic law is a perfect recipe for
| peace.
|
| That would be so funny to listen to. Mental gymnastics would be
| trough roof.
| qwertox wrote:
| I don't get it.
|
| There are many sex workers which are forced to do this job, some
| even under threat.
|
| I also don't see an issue using analogies to explain things.
|
| Was the Hindu person poor itself? If so, how has this person
| dealt with sickness in the family?
|
| Any religion is a perfect recipe for peace, it just depends on
| the fairness and good will of those practicing it.
|
| Why should partying not be a good thing as long as it is done in
| a good balance, and why would an ugly tattoo require an
| explanation, unless a good story can be told about it?
|
| What does any of the above have to do with stupidity? I certainly
| wouldn't want to lose a debate about why murdering someone can be
| considered a good thing.
|
| I just don't understand the spirit in which that article has been
| written. But then again, "TED speaker" kind of explains it a bit.
| aeturnum wrote:
| This does have enormous TED energy.
|
| I think the idea is to quickly touch on profiles of people
| whose world views (apparently?) contradict the authors and then
| to promote the idea of listening, with an open heart, to people
| who you believe at the outset are misguided. I think this is
| because it's common for us to find powerful new insights into
| how people see the world or feel about things when temporarily
| we set aside our judgements and understand the internal logic
| of people we disagree with? That people make more sense once
| you see things with their eyes, and then also the world makes
| more sense because those people want things in the world too?
|
| I dunno, it's pretty fluffy.
| BeetleB wrote:
| > I certainly wouldn't want to lose a debate about why
| murdering someone can be considered a good thing.
|
| Serious question: What is the benefit of winning this debate?
| dgfitz wrote:
| I sure wouldn't be upset if someone murdered Putin, ideally
| 11 months ago.
| qwertox wrote:
| It would be someone presenting me this argument, like one can
| assume other people were presenting the author their
| arguments "pro sex work" which the author apparently never
| considered.
|
| Someone presenting me an argument that "murdering someone can
| be considered a good thing" and them wanting me to lose this
| argument is something which I would not want to happen.
|
| I think the issue in that sentence was the double negative in
| addition to the lack of definition of who is proposing that
| argument.
|
| But assuming you did not get confused: I would prefer to live
| in a society where it's considered a good thing to not murder
| others and if this were up for debate, I sure hope I would
| not get convinced of the opposite, which would mean "losing
| the debate" in the way the author means it.
| BeetleB wrote:
| > I would prefer to live in a society where it's considered
| a good thing to not murder others and if this were up for
| debate, I sure hope I would not get convinced of the
| opposite, which would mean "losing the debate" in the way
| the author means it.
|
| I'm going to be downvoted like crazy for saying this, but
| it seems you are making these statements with a feeling of
| safety because you are assuming the vast majority of people
| reading this comment (i.e. on HN) share your views. Other
| than that, there is nothing different in your attitude than
| the folks in countries I have lived in where they would
| say:
|
| > I would prefer to live in a society where it's considered
| a good thing to not let women get a college degree and
| marry them off in their teens and if this were up for
| debate, I sure hope I would not get convinced of the
| opposite.
|
| They too make these statements because they are in a
| community where the majority share their views.
|
| A better way of knowing you are right is to allow the
| possibility of being wrong. If you are going to go in with
| the mindset of "Of course I'm right and I need to win",
| chances are you will process the other party's arguments
| very differently compared to "I think I am right but I'd
| like to see why other people think differently."
| qwertox wrote:
| Feels like the Republican vs. Libertarians issue. Like
| the author accidentally noticed that there are other
| valid point of views. "Maybe those LGBT groups do make a
| point and should be accepted and integrated just the way
| they are."
|
| But honestly, there are just facts which are settled in
| the larger community and trying to negate them just
| doesn't lead anywhere, when the fruitful discussion is in
| "the smaller issues".
|
| We (as in "we from the West") don't have anything to gain
| from entertaining thoughts like reconsidering the banning
| of women from any type of education. That's a settled
| topic. And luckily in my country the murdering issue is
| also a settled topic, specially if put in contrast to
| what is currently happening in Iran.
|
| Maybe what triggered me was his title and his cheering
| about his enlightenment. "The benefits of listening to
| other people's opinions" vs. "I want to lose every
| debate".
| temptemptemp111 wrote:
| [dead]
| janjones wrote:
| A book on this topic: Think Again [1]
|
| [1] https://adamgrant.net/book/think-again/
| zestyping wrote:
| When your goal is simply to learn, then you can listen instead of
| debating.
|
| Sometimes the outcome matters, though. Sometimes there is
| justice, well-being, or kindness at stake.
| renewiltord wrote:
| I actually want to win every debate. Winning is hitting delta
| less than something small. The whole point is for each utterance
| to increase information gain. Aumann's Agreement Theorem always
| applies so if you get IG = 0 at any stage it is worth considering
| if the discussion is worth it.
|
| Additionally, verbal and textual conversations lack the depth to
| transmit the full state of the probabilities in your model.
|
| Consequently, it is often useful, as a participant, to break off
| a miniclone of oneself to perform the information interchange and
| then integrate it into the rest afterwards. You can't tabula rasa
| the miniclone easily because of the bootstrap time but you can't
| retain elasticity of your true mind. A more plastic form of
| yourself can work well.
|
| The problem is that this approach is susceptible to information
| contagion.
| varispeed wrote:
| When "debating" I often was presenting a point of view I disagree
| with as if it was mine and trying to defend it as best as I could
| based on the information I have to see what other people have
| against it, whether it makes sense and if it is similar to what I
| actually think about it. It was helpful to me, as often the point
| I disagreed with, was actually "the right way" and I was able to
| keep being out of my bubble. That being said, people often
| believed that what I say is what I actually believe in and so
| many won't even speak to me because they think I am a twt. I
| guess I was good at this.
| thenerdhead wrote:
| The stoics would say two ears, one mouth and the Buddhists would
| say the ears have no lids but all else do. Everyone is right in
| their own perspective. That's why it is called a point of view.
| entropyneur wrote:
| All of these "debates" are about how someone else's way of life
| makes sense for them. The world would be a better place if we
| assumed this is the case most of the time instead of having to be
| convinced of it.
| wnkrshm wrote:
| You can understand people and where they come from, information
| about why they believe what they believe. But it's naive to think
| this can always foster common ground - some beliefs are entirely
| incompatible with the existence of the listener.
| Cthulhu_ wrote:
| I've heard a good one about that; there's opinions and there's
| morals. You can debate about whether, idk, donuts are good or
| not; that's a personal opinion, the stakes are pretty low with
| that.
|
| But other disagreements are on a moral level; things like
| racism, some people are morally bankrupt and have Strong
| Beliefs about what should happen with people not like them. I
| don't believe you can (or should) debate with people like that.
|
| And I think that the anti-science 'debates' can also hit people
| on a moral level; how DARE you hold these strong beliefs that
| do hold up to scientific scruteny? (think flat earthers etc).
| fluoridation wrote:
| I completely disagree. Silence is implicit agreement in some
| (and I would argue most, at one time or another) people's
| minds. A fringe mentality that doesn't encounter any push-
| back will tend to exacerbate itself further and further. If
| an idea is not factually wrong anyone can be convinced of it.
| Anyone can be made racist or tolerant given the right
| argument.
| JAlexoid wrote:
| I have read multiple times, that debates cannot be won or lost.
|
| People don't change their minds as a result of debates, thus it's
| impossible to win or lose a debate.
|
| What the author talks about isn't a debate, but rather learning.
| [deleted]
| somenameforme wrote:
| I believe I feel this way. I think many, if not the vast majority
| of us do. Now for a little test. When was the last time you lost
| a debate on a topic you felt strongly about? And not a debate
| that further reaffirmed your own biases (I used to believe X was
| bad, but wow I was wrong - it's WAY worse than bad) but actually
| a meaningful swap from (X is bad) to (X is not bad).
|
| In my case, the answer is never. Now I'd like to imagine this is
| obviously because I'm the most intelligent, objective, and
| insightful individual to have ever lived. Of course I suspect the
| actual reason is because anything worth debating will always have
| reasonable arguments for both sides. And so long as your
| arguments are reasonably factually based, it's never really
| possible to lose a debate, unless you choose to. You can learn
| new things, expand your worldview, but losing will only happen if
| you want it to. Hence the reason I added that qualifier about
| swapping worldviews as opposed to enhancing a prior held one.
|
| Of course this doesn't preclude major worldview shifting change
| from happening, but it happens over long periods of times for
| reasons that I don't think any of us can really pin down. It's
| going to be a butterfly effect of a million little factors.
| The_Colonel wrote:
| > but actually a meaningful swap from (X is bad) to (X is not
| bad). In my case, the answer is never.
|
| I think you did, otherwise you would never change your
| opinions, which I doubt.
|
| But I think it works more subtly. I've noticed that when I lose
| a debate, my immediate emotional response is rejection - the
| person is wrong, my opinion is right, even though I couldn't
| effectively justify it.
|
| But once the emotional hurt of loss wears off, it will
| sometimes (not always) move my position, sometimes a little
| bit, sometimes completely. It can take days, months, sometimes
| years.
| vidarh wrote:
| I tend to see this as down to how heated the debates are. For
| combative debates, I tend to be far more likely to move my
| position if I'm _audience_ than participating. For less
| heated discussions, I may well move my position during the
| discussion itself. Keeping the temperature down matters if
| you want to convince the other person(s); letting the
| temperature rise _sometimes_ works if your goal is to
| convince an audience.
| Cthulhu_ wrote:
| > But once the emotional hurt of loss wears off, it will
| sometimes (not always) move my position, sometimes a little
| bit, sometimes completely. It can take days, months,
| sometimes years.
|
| That's exactly it; I'm convinced people's opinions can and
| will change over time, but they take time.
|
| This is used in subtle ways too with modern-day internet and
| social media (and before that, newspaper headlines); people
| will scan the internet's headlines and depending on what they
| see, form an opinion. If all you see is headlines about
| police brutality, you will be convinced that the police is
| corrupt and violent and shit. If all you see is headlines
| about a demographic being involved in crime, you'll form
| prejudices about them.
| peteradio wrote:
| > but it happens over long periods of times for reasons that I
| don't think any of us can really pin down
|
| Well having kids can change how you view things quite abruptly.
| astrobe_ wrote:
| > And so long as your arguments are reasonably factually based,
| it's never really possible to lose a debate, unless you choose
| to
|
| That's the trouble with the expression "losing a debate". There
| is the notion that you've been defeated. So what actually
| happened is not a debate, but a fight. A debate is something
| you can learn from, a gain.
| anthonypasq wrote:
| Debates are for the audience, not for you.
|
| No one changes their mind in real time. Even if they know they
| are wrong their ego digs in in the moment.
|
| Truly consequential shifts in your thinking happen gradually
| over time.
| NoboruWataya wrote:
| I've probably never changed a deeply held belief after a single
| conversation, but my beliefs have changed over time and those
| changes have been aided by discussions I've had along the way.
| I think it takes me a long time to form a strong view on
| something and, once formed, it also takes a long time to change
| or abandon that view. Even if I participate in a conversation
| where relevant new information is imparted to me or my
| reasoning is shown to be flawed, I'm likely to take that away
| and chew it over (and do my own research) before changing my
| position.
| prettyStandard wrote:
| Comments from strangers on the internet have changed my
| opinions.
| concordDance wrote:
| I've definitely had debates where I became a lot less sure of
| things I was reasonably informed on. A discussion that ends
| with "I'll have to go away and think about that" is a good one.
| mypastself wrote:
| At a younger and more formative age, I'd engage in online
| discussions with people who had completely opposite views
| from mine. And I've had my mind changed plenty of times.
|
| It's happening less in the past decade or so, because I've
| already had many of the same discussions, and I'm sure partly
| because I'm becoming more rigid as I age.
|
| But many online forums also reduce visibility of unpopular
| comments, and it's harder to engage in some of those
| discussions. This is the reason I never downvote, even the
| most awful takes.
| randomdata wrote:
| _> When was the last time you lost a debate on a topic you felt
| strongly about?_
|
| Why would you talk about something you feel strongly about in
| the first place? If you are sure you have got it all figured
| out, there is nothing left to talk about. Discussion is only
| useful when you recognize gaps in your understanding and are
| able to learn more about it.
|
| _> it 's never really possible to lose a debate_
|
| It is. If you cannot compel the other party to offer you
| information that you can successfully learn from, you've lost.
| A debate is only won if you've learned something from it.
| Which, again, is why it would be rather illogical to debate
| something you feel strongly about. What can you learn if you
| already have it figured out? If you truly know it all you are
| guaranteed to lose every time, and at that point why waste your
| time?
| saeranv wrote:
| But what about the person who argues that you should want to win
| every debate!?!?
| Existenceblinks wrote:
| In english this seems to be called "debate bro culture"? In my
| language it's called like "debate horny". The gist of this thing
| is oppose to loseless context, so there's always part of context
| that is lost. Debate is close to talking in analogy. It will
| leads you to something but not the thing as a whole.
| tsuujin wrote:
| I'd like to offer an alternative framing: don't debate at all,
| just listen.
|
| While high school debate did teach me many positive lessons and I
| am thankful that I spent four years of my life doing it, many
| years later I have come to understand that it also taught me
| something truly negative: that the point of a conversation is to
| win.
|
| I have put a lot of time in my adult life unlearning that trait,
| and reflecting on the harm it did to my relationships with other
| people.
|
| If you want to grow like OP here suggests--which I think is a
| valuable, worthwhile goal--you will do yourself a great service
| in learning to listen. I know we all think that we do this, but I
| don't think many of us actually do.
|
| When you talk to others, take note of how much of the time you
| spend formulating a response. I know that for me, I find that
| frequently I'm already generating my rebuttal before they finish
| speaking. I am effectively listening to respond, not to hear what
| they have to say. I'm much much better at listening to hear today
| than I was a decade ago, but I still have to correct myself on
| this routinely.
|
| It's important to note that you can listen to hear and still be
| free to respond; if you want to have an interesting conversation
| you will definitely need to put in some effort too. Just make
| sure that you're internalizing what they've said before you form
| a response to it. It will almost certainly slow down the pace of
| a conversation but stands a decent chance of making each exchange
| a lot more interesting for both of you.
|
| I really believe that the most profound realizations of my life
| have come when I shut up and put in the effort to internalize
| what other people around me were doing and saying.
| mistermann wrote:
| > It will almost certainly slow down the pace of a conversation
| but stands a decent chance of making each exchange a lot more
| interesting for both of you.
|
| Deliberately slowing conversations down to one 100th of their
| normal pace might produce some interesting results. In a sense,
| this is one of the techniques that science uses, and it seems
| to reliably produce excellent outcomes in fairly complicated
| problem spaces.
| dkarl wrote:
| > don't debate at all, just listen
|
| I think that depends on how familiar they are with your
| perspective. You don't want to think of the interaction as
| unequal, with you taking the higher perspective of observing
| both their ideas and yours, appreciating and integrating them,
| while they only exist in their own point of view, the observed
| to your observer.
|
| If they understand your perspective but you don't know theirs,
| it makes sense for them to do most of the talking. But if they
| don't understand where you're coming from, then a one-sided
| conversation is one-sided in a bad way. It's like looking at
| them through a telescope. You'll have your reactions to their
| ideas, but you won't have their reactions to yours, their
| reactions to your reactions.
| [deleted]
| erenyeager wrote:
| Same experience with high school debate, there must be dozens
| of us.
| Winsaucerer wrote:
| > While high school debate did teach me many positive lessons
| and I am thankful that I spent four years of my life doing it,
| many years later I have come to understand that it also taught
| me something truly negative: that the point of a conversation
| is to win.
|
| I've always enjoyed arguing (in the sense of a polite dialogue
| between two who disagree). But for me, even though I enjoy
| arguing, being right is more important -- which includes trying
| to cultivate the discipline to recognise and acknowledge when
| my interlocutor makes a good point, and trying to understand
| why they think what they do.
|
| At university, I checked out the debating club, thinking it
| might be a good fit for me, but I was wrong. There, the goal
| seemed to be purely to win, correctness be damned. I found the
| arguments they marshaled towards their goal to be dishonest and
| contrary to the goals of increasing understanding and getting
| to the heart of a matter.
|
| I can see how that could be seen as a sport or competition of
| sorts, but I worried about the kind of habits it might form. It
| is too similar to the kind of arguing I enjoy that it would be
| easy to slip from one mode to the other if those debate club
| type skills were developed and honed.
| noduerme wrote:
| Derek Sivers never listened to anything, he's a narcissistic
| maniac who floods the email boxes of everyone on every list
| he's ever had with self-help advice that's never more than the
| most thinly disguised self-promotion.
|
| Please stop talking as if his writing is profound.
| BlueTemplar wrote:
| Even a broken clock is right once in a while. I can
| understand your reaction if that is your experience with him
| (first time I hear of the guy), but it at least seems to have
| created some constructive discussion here.
| noduerme wrote:
| fair. The discussion is good. Mostly projection on a shell
| through which some think they can hear the sea, but maybe
| better than a dead silent room.
| cmilton wrote:
| What do you think about losing every debate?
| noduerme wrote:
| aw man, you're gonna force me to read this? fuck. ok. give
| me a minute.
|
| ...
|
| Okay, I think that as expected the word salad doesn't do
| anything to expand on the subject; it's another grossly
| compact attempt at telling everyone what a crazy and
| interesting life he's had without going into detail beyond
| the barest mention that he was somewhere and talked to
| someone; serves yet again as a form of name-dropping;
| proves absolutely nothing about debate but somehow oddly
| inspires people here to go way out of their way debating
| what the author meant.
|
| In _general_? I think debate is just a byword for civil
| discussion, and the concept of winning or losing one is
| stupid. Discussions are meant to elucidate and digress and
| open both people to one another 's point of view, but
| that's no reason they shouldn't be contentious. To describe
| a contentious conversation as a debate in which someone has
| to win and someone has to lose is reductive and misses the
| point of conversation. To cast oneself as the ultimate
| martyr in such conversations by way of [losing one's ego on
| the road from Patpong to Nepal and] creating ranking click
| bait topics is pure Derek Sivers. There ya go.
| cmilton wrote:
| Thank you for that. I appreciate your conversation about
| the content of his article rather than the content of his
| character.
|
| Like others, I have no idea who Sivers is.
| the_af wrote:
| Thanks for your comment. I thought I was going crazy with all
| the responses to what reads essentially like a self-help
| quality article.
|
| Also, some of the examples are infuriating. So someone thinks
| poverty is not upsetting? Well, screw them. And the rest of
| those examples are so bland, how about "losing" every debate
| with these:
|
| - Nazism is right.
|
| - Rich people should become richer and poor people should
| become poorer.
|
| - Women should not have equal rights or vote.
|
| Go on, "listen and lose the debate", I'm sure it will be
| illuminating and productive.
| hbrn wrote:
| Losing doesn't have to mean you 100% agree with another
| party at the end. Learning something new and changing your
| original position is good enough.
|
| > someone thinks poverty is not upsetting
|
| Someone was able to find happiness in non-material things.
| Good for them.
|
| > Nazism is right
|
| Ok, but was it _absolutely_ wrong? Should we dismiss
| anything that even remotely resembles Nazism? Were there
| any good parts that Nazism had? E.g. patriotism or anti-
| communism? Short-term dictatorship can be better than
| alternatives (especially during wars). Eugenics on it 's
| own is also not bad (e.g. most people are pro-abortion when
| fetus has a deadly disease, which is a form of eugenics).
|
| > Rich people should become richer and poor people should
| become poorer
|
| Poor in US are among most wealthy people in the world.
| Instead of fighting laws of nature (a battle you cannot
| win), maybe it's better to focus on improving well-being of
| "poor"? I.e. you should be able to live a good life even if
| you are poor.
|
| > Women should not have equal rights or vote
|
| Unequal rights doesn't necessarily mean someone is being
| taken advantage of. In theory, an optimal distribution of
| rights could very well be unequal. You can also do a
| thought experiment on how society would look like if only
| families are allowed to vote (with highest earner in the
| family voting, which essentially means "women cannot
| vote").
| the_af wrote:
| > _Someone was able to find happiness in non-material
| things. Good for them._
|
| Poverty is not having to eat. Poverty is a self-
| compounding problem: you cannot eat, you cannot work (or
| not enough), you get sick, so you cannot work, etc. Every
| accident impacts someone living in poverty way more than
| someone who is not. "Find happiness in non-material
| things" is something only those who have their basic
| necessities covered have the possibility to contemplate.
|
| > _Ok, but was it absolutely wrong? Should we dismiss
| anything that even remotely resembles Nazism? Were there
| any good parts that Nazism had? E.g. patriotism or anti-
| communism?_
|
| "Yes", "yes", "no", and "no".
|
| > _Poor in US are among most wealthy people in the world_
|
| That doesn't address the worldview I mentioned, it's
| complete misdirection. The view is that the rich should
| get richer and the poor should get poorer. Engage with
| that.
|
| (Also, poverty is not "a law of nature" and it's not true
| that every poor person in the US is among the most
| wealthy people in the world).
|
| > _Unequal rights doesn 't necessarily mean someone is
| being taken advantage of._
|
| Yes it is. Your proposed experiment is bullshit.
|
| PS: you also misunderstood my prompt, which was to debate
| with people who believe what I listed, not debate _with
| me_. I don 't care to debate with you about those awful,
| made-up and purposefully stupid statements. I don't want
| you to "teach me" anything, either.
| hbrn wrote:
| > Poverty is not having to eat
|
| No, that's famine.
|
| Poverty has many definitions, but generally it's not
| being able to meet a certain standard of living. It may
| include nutrition standards, but again, malnutrition in
| US is very different from malnutrition in Africa. Again,
| if someone is "poor" by US standards, but lives a happy
| life - good for them. I could learn a thing or two from
| them. You could too.
|
| > "Yes", "yes", "no", and "no".
|
| Absolutist views are rather boring and a clear indication
| of a closed mindset. The exact opposite of what the post
| is about.
|
| > That doesn't address the worldview I mentioned, it's
| complete misdirection. The view is that the rich should
| get richer and the poor should get poorer.
|
| But it does. Rich are getting richer is the natural
| effect of positive feedback loops. You are rewarded for
| the value you produce, which allows you to produce more
| value. Streamlining those loops allowed us to create
| enormous amount of wealth in the last century.
|
| The only way to fight it is to create an artificial
| compensating negative feedback loop, i.e. punish people
| for creating value. Evidently, not a good idea if you
| look at famine in USSR (google for "Dekulakization").
|
| People like you seem to focus on a few outliers without
| recognizing that "rich getting richer" has benefitted
| billions. If having a few billionaires is the cost of
| moving billions out of poverty, I'll gladly take it. So
| yeah, rich _should_ be getting richer, because the only
| alternative is everybody being poor.
|
| > Yes it is. Your proposed experiment is bullshit.
|
| Is this really your best argument?
| the_af wrote:
| > _No, that 's famine._
|
| No, that's poverty. Poverty is a self-reinforcing loop,
| this is well studied. Malnutrition is malnutrition, you
| die from it in North America, Africa or whatever. I don't
| care for your new age "find happiness where you can"
| mumbo jumbo.
|
| I don't live in the US nor anywhere close to the US, so
| stick your assumptions where the sun don't shine!
|
| > _Absolutist views are rather boring and a clear
| indication of a closed mindset_
|
| I'm sorry you find denouncing and rejecting Nazism is
| boring.
|
| > _" rich getting richer"_
|
| You conveniently forgot "the poor must get poorer".
|
| > _(google for "Dekulakization")_
|
| I'm puzzled, is "assuming people don't know a term I'm
| using and need googling it" part of your "just listen, do
| not try to win debates" strategy of TFA? Thanks for
| teaching me though, I didn't know anything about the
| history of the USSR!
|
| It must be that I am not "producing value", haw haw haw!
|
| I wrote a longer post to your bullshit reply, but I won't
| bother, since you decided to ignore this: "you also
| misunderstood my prompt, which was to debate with people
| who believe what I listed, not debate with me". Since you
| failed to engage with pretty simple instructions, and
| instead you chose to go your own way -- funnily enough,
| breaking the premise of TFA, which was "to listen";
| instead of doing so you launched into an attempt to
| refute what you _guessed_ were my objections -- I 'll bid
| you adieu.
|
| Good luck with your debate tactics!
| hbrn wrote:
| > I'm sorry you find denouncing and rejecting Nazism is
| boring.
|
| Evidently, simply denouncing and rejecting does nothing
| to prevent it from emerging again. All the raping and
| murdering in Ukraine is currently done in the name of
| denouncing Nazism, yet it looks very much like Nazism.
|
| > you also misunderstood my prompt, which was to debate
| with people who believe what I listed, not debate with me
|
| Turns out debates don't always happen on your terms.
| Despite your best effort, you still learned something
| today.
| the_af wrote:
| > _All the raping and murdering in Ukraine is currently
| done in the name of denouncing Nazism._
|
| Ah, yes, I guess if we had debated the "good parts" of
| Nazism then the invasion of Ukraine wouldn't have
| happened.
|
| > _Despite your best effort, you still learned something
| today._
|
| Do you really think that's an honest debate tactic? Do
| you think that, when reading your last line, I will think
| "gee, this guy truly taught me something!" or rather
| dismiss your remark entirely? And do you feel your way of
| debating is in line with what TFA proposes, or is it
| possible that you are trying to "win" here, therefore
| rejecting the whole article?
|
| I guess I learned this conversation is futile?
| hbrn wrote:
| > Ah, yes, I guess if we had debated the "good parts" of
| Nazism then the invasion of Ukraine wouldn't have
| happened.
|
| Kind of. If more time was spent _deconstructing_ Nazism
| /Fascism, instead of simply repeating "Nazism bad" it
| would be much easier to notice it right under our (their)
| nose.
|
| > I guess I learned this conversation is futile?
|
| I'd suggest you to re-read your messages in this thread.
| Analyze their tone. You never attempted to have a
| conversation.
| alsetmusic wrote:
| I was told, by someone I was dating, many years ago, that they
| thought that when they were speaking, I was thinking about what
| I was going to say next. I didn't fully understand that comment
| for more than a decade.
|
| This is a highly insightful take. Thanks. You nailed it.
|
| Learning to listen may not come naturally for some of us. It's
| a skill that requires practice and reinforcement.
| Udis wrote:
| I had the same experience with two exes and just now in my
| late 20s, after reading the comments, I feel Im understanding
| what they meant.
| paulpauper wrote:
| _I'd like to offer an alternative framing: don't debate at all,
| just listen._
|
| There are two wanys of looking at this. Doing nothing means you
| lose the opportunity to possibly correct an innocent mistake or
| to set the record. But it's also possible you may have no clue
| what you are talking about.
| atoav wrote:
| Listening doesn't mean you say nothing, otherwise the other
| side will (eventually) just stop. Listening means asking the
| right questions.
|
| Imagine someone has an out-there idea. Listening means you go
| along with them and have them explain it to you. And you play
| the nice, slightly curious, but not too curious person that
| has an open mind and ask the doubting questions. You know
| more Judo, less boxing, instead of punching and dodging you
| just make sure when they come at you, their own energy
| carries them into positions they have to deal with.
|
| I tell you, a big fraction of the people's strongly held
| opinions _completely_ fall apart when you just make them
| explain it in detail. And if they realized it is bullshit
| themselves that is a _much_ more valuable thing than any fact
| you could ever provide.
|
| Especially naive people with wrong opinions have a strong
| reactance. That means if you tell them they are wrong
| (something they are used to being told), they will now treat
| this as a fight and you as the enemy and they will proudly
| lie to themselves (1+1=3) just to one-up you.
|
| That means the best way to get into productive territory with
| those people is to not swallow the bait and slowly go from
| where they are into a direction that is completely new to
| them.
|
| That also means leaving arguments like "I studied $X" or
| "scientific journal $Y says $Z" at the door. Those basically
| trigger them back into learned talking points
| trompetenaccoun wrote:
| It reads like you're saying people should fake being open
| to arguments while actually already having made up their
| mind from the start.
|
| >Imagine someone has an out-there idea
|
| How would one know the idea is out-there until one has
| listened and understood what someone else is saying?
|
| >And you play the nice, slightly curious, but not too
| curious person that has an open mind...
|
| I don't have to "play" this part, unless I were someone who
| isn't naturally nice and curious.
| legends2k wrote:
| One won't know, of course. I thought the whole point of
| saying "Imagine" is given such a situation, how to deal
| with it. Of course, while listening if it isn't an out-
| there idea, listen, converse and follow up.
| trompetenaccoun wrote:
| It's a hypothetical, sure. Imagine a debater who feigns
| being open to your viewpoint, with the actual purpose of
| steering the conversation into territory you may be less
| familiar with so they can in their view "beat" you there.
| I'd refer to this as a debating tactic, not listening. Or
| maybe listening a la Ben Shapiro.
| dredmorbius wrote:
| ObXkcd: 386
|
| "Debate" and "listen" are not the only two options.
|
| Debate, specifically, comes from a mode of communication
| called rhetoric, or persuasive argument.
|
| There are other forms of communicating, including simply
| narrating or relating an event or position, entertainment,
| and others, one of which is _dialectic_.
|
| As I've commented a few times over the years here, confusing
| _dilectic_ and _rhetorical_ conversation is one of the oldest
| confounding points of conversations in the book --- it 's
| what Socrates, Plato, and Aristotle wrote on at length
| (particularly Plato railing against the Sophists, that is,
| rhetoriticians, and Aristotle's Sophistical Refutations,
| a/k/a "bullshit arguments that must die" to put a
| contemporary spin on it.
|
| Derek's entire premise strikes me as ... extraordinarily
| blinkered here. _If_ you find you want to impart your own
| wisdom, it 's possible to do so _other_ than through raw
| debate. In particular, the mode of simple discussion or
| Socratic Method, in which you ask questions which (might)
| lead your interlocutor to _reach the conclusion you 're
| suggesting on their own_ seems especially valid.
|
| "Had you considered X" or "How would you address Y" being
| possible entry points for that.
| donkeyd wrote:
| > the point of a conversation is to win
|
| I have a feeling that a lot of people think this. Coming to an
| 'agree to disagree' is really had for some people. Sometimes
| there's no other option though, because both people seem to
| know the same facts, they just have differing opinions on how
| to deal with those facts.
|
| > take note of how much of the time you spend formulating a
| response
|
| I've been paying attention to this for years now after hearing
| or reading something similar. I haven't been able to change
| this, but sometimes it's helped me move back to listening and
| not missing important details because of it.
| BlueTemplar wrote:
| Yeah, even though "agree to disagree" is the admission of a
| stalemate anyway rather than anyone "winning" or "losing"...
| rightbyte wrote:
| > Coming to an 'agree to disagree' is really hard for some
| people
|
| In many cases the person you talk to don't really disagree,
| but pretends to due to ideologic or some BS reason. Maybe
| they don't want to say the real reason they think X.
|
| The "agree to disagree" is often used as an escape hatch for
| hypocrisy.
| donkeyd wrote:
| > The "agree to disagree" is often used as an escape hatch
| for hypocrisy.
|
| Sometimes. Other times it's a great way to point out that
| hypocrisy by pointing out you all have the same
| information, yet you come to different
| conclusions/opinions.
|
| Sometimes it's a conscious decision to have all the facts
| and ignore them. It's not hypocritical in that case.
| atoav wrote:
| The point is you don't even have to agree to disagree -- it
| is not mandatory to tell the other person your opinion. You
| can also just listen to theirs and ask questions etc.
|
| A conversation can be much, _much_ more than a clash of
| opinions. Going into a conversation with the idea of "the
| other guy is _wrong_ " is a sure way of never understanding
| how they arrived at that wrong opinion to begin with. Yet
| sometimes precisely this is the most valuable thing you could
| learn from them.
| JohnFen wrote:
| > it is not mandatory to tell the other person your
| opinion.
|
| Even more -- it is not mandatory to have an opinion on
| everything.
| donkeyd wrote:
| > A conversation can be much, much more than a clash of
| opinions.
|
| It can be, but sometimes it isn't. Those are the cases I
| was talking about where agreeing to disagree can be a good
| outcome.
| hummingn3rd wrote:
| That makes me think of The Scout Mindset: Why Some People See
| Things Clearly and Others Don't https://g.co/kgs/2eXND7
| roenxi wrote:
| There is a gradient of Advanced Conversational Techniques that
| nobody seems to ever discuss. If someone hasn't got a real
| grasp on the basics then just listening is certainly a great
| start and gets people about half way there. Life gets easier.
| Most people are so desperately instinctual at social tactics
| that anything which involves thinking about what other people
| think will yield great dividends.
|
| But if the goal is self improvement, it can't be done with just
| listening. Like learning can't be done by just reading. It is
| far to slow finding the gaps in your own understanding; arguing
| is orders of magnitude quicker. People will explain an
| argument's flaws right quick, and often helpfully repeat
| themselves a few times.
|
| Although what you're leading towards here might be persuasion,
| because it is a great tool for learning and people often don't
| realise the subtle way a persuasive argument pushes back. Those
| aren't as much fun as the hot flush of a robust debate but they
| are a lot more powerful (especially since many people may not
| realise that there is an argument going on).
| legends2k wrote:
| Where can I learn about _Advanced Conversational Techniques_?
| roenxi wrote:
| Sorry, in hindsight I shouldn't have capitalised that. It
| isn't a recognised name for something that I'm aware of.
|
| That said I found Marshall Rosenberg's Nonviolent
| Communication quite eye opening because it articulated the
| idea that it is possible and sensible to approach
| conversation strategically. Then after getting a feel for a
| do-no-harm approach it is relatively easy to start
| categorising what people say into tactics and there are
| some things that work and others that really don't. It
| seems pretty obvious that effective people are very good at
| listening, asking questions and what sort of evidence they
| treat as persuasive or unpersuasive.
| noud wrote:
| When someone tries explaining something to me, I try to
| summarize what this person said when they are finished. E.g.,
| "So you're saying that <summary here>" or "It seems like
| <summary here>". This forces me to actively listen and remember
| what the other person has said. Afterwards, I'm looking for a
| response in the lines of "That's correct!" or "That's right!",
| or a correction and explanation that I haven't heard it
| correctly. Even if I don't agree with the other persons
| believes, this seems to build good relationships.
| dayjaby wrote:
| Reminds me of the interview with Jordan Peterson, where the
| interviewer said "so you're saying that <some invented
| bullshit that J.P. never actually said>".
|
| So I agree with you as long as you don't fall into that trap
| of putting false words in the other mouth.
| [deleted]
| mejutoco wrote:
| It is also useful if the other person won't accept any
| other phrasing that word-by-word quoting, even if in good
| faith, and accurate. It shows they are not willing to
| compromise.
| slowwriter wrote:
| In situations where someasks "so you're saying that..."
| followed by something they didn't say it might very well be
| on purpose, but in other cases being explicit about how you
| understood someone can allow them to elaborate and correct
| your understanding.
|
| It's much better than just continuing the conversation
| under a false assumption.
| chaosite wrote:
| Interviews, especially televised ones, are a performance.
| You're explicitly not trying to convince the interviewer of
| anything, you're trying to give a good interview,
| ostensibly for the benefit of whoever is watching.
| Politicians, for example, are famous for doing whatever
| they can, in more and less elegant ways, to talk about the
| things that they are interested in conveying (the "talking
| points") and not about whatever it is the interviewer is
| asking.
|
| This is not the point of this technique. This technique is
| about actually talking to a person, one-on-one, and trying
| to understand what they mean. No one else is watching, or
| at least the interview isn't being recorded.
| robertlagrant wrote:
| I agree - especially in an interview situation where many
| of us still have a vestigial instinct that an interviewer
| is not biased and is informed, we can assume that what they
| say is an objective interpretation.
|
| In that instance, doing that actually exposed it quite
| well. Jordan Peterson is able to respond off the cuff, so a
| reasonable percentage of the audience didn't walk away
| having assimilated the interviewer's version of his
| position.
|
| The subsequent Joe Rogan interview of Jordan Peterson was
| illuminating. Joe Rogan is, against the odds, a good
| interviewer, because he listens and engages, and only
| occasionally challenges.
| joenot443 wrote:
| Always found it funny how admitting that Joe is a good
| interviewer is some type of a concession.
|
| He's probably the highest paid interviewer on the planet,
| of course he's good at what he does! If he hadn't found
| the ire of the online progressive crowd by letting on
| some unsavories, he'd probably be regarded super
| positively across the board. It's crazy how many times
| I've seen web-activists go for blood with this guy and
| come up empty handed. Why is it hard for people to admit
| he's just a really good podcaster?
| robertlagrant wrote:
| I don't know. I didn't "admit" it; I just said it.
| joenot443 wrote:
| Yes my apologies - that wasn't aimed at you specifically,
| just a poorly phrased observation.
| robertlagrant wrote:
| No worries!
| yakshaving_jgt wrote:
| He is a good podcaster, but he has a habit of publishing
| misinformation also, which his audience seem not to
| scrutinise.
| nibbleshifter wrote:
| That is what is called active listening, and is a good way to
| do it.
| TheSpiceIsLife wrote:
| Verbal Aikido with Fred Kofman is right up that alley.
|
| https://youtu.be/O6N9nvk8bvE
| hbrn wrote:
| > don't debate at all, just listen
|
| I disagree (pun intended).
|
| Debating allows you to understand your own position better,
| e.g. is it based on information, intuition, values, preference,
| experience, or bias?
|
| And it forces another party to do the same, which allows you to
| better decide how to handle disagreements.
|
| E.g. if their position is based on preference, we can agree to
| disagree and move on.
|
| If it's based on a bias, I will value their opinion less.
|
| If someone has a different knowledge, that's something we can
| (and should) resolve asap.
|
| If our values are different we will never be able to resolve it
| and it's better to avoid conflict.
| xpe wrote:
| If you perceive there is sufficient trust and interest in
| engaging in some kind of debate, sure, consider it. Debate,
| in its many forms, can have many advantages, but it is not
| categorically preferable.
|
| Also consider all your other options: pure listening, mutual
| bonding, offering emotional support, even walking away (from
| a no-win situation).
|
| If / when debate falls apart, there are many options to
| reconnect.
| JAlexoid wrote:
| That's really not how debate typically works.
|
| Someone states their position, while you're expected to
| undermine their position with a retort. It is one of the
| least productive ways of resolving differences.
| hbrn wrote:
| You're supposed to _both_ attack your opponent 's position
| and defend yours.
|
| What you're describing is a lack of debate culture. A good
| example of that was already referred here (the infamous "so
| you're saying" interview).
| jffhn wrote:
| >high school debate [...] taught me something truly negative:
| that the point of a conversation is to win.
|
| The etymology of "debate" is "de-beat", i.e what you do to
| avoid beating each other, so in principle it's closer to
| negotiation than to mutual battering.
| trgn wrote:
| Huizinga argues that debating is essentially a human
| expression of our animal play instinct.
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homo_Ludens
|
| This would also be the reason in settings where debate is
| formalized, e.g. a courtroom, there are elements of pageantry
| and pantomime. All playful exaggerations, nonetheless serious
| (because play can be serious business, look at any child
| absorbed in a game).
|
| Debating as a means to avoid combat then follows quite
| naturally. It's sublimation of a primal instinct, channeling
| dangerous antagonistic behaviors into the realm of harmless
| play.
| lo_zamoyski wrote:
| Charitably, I get what you and the author of the article are
| describing, but I would make at least this comment.
|
| The point of listening is ultimately to know the truth. The
| fact that listening to others is ipso facto social means that
| we learn a great deal in community. But it's one thing to learn
| about what someone else believes. It's another to accept those
| beliefs as true. The person you are listening to could be in
| error. Listening is, therefore, a kind of data collection, and
| data need to be interpreted, after which some kind of
| verification generally ought to take place (of course, we
| cannot verify everything, hence for practical reasons, we often
| trust, e.g., the authority of tradition and its authoritative
| "keepers", at least until we have reason to doubt).
|
| W.r.t. debating, there's a time and place for it. Classically,
| it is a formal and public affair reserved for certain
| circumstances. You don't debate during data collection.
|
| I think Socratic dialogue is a better fit for exploration and
| discussion, though that, too, and trivially so, has a time and
| a place.
| dredmorbius wrote:
| We listen to a great many things that we objectively know
| aren't true. Or which have no specific bearing on truth.
|
| Listening is critical to all _communication_ (there 's at
| least one speaker and one listener to any conversation
| involving one or more sentiences). I'd suggest that the goal
| of listening is to _understand_ the other party, at least
| within the universe of their story or experience. You don 't
| have to believe, agree, sympathise, or even empathise. You
| may have entirely selfish reasons for doing so (is this
| person a threat / kook / messiah / ...?). _If_ we choose to
| listen, though, the principle goal is only _occasionally_
| seeking truth.
| TheRealPomax wrote:
| That's not an alternative, that's just "the final message in
| the post"?
|
| > I never want to debate, but if I had to, I would hope to
| lose.
| BlueTemplar wrote:
| Yeah, it can work great one on one, sadly it's much harder to
| do as the number of interlocutors increases, as the time spent
| thinking things out instead of immediately answering is time
| that someone else can "hijack" the conversation (for bad or
| good reasons, nobody _owes_ you a lot of time to formulate an
| answer), at which point it could be hard or sometimes even rude
| to come back to that point.
| tchalla wrote:
| "I never allow myself to hold an opinion on anything that I
| don't know the other side's argument better than they do" --
| Charlie Munger
| Cthulhu_ wrote:
| That sounds like the public debates which seem to be more of a
| thing in the US in general, but go back to e.g. the Greek and
| Roman traditions; two people debating with an audience taking
| in both sides.
|
| The problem I have with modern-day debates (I mainly catch the
| political ones) is that they're not at all good or in good
| faith, there's a lot of "but YOU did this", a lot of
| dismissals, and no good structure; the moderator does not do
| their job very well in a lot of cases.
|
| Mind you, that depends on the politician as well. Populists
| (e.g. Trump) are not good at all in debates.
| dagw wrote:
| _Populists (e.g. Trump) are not good at all in debates._
|
| Depends what you think the point of the TV debate actually
| is. Trump, for all his flaws, instinctively understood the
| actual point of the televised debate, and crushed all his
| primary opponents. He knew that his target audience didn't
| care if he was right or wrong on any of the facts or detail,
| they want someone who looked strong and confident and
| commanding, so that's what he focused on.
| bambax wrote:
| > _don't debate at all, just listen_
|
| This is what the OP says; while the title of the post is "I
| want to lose every debate" that's what he says in the end:
|
| > _I never want to debate, but if I had to, I would hope to
| lose._
|
| And I get it, I think; but there is something to be said in
| favor of debating, not as a competition, but as a method of
| refining each other's ideas.
|
| Someone exposing a theory of theirs that's apparently well
| polished is less interesting than people discussing, exchanging
| ideas and poking and exposing possible holes.
|
| That's what debating should be: not a sport with "winners" and
| "losers" (what does that even mean in the realm of ideas??) but
| as a joint effort and journey in search of the truth.
| TheSpiceIsLife wrote:
| Discussion:
|
| _an act or instance of discussing; consideration or
| examination by argument, comment, etc., especially to explore
| solutions; informal debate._
|
| Discuss is _first recorded in 1300-50; Middle English, either
| from Anglo-French discusser or directly from Latin discussus
| "struck asunder, shaken, scattered," past participle of
| discutere, equivalent to dis- dis-1 + -cutere (combining form
| of quatere "to shake, strike")._
| etothepii wrote:
| I think this is what I dislike most about Jordan Peterson. He
| appears to behave as if it's your fault if when you
| paraphrase what you think he's said back to him is not
| something he wants to agree with. IMHO, you haven't
| understood someone if you can't repeat it back to them in
| your own language, and there's a good probability that this
| is the fault of the explainer not the explainee.
| Supermancho wrote:
| > He appears to behave as if it's your fault if when you
| paraphrase what you think he's said back to him is not
| something he wants to agree with.
|
| I don't think that's unique to JP. Most people are very bad
| at paraphrasing without veering into misrepresentation. I'm
| still working on getting better.
| starkd wrote:
| Another thing is realizing you really don't need to have an
| opinion on everything. Enormously freeing to realize this.
| dredmorbius wrote:
| Very much this, I was going to comment similarly.
|
| Every discussion is _not_ a debate. Perhaps this is what Sivers
| was trying to communicate, in which case, he did so rather
| poorly.
|
| The examples offered all revolve around lived experiences,
| lifestyle preference (taste), and articles of faith, for which
| there really _isn 't_ much of an objective truth, let alone one
| which can be demonstrated through evidence and reason.
|
| There's something to be said for simply choosing to absorb a
| story, to bear witness, even to validate a person's view or
| choices (though that last isn't necessarily always
| appropriate).
|
| From my experience, some years back I encountered a ... local
| character ... who was known for accosting strangers on the
| street and ranting about various topics, generally rather
| fantastical. I'd seen this happen several times over the years,
| and one day it was my turn. After the tirade slowed, and unsure
| how to respond, I simply said "thank you". The transformation
| was immediate and profound: they were immensely grateful and
| their entire demeanor changed.
|
| I don't pretend that this is universally applicable. I _do_
| know that there was no point in rational argument with the
| person. The circumstances were such that there was no obvious
| danger to myself or those around me. But I 've thought more
| than once over the years of how a simple acknowledgement might
| _often_ be an excellent choice of response.
| nibbleshifter wrote:
| There is nothing more tedious in adult life than some debate
| club weenie trying to turn every random fucking conversation
| into a debate.
|
| I strongly suspect debate club has a net negative impact on
| peoples social skills. It teaches a bunch of anti patterns to
| successful social interactions.
|
| Like, you will be shooting the shit with the lads down pub the
| once or twice you see them per year when this dickhead (and
| every group has one) picks up on something and decides it's
| time to flex his master debater skills yet again.
|
| Related absolutely cringe inducing behaviour includes the
| following:
|
| - the "I am very smart" contrarian (so half of this website) -
| the "gonna then everything into politics" (liberal) one - the
| "gonna turn everything into politics" (conservative) one - that
| guy who says "let's not get political" (proceeds to get
| extremely political) - "uhm ackshually" overcorrecting guy -
| guy who doesn't know dick about a topic but will pontificate on
| it
|
| Its entirely possible to unlearn these behaviours. The first
| thing is to realize you don't always have to respond.
|
| Someone says something wrong in passing? Ignore it, move on.
|
| Someone says something you disagree with? Evaluate if the
| inevitable unresolved and probably heated argument that will
| happen when you make it an issue is worth the time, effort, and
| awkwardness for everyone else present.
|
| Someone says something exceptionally disagreeable? Just fucking
| leave it be and disengage as soon as possible. The fight isn't
| worth the time.
| scns wrote:
| It might originate from brain physiology. Daniel Amen had
| done 5000 brain scans 20 years ago, no idea how many until
| now. From one of his books i learned that contrarian
| behaviour can come from a disfunction in the Cingulate
| cortex.
|
| Whatever i say, the first thing my mother says 95% of the
| time is "No" or another dismissal. It was astounding to see
| my son acting the same way, answering "No, thats wrong" to
| things he doesn't even know!
|
| I have been really contrarian for most part of my life. But i
| realized how annoying that behaviour is and made an active
| effort to change it. Through repetition it became a habit to
| respond positively or neutral.
| SuoDuanDao wrote:
| there's a talk on persuasion - I believe Chris Voss is the
| presenter - where one of the techniques is to phrase your
| question so that the answer you want is 'no'. E.g. rather
| than say 'would you like to go to the movies' you'd say 'is
| there anything you'd rather do than go to the movies'. It's
| interesting that this works - he said that saying 'no' is a
| defensive mechanism that enforces boundaries, maybe more so
| with some people than others. Then again, his background
| was hostage negotiation so he probably trained on a skewed
| sample.
| yamtaddle wrote:
| Voss' stuff would usually be pretty shitty to use on
| people you're friendly with (and I found a lot of the
| anecdotes in his book... strained credulity, let's say,
| to be polite) but in this case might actually be great
| for breaking those "nobody can decide what to do" sorts
| of situations. Make people actively choose what they'd
| rather do than what you suggested. Could work.
| Acutulus wrote:
| I enjoy watching the occasional political twitch/youtube
| streamer or speaker. I couldn't tell you why; I don't feel
| that most of them leave me feeling any wiser after the
| conversations end. But the times I come across positions that
| I haven't traditionally considered or agreed with being well-
| stated and expounded upon is really enjoyable and usually
| makes it worth the minutes or hours burned having it playing
| lightly in the background. Very much in the spirit of this
| post, like the author I too enjoy being "wrong" or losing
| debates. The rush of new insight is thrilling. Vaush and
| Douglas Murray come to mind as some of the recent ones that
| have said things I find very compelling.
|
| Not long ago as I was exploring those circles I kept hearing
| this name repeated. A streamer named Destiny. So I started
| consuming some of his material. And it was absolutely
| insufferable. This person treated every single statement as a
| drawn battle line that is to be defended by every last ounce
| of mustered anger and blood. No matter how infinitesmal or
| semantical the focal point of discussion was it was torn
| apart to shreds. There was no intent to learn, no hoping for
| new perspectives. It was solely a sport about feeling
| correct. It was awful to listen to.
|
| I was shocked to see how popular this person is (given their
| streams and subscribers). Not only because I felt that
| overall they were a garbage person to have a parasocial
| relationship with but because if I found him as awful to
| listen to as I did, surely a large amount of others would
| feel the same. And while no doubt others feel like me about
| him, on the other hand I must be neglecting something. There
| must be a cadre of people that find (arguably) well defended
| positions thrilling and almost narcotic. I do not associate
| with many of those types of people in meatspace and I suppose
| I had slowly forgotten that there's a significant number of
| them out there.
|
| But yeah, I'm right there with you. I'm here to learn, and
| there's others that aren't and will knowingly or otherwise
| prey upon that willingness by digging their heels in on the
| most miniscule of points. Makes no sense to me. If the only
| purpose served by me opening my mouth was to convince the
| world of my correctness, I would just assume everyone else
| was as obsinate as myself and wouldn't bother to open my
| mouth in the first place. Save the calories.
| pferde wrote:
| > This person treated every single statement as a drawn
| battle line that is to be defended by every last ounce of
| mustered anger and blood.
|
| I left a FOSS project that I liked a lot hacking on,
| because of a person like that. It was painful, but better
| for my mental health overall.
| joenot443 wrote:
| Totally agree re. Destiny. Between him, Vaush, Hasan (ugh),
| and the rest of them, I feel like we're intellectually
| stunting an entire generation of teenagers.
|
| I had a friend in NYC who used to read a tonne load of
| books but now just watches the 3h Hasan stream every day
| and then parrots every take the video game streamer says as
| if it's gospel. I ended up cutting him out of my life
| because he just grew so tiring to be around; any
| conversation had to be directed to how idiotic the other
| side (code for republicans) is. As a non-American, it grew
| really old hearing rant about how stupid 40% of their
| fellow countrymen are.
|
| Listening to someone pretend to get angry and punching down
| on people less educated isn't intellectually nourishing,
| it's reddit prison slop.
| Acutulus wrote:
| What's interesting to me is how I've started to really
| dislike people in that mindset/space even when they offer
| points that I agree with. Take Hasan for example. He says
| a number of things I agree with when I hear them. But the
| delivery of them is awful, to the point that it corrodes
| the foundation on which he stands. It's hard for me to
| accept that you promote a position of shared empowerment
| and broad equality when you reject a large contingency of
| people (based solely on their beliefs no less) as
| borderline sub-human. Those two things don't mesh. I,
| like him, am often left bewildered by the positions his
| opponents sometimes take. But that bewilderment is a sign
| that I'm lacking information and context, not a sign that
| I'm dealing with a person who isn't to be treated with at
| least a modicum of respect.
|
| It reminds me of an exchange between Neil Degrasee Tyson
| and Richard Dawkins in which Neil tells Dawkins that,
| while he makes good points, perhaps he should soften his
| delivery? Because it's hard for the realm of science to
| pull in new defenders when their staunchest proponents
| are telling its detractors they are imbeciles. And
| dawkins fires back with [...]"Science is interesting, and
| if you don't like it, you can fuck off". EDIT: This
| exchange must have been in the mid 00's? The birth of the
| Four-Horsemen-of-Atheism era. The absolutist cultural
| debate position has a rich history.
|
| There's a time and place to cut ties and not waste time
| interacting with people that disagree with you. Sometimes
| the right move is to reject an ideology or group
| outright. But it seems like the modern concept of that
| time and place is very skewed.
| yamtaddle wrote:
| Reads like these streamers are the left-wing equivalent
| of conservative AM radio and about half of Fox News' air
| time. Interesting. I didn't know we had those sorts on
| "our" side (Maddow and such are a _bit_ similar, but the
| tone 's still not quite like a Shapiro or a Levin or even
| a Limbaugh). But then, I've spent a grand total of maybe
| 15 minutes on Twitch, ever. I didn't even know there
| _was_ political commentary on there.
|
| Since those folks (the AM radio / unhinged Fox News guys)
| have been wildly successful at getting people to vote a
| certain way and swing rhetoric _hard_ in the direction
| they promote, I 'm torn on whether or not to be upset
| about this. If it eventually gets us a developed-world
| healthcare system and typical-in-most-of-the-rest-of-the-
| OECD worker protections and benefits, I guess I don't
| care if shitty psychological manipulation is what does
| it, if the alternative is that we continue not to manage
| to achieve those for several more decades. It'd be cool
| if my elementary-aged kids could have some nice things
| before they're middle-aged--I've only got 30-40 years
| left, probably, so have given up hope on any of this
| happening before I'm ancient, but maybe my kids' kids
| will fully reap the benefits, on the back half of this
| century.
| hbrn wrote:
| This is quite interesting, because I find Vaush to be a
| perfect match for your description: absolutely insufferable
| debate bro and a hypocrite (the whole "living your values"
| discussion was very showing).
|
| And Destiny to be a fairly reasonable mostly good-faith
| debater.
| [deleted]
| matwood wrote:
| > Its entirely possible to unlearn these behaviours. The
| first thing is to realize you don't always have to respond.
|
| > Someone says something wrong in passing? Ignore it, move
| on.
|
| This is a skill I've worked on for years. Not every
| conversation needs to be a teaching moment or life or death.
| Most are just people bullshitting around with each other.
| Constantly correcting or arguing doesn't help anyone.
| taneq wrote:
| - the one that compulsively comments on formatting without
| discussing the actual topic ;)
|
| - agreed, though, that these are all flavours of trying to
| 'win' rather than actually contributing meaningfully
| jojobas wrote:
| Debate clubs have you argue points that you don't necessarily
| agree with, they compete in rhetorics, not proving they are
| right.
|
| A wise man argues not to prove he's right, he's arguing to
| become right.
|
| Assuming (or at least allowing) your "opponent" knows
| something you don't is about all it takes to take a casual
| debate from a nuisance to learning experience.
| actionablefiber wrote:
| As someone who did high school debate competitively for four
| years and still judges competitions nearly every weekend... I
| really don't think this tracks in reality. It really sounds
| like you're describing a caricature, and maybe it's based on
| someone you know, but I don't think it's really the normal
| outcome for people who debate.
|
| There are surely former debaters who still feel the need to
| prove themselves to their friends and colleagues and will go
| out of their way to seek an argument. It is a competitive
| activity and so it attracts competitive types. But part of
| the process of becoming a well-adjusted adult, and yes,
| debaters all go through that process too in time, is
| recognizing where and when their skills are welcome.
| JAlexoid wrote:
| Most people love to win, that includes arguments.
|
| What a lot of people failed to learn from debates club, is
| that a formal "win" is a net loss of a relationship.
| actionablefiber wrote:
| > What a lot of people failed to learn from debates club,
| is that a formal "win" is a net loss of a relationship.
|
| In US competitive debate, debaters learn very quickly
| that whether you "win" or "lose" is not decided by
| themselves or their opponent but by the judge. You don't
| measure your success by whether being argumentative made
| you feel good or whether you felt like you won but by
| whether the judge evaluated what you said and what the
| other person said and signed a ballot in your favor. That
| actually involves a lot of "reading the room" and self-
| awareness about how other people will hear you when you
| talk. Good debaters solicit feedback from their judges
| and coaches to ask them how they can do better. And good
| judges look past the bluster, penalize debaters who use
| bad faith tactics, and reward debaters who succeed on
| substance. Judges are accountable for their decisions too
| - they have to explain to the debaters why they voted the
| way they did, which encourages judges to evaluate
| debaters carefully and give good feedback.
|
| Again I think it is a caricature to say that a person who
| does debate structures their personality around it and
| tries to turn everything into an argument. I concede as a
| high schooler I went through a phase like this; then I
| went through college, matured a bit, got other hobbies
| and priorities and came to understand how to use the
| skills I learned as a debater in a positive-sum way.
| JAlexoid wrote:
| That whole wall of text completely ignoring my point. Not
| only that, I now have a very negative opinion of you...
| simply because you completely ignored what I wrote.
|
| What I learned from your response, is that debates in US
| teach you - ignore the principles of the argument, fail
| to follow up and say(or write) a lot of words. (to "win")
|
| Funny, that to me you've become the caricature that
| you're complaining about.
| [deleted]
| muh_gradle wrote:
| The irony of someone arguing about high school debate
| being bad and then making piss poor arguments of zero
| substance is not at all lost upon me although it looks
| like it whizzed past you. I think someone like you
| would've benefited more debate than anyone else.
| jvm___ wrote:
| This is a whole chapter in "How to win friends and influence
| people."
|
| Someone says something wrong in passing? Ignore it, move on.
|
| Someone says something you disagree with? Evaluate if the
| inevitable unresolved and probably heated argument that will
| happen when you make it an issue is worth the time, effort,
| and awkwardness for everyone else present.
|
| Someone says something exceptionally disagreeable? Just
| fucking leave it be and disengage as soon as possible. The
| fight isn't worth the time.
| coldtea wrote:
| And another favorite sign of the debating idiocy: the "this-
| is-a-fallacy" corrector, using fallacy lists to point
| "logical errors" in discussions...
| red-iron-pine wrote:
| Awful lot of projection goin on here, mate.
|
| You're not wrong but I think you're overstating things.
| Honestly if you're that miffed about these conversations
| _maybe it 's you._
| hgomersall wrote:
| What do you talk about if not these issues? What is a
| conversation to you? It feels like you've successfully
| eliminated any disagreement from your conversations. Or is
| that just relevant to "shooting the shit with the lads down
| the pub once or twice a year"? When can we have discussions
| that might show disagreement?
| JAlexoid wrote:
| There's disagreement and there's verbal battle. Those are
| not the same.
| SuoDuanDao wrote:
| one can disagree in open mode (socrates) and disagree in
| closed mode (Ben Shapiro). If both people are looking
| forward to learning from the disagreement I find that a lot
| more fun than if both people are looking forward to
| appearing smarter than the other person.
| jterrys wrote:
| It's entirely possible to have a conversation about all
| those topics but gets increasingly difficult when your
| friends fall in the cliche 80/20 category. 80% great people
| 20% not so much. I think parent poster has more of a
| problem with those types. You can chill and have fun but
| certain taboos open a can of worms that nobody wants to
| deal with especially when you just wanna decompress and
| have a few beers.
|
| There's a time and place for everything and friendship
| dynamics get...complicated.
| hgomersall wrote:
| It feels to me that's the crux of it. Friendship dynamics
| are not universal even within a friendship group. It
| might be the desire not to "debate" makes the GP author
| the 20% outlier. It feels a bit like "well that's just
| like your opinion man".
| nibbleshifter wrote:
| There is still usually some disagreement, but in many
| social settings (eg, having a few pints at the pub with
| people you rarely see), topics of discussion usually are
| what people have been up to, and other "light topics".
|
| In most social situations "heavy" discussion or "debating"
| is entirely unwarranted and brings the overall mood down.
|
| There are plenty of discussion groups and meetups if you
| want to hotly debate politics or suchlike!
| xpe wrote:
| There are also "third ways", so to speak, ways to have
| people feel comfortable without resorting only to least-
| common-denominator "harmless" topics.
|
| I have been a regular at several places (sometimes coffee
| shops) across the country where I can sense very real
| substantive conversations. Sometimes people just need a
| little nudge to get out of their comfort zone.
|
| Such interactions can help bring people even closer. It
| takes intention and some experimentation.
| dsego wrote:
| I don't hate debaters, but there is a particular dismissive
| type that doesn't want to give you an inch or agree to
| disagree and theirs has to be the last word.
| JackFr wrote:
| I have an aunt who seems to have a need to disagree at all
| times. The most amusing example was while she was talking
| politics with my father and he said "I completely agree
| with everything you just said." Her response - "Well you
| must not have understood me."
| jstarfish wrote:
| I have your aunt's problem. Speculations like
| oppositional-defiance disorder and Narcissism have been
| thrown at me as possible explanations.
|
| I'd argue (heh) that what this behavior boils down to is:
| I'm restating what you're saying, only _in terms I can
| understand_ , which makes me come across as
| argumentative. You're "wrong" only in that what you're
| saying doesn't compute with me-- I'm really shouting down
| my own lack of comprehension, which presents as me
| arguing with you (if that makes any sense). Her response
| "Well you must not have understood me" is classic Me, but
| in reality that's textbook projection, which backs me
| into into a corner I try to get out of...with more
| arguing!
|
| Even knowing I do this, I can't ever catch myself doing
| it early enough to stop it; dopamine rush from outrage
| trumps my ability to dial it back. So I just avoid in-
| person debates altogether. I'm not aiming to offend
| anybody and can express my position more clearly in
| written form.
|
| I have the same issue with understanding code other
| people write. I don't "get" larger architectures unless I
| wrote the entire stack myself (again, understanding
| someone else's concept by reinventing it myself). If I
| didn't write every goddamn class in the framework, I
| don't remember they exist or how they work together. Once
| I realized this I pivoted away from software development;
| nobody has time or need for another TempleOS.
|
| Unfortunately this behavior is commonly found on the
| #mentalhealthawareness Narcissistic personality disorder
| checklists so everyone calls it out as malicious. I
| suspect autism though, since (for me) this always stems
| from information-processing difficulties. Make of it what
| you will.
| kishmat wrote:
| > don't debate at all, just listen
|
| but if all people with this mindset, improvement never comes
| vidarh wrote:
| I think the important thing is to be aware that there are
| several different types of debates or discussions with
| different purpose. School debate teams focus on combative
| debates - debates where the goal is to convince an audience,
| not the other side. The type politicians tends to engage in
| during campaigns.
|
| But it'd be good if people got better training in "cooperative"
| debates, where the purpose is to learn and listen. I can't
| recall many instances where that was encouraged in school, but
| there were a few. All of them were focused on a subject,
| though, rather than actually teaching the skill of listening
| and debating constructively.
|
| There's a space for both - sometimes you need to be combative
| -, but people switch to combative mode way too readily.
|
| To your point on the time formulating a response: Online I find
| a good measure of whether I'm "listening" or gearing up to
| being combative is whether I end up significantly re-writing my
| reply while writing it as I process the comment I'm replying
| to, or if have it "ready and loaded" to fire back at someone by
| the time I hit the reply button.
| [deleted]
| eequah9L wrote:
| All the team projects have that as an implicit element, don't
| they? In order to arrive at a solution, the team has to talk,
| divide labor, etc.
| vidarh wrote:
| Or one person takes charge and steamrollers everyone else,
| or one person ends up doing the work because the rest can't
| be bothered, etc. You're right there's often some implicit
| element of it, but how to do it well seems to be rarely
| _taught_. At least it wasn 't made explicit at my schools,
| and I've heard little to indicate it's been made explicit
| at my sons schools either. It seems pretty arbitrary how
| well people pick up those skills.
| JAlexoid wrote:
| What we understand as debate today, is exactly the school
| adversarial debates that you're referring to.
|
| The "cooperative" debate is what we call a conversation.
|
| Throwing the word constructive in front of debate, does not
| change the adversarial nature of it.
| jojobas wrote:
| If you remain silent you potentially deny your parties the
| opportunity to have a profound realization.
| SuoDuanDao wrote:
| thank you. If I'm ever in a position of choosing a co-founder
| again, I'll probably ask potential candidates their opinions on
| debate and treat any positive sentiment towards debate as a
| negative signal. Few things are more tiring in an already
| difficult slog than needing to go to war every time you'd like
| to introduce a change.
|
| I know some people are energized by debate, but I'd rather work
| with someone who builds my confidence rather than constantly
| attacks my ideas and, if those don't have any weak corners, my
| character and judgement. Nothing wrong with either preference,
| but the two shouldn't work together in my experience.
| PaulDavisThe1st wrote:
| Your position/preference seems to arise from your
| identification with your own ideas, which is one of the most
| fundamental differences in the realm of people's response to
| "debate". There's absolutely nothing wrong with identifying
| with your own ideas, and indeed, it will naturally lead to a
| negative experience if you have to interact with someone who
| attacks those ideas.
|
| However, there are people who don't experience as much, if
| any, attachment or identification with "their own ideas", and
| instead view "debate" (or indeed, any sort of exploration of
| ideas, truth, and so forth) as a chance to be, to use an
| over-used phrase, "less wrong". It doesn't bother me if
| someone demonstrates to me that what I thought is wrong (as
| long as they do it in a way that respects me as a person),
| and in fact I welcome the correction (though sometimes it may
| be difficult to process if it is a long-held idea with wide
| consequences).
|
| As usual, there's a spectrum (or two) here: a spectrum of
| identifying with your own ideas, and a spectrum of levels of
| personal respect when "debating". Certainly a very bad
| combination is one person with a high level of self-
| identification with their own ideas being debated/attack by
| someone who (a) has no concept that this self-identification
| experience is real (b) cannot engage with the ideas without
| criticizing the other person.
| jancsika wrote:
| There's a big difference between these two:
|
| 1. Co-founder who clearly signals respect and self-
| reflection, and who _much later_ reveals they have a
| penchant for the occasional debate and dis-attachment from
| their own ideas.
|
| 2. A co-founder who signals they like debates _in a
| candidate meeting_.
|
| I rankly speculate here on HN that if OP always avoids #2,
| not only will nothing bad happen as a result, but they will
| also decrease the chance of choosing a bad candidate.
|
| I further rankly speculate this for any founder.
|
| HN debates are fun, but they hide the fact that debate is a
| low-effort tool. Like drinking alcohol, it can be useful.
| But if it moves from being a mere implementation detail to
| becoming part of the API _in a candidate meeting_ : run!
| peoplefromibiza wrote:
| > don't debate at all, just listen.
|
| debates, even though I prefer the term discussions, are held
| between at least two parties.
|
| I might sometime be the part who listens, but we can't both be
| listening, there will be no discussion.
|
| So if you have something to say, say it and don't let anyone
| interrupt you.
|
| Listening to what other people are saying means donating your
| time and attention, not everybody deserve it, there's a reason
| why "professional listeners" such as psychologists charge a lot
| of money to do it.
|
| Most of the time people don't want to discuss, they simply want
| to talk about themselves.
|
| Like the author of this piece.
| sokoloff wrote:
| I recently read a similar point phrased in a way that really
| resonated: "if you're right, you'll still be right in five
| minutes" (so you might as well listen carefully in case you're
| wrong).
| steveBK123 wrote:
| These sorts of mindsets are predicated on the assumption that
| two people "talking it out" or possibly appealing to google
| will arrive on "the right answer".
|
| While in reality for many things there are judgement calls,
| trade-offs, unknowns and basically "it depends". In software,
| POCs, trial&error, R&D, etc help you test out the options.
|
| Many would do better to frame a discussion as surfacing the
| risks, trade-offs, potential pitfalls, and benefits of
| different answers such that the "bad answer" is avoided, more
| than "the one right answer" is somehow discovered.
| kqr wrote:
| Yes, this is the real purpose of debate. It's an
| adversarial method of ensuring all important factors in a
| decision are brought up and heard by all involved, so they
| can go on to make the tradeoffs they think are right on
| their own. Nobody has to win or convince anyone of
| anything.
| steveBK123 wrote:
| I think you need to be mindful if your "adversary" enjoys
| the "adversarial" method or, like many introverted
| software devs, is simply expediting the conversation to
| get away from you.
| kqr wrote:
| That's what a moderator/chairperson is for. They give the
| word to alternating perspectives and then after a few
| exchanges call for a decision.
| sublinear wrote:
| Very good advice. A classic debate tactic is to coerce the
| opponent to hastily misspeak and then force them to defend
| their poorly worded statements. Cooler heads usually prevail.
| The classic defense is to slow it down by asking them to
| clarify their position. You can take it from there if you
| want to debate or not.
|
| Most people aren't debating you on purpose so there's no
| point as they continue to rubber duck (and maybe even thank
| you later). In case they really are in it for a debate, then
| by all means proceed.
| atoav wrote:
| While this is good advice, it is still in a debate-mindset
| where, ultimately, it is about "winning" a conversation. But
| if you argue with someone who holds factually wrong opinions
| is it truly winning "if you showed them" and they think "what
| an asshole" and move on? That type of person is practised at
| brushing off a debate loss. That means if you enjoy winning
| such a debate it tells more about you than about the person
| opposite.
|
| The best conversations I had with the worst people stemmed
| from me not even telling them my opinion at all. I just asked
| them to explain theirs to me and asked the questions that
| occured to me in a respectful manner. Leaving them in healthy
| confusion and doubt afterwards (and learning a thing or two
| about them on the way) is more rewarding than winning a
| debate with them. Sometimes those people really surprise you
| as well, because they hold a combination of opinions that
| seem incompatible to you.
| vidarh wrote:
| "Winning" a debate can have value if there's an audience
| and where there's something important at stake, but people
| need to consider that if you get into "debate mode",
| there's virtually zero chance the other side will consider
| your viewpoint for a second, so it's a tradeoff with
| respect to whether convincing an audience matters or having
| a good conversation where both sides are open to learning
| something.
|
| I absolutely agree with you that the best conversations
| tends to come from the latter approach you describe.
| Unfortunately, it can often be difficult and take some
| skill to avoid pushing the other person into "debate mode"
| by making them feel like they're losing. Especially if
| there's an audience, however small.
| JAlexoid wrote:
| Has anyone ever provided any evidence, that debate
| content ever influenced audience's opinions?
| Lutger wrote:
| Debate can be fun (for some) as a game, and force you to
| articulate your position well, and you can learn from it.
| But there are different modes of engagement which are often
| much more helpful.
|
| What people often don't realize is that winning a debate
| doesn't necessarily mean you side with the truth. A debate
| is aimed at winning on your existing opinions and the other
| losing. It is not aimed at discovery, validation or
| learning. Victory is more important than truth, and a lot
| of 'good moves' in a debate actually bring you further away
| from the truth.
|
| If you engage in a conversation where you are both curious
| and submit to what's true (whatever that means), this
| conversation will rarely be a debate.
|
| If a debate is in public between skilled debaters who show
| sportsmanship, then I think the public can gain a lot
| because a debate forces you to be very on point.
| nicoburns wrote:
| > A debate is aimed at winning on your existing opinions
| and the other losing.
|
| That's true of the sort of debate that's practiced
| competitively by "debating teams", but I don't think it's
| always true of debate as the word is used in an everyday
| context. A debate can also be more like a dialectic.
| JAlexoid wrote:
| > force you to articulate your position well
|
| That's the problem with how we see a debate. It's just
| about that. There's no need to present your position in a
| compelling way or find common grounds with whoever you're
| debating.
|
| If you read any books by professional negotiators -
| you'll notice that they conduct themselves very
| differently than you would in a debate.
|
| Getting to Yes and Getting Past No have been eye opening
| to me. I no longer feel like I even need to "win an
| argument".
|
| > the public can gain a lot because a debate forces you
| to be very on point
|
| I recall reading some articles stating, that debates fail
| to convince anyone of anything. Public debates only
| encourage tribalism, IMO. If you watch a presidential
| debate - no amount of "winning" changed people's
| opinions.
|
| I can even argue, that just hearing "X won the debate"
| will cause more impact; compared to listening to them.
| Annatar wrote:
| [dead]
| imhoguy wrote:
| Sounds like Socratic method
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Socratic_method
| foobarbecue wrote:
| The linked article did say: "I never want to debate"
| underdeserver wrote:
| If it's a lecture and not a conversation, I will usually end up
| thinking of counterpoints to what they said. And I believe that
| they have a good response to any counterpoint I have, and I
| want to hear it.
|
| Otherwise I'm left with my counterpoints and I'm less engaged
| and less convinced.
| harel wrote:
| I chime well with the gist of this post. However, I think there
| is no win or lose in a debate. There is the sharing of
| perspective. The terminology of win/lose is a symptom of Side-ism
| which I believe humanity suffers from. People feel like they need
| to be on a side of something, which leads to people who feel like
| they belong to the "other side" feel left out and ignored, and
| then the wheel turns and then the other side feels the same. Each
| side tells themselves the other side is stupid/evil/ignorant/etc.
|
| Instead they could have listened, compromised, come out of the
| assumption that neither side is wrong, and there should be a
| middle ground that works for all.
|
| But instead we're stuck with side-ism and an everlasting shift
| from one extreme to the other, while the majority in the middle
| get car sick from all that violent movements.
| jez wrote:
| Every debate you lose is one where someone else won (and by the
| author's logic, was deprived of the chance to lose).
|
| Some debates I want to win, for the simple joy of teaching
| someone something new.
|
| While it would be an optimal use of my time (from an information-
| theory point of view) for me to lose every debate I participate
| in, some debates are worth taking up for the chance to share.
| paulpauper wrote:
| I am wrong constantly. yet somehow I and others, who are also
| wrong, function and get by in life. It's kinda amazing how
| society works when so many people are wrong. If I had to guess
| it's the correcting mechanism from the exchange and discussion
| of ideas. Bad ideas tend to be weeded out or turn into better
| ones.
| mythrwy wrote:
| There's a time and a place for vigorous debate in support of your
| position, and a time and a place for listening non-judgmentally
| with an open mind. Most things don't matter all that much and
| aren't worth fighting about. Some things are.
|
| Some people just like to fight at every opportunity, and others
| are too cowardly to fight when they should.
| baxuz wrote:
| > The Muslim explains why Islamic law is a perfect recipe for
| peace.
|
| And I'm done with this article.
| cutler wrote:
| s/peace/oppression/
| ben30 wrote:
| Im reminded of the book "Getting to yes" by Roger Fisher.
|
| " In any negotiation, he wrote--even with terrorists--it was
| vital to separate the people from the problem; to focus on the
| underlying interests of both sides, rather than stake out
| unwavering positions; and to explore all possible options before
| making a decision."
|
| https://www.economist.com/obituary/2012/09/15/roger-fisher
| asmor wrote:
| Understanding perspectives is a useful skill. But it's not where
| having an educated opinion ends.
|
| I understand the desire of US fossil fuel companies to do
| fracking. They're not stupid or comically evil. But they can be
| greedy, misguided, selfish and too focused on short term gains
| (if you want to be extra accustory, "within their lifetime"). If
| you then move over to how much astroturfing is involved in
| pushing through a viewpoint you may even call it evil. Though not
| comically, because everything here is still just following the
| forces and inventives of our economic system - profit at every
| non-monetary expense. If you want change, your solution needs to
| address systemic issues (not neccessarily abolishing capitalism,
| but focusing on different inventives and making other
| alternatives viable/profitable though taxes)
|
| (I hope the point I picked is uncontroversial enough, but you can
| probably apply it to your least favorite policies of your least
| favorite flavor of political party, organization, movement or
| institution)
| doctor_eval wrote:
| In Manufacturing Consent, Herman and Chomsky write that (I'm
| paraphrasing) "nobody wakes up and thinks, 'how will I ruin the
| world today?'".
|
| Our world is full of perverse incentives which are embedded
| into society itself. It's been one of the most important
| lessons I've ever learned.
|
| Truly evil people are rare. Selfish people not so much. But
| selfish people nevertheless will generally follow the law and
| social convention.
|
| Unfortunately it's hard to change either of these things.
| mandmandam wrote:
| Fracking is textbook comic evil.
|
| Say there's a comic book where fossil fuel co's worked to
| permanently ruin the groundwater and increase earthquakes in a
| region - bribing lawmakers and fucking over the people who
| lived there, gagging scientists, etc - all just for a resource
| that is literally burning the planet... So they can upgrade
| their megayacht/private jet... I'd find it hard to believe that
| others could allow it to happen.
|
| "Following the incentives of our economic system", so your
| actions are indistinguishable or worse than those of a comic
| book villain, *is* comically evil. Literally. The fact that so
| much of our economic system _defends_ this behavior says a lot.
| inglor_cz wrote:
| Not-fracking gives an enormous leverage to the Saudis, who
| are textbook comic evil as well. A medieval theocracy slowly
| transforming itself into a modern authoritarian country,
| dissolving dissidents in acid on the way.
|
| Or to another major producer, Putin's Russia stuck in the
| Stalinist imperial mindset.
|
| Pick your poison.
| zirgs wrote:
| Fracking happens, because we need energy not because fossil
| fuel CEOs are moustache twirling comic book villains.
| loriverkutya wrote:
| That would be only true if fracking would be the only
| source of energy.
| asmor wrote:
| "Comically evil" usually refers to a character that is evil
| for the sake of being evil, without external motivation. Like
| the stereotypical first D&D character some people make.
|
| Such people are somewhere between rare and nonexitent. You
| could say the fossil fuel company executives are pretty high
| on the evil scale, but they are not evil for the sake of
| being evil. And I was careful calling them evil because HN is
| a politically diverse bunch and sometimes saying things
| diplomatically is the right choice over being technically or
| morally correct but getting downvoted into oblivion for
| invoking a certain kind of language.
|
| If you need an example: I basically never say I'm trans or an
| anarchist in any top level comment to explain the origin of
| my perspective or my claim to knowing more context than
| others because these two words got me outright dismissed too
| much in the past.
| jterrys wrote:
| There's a method for deconstructing an opinion to eliminate
| bias and examine it through as objective of a lens as possible.
| This generally helps ground a lot of irrationality. Their
| conclusion might not necessarily be correct, but as you said,
| if you understand the perspective you can structurally address
| it.
| log101 wrote:
| > They lend me their shoes and glasses, so I can walk a mile with
| their viewpoint and experience it for myself.
|
| I love this qoute and completely agree with it, it's always
| enlightening to "really" try to understand other people, without
| evaluating whether they're right or wrong. But the problem arises
| when you both start acting and your ideas clash. And you need to
| decide which is the "best" way.
| kitd wrote:
| This reminds of "Argue well by losing" [1]. The purpose of debate
| shouldn't be to win or lose, but to reach consensus.
|
| In addition, the ancients of the classical world regarded
| "Rhetoric" (ie the ability to debate) as being the highest form
| of intelligence. It required not only a deep understanding of the
| reasoning behind your own opinion but also an equally deep
| understanding of that of your collocutors. Ie, you should be able
| to argue in favour of his/her point as well as your own, and as
| well as he/she can. That takes wisdom and humility that most
| today seem to lack.
|
| [1] - https://haacked.com/archive/2013/10/21/argue-well-by-
| losing....
| bjarneh wrote:
| > Now I want to hear everything about how clothing is like the
| SMTP protocol
|
| If email is from the wrong "brand" (i.e. server); it is instantly
| seen as garbage and discarded by most mail hosts. If clothes are
| from the wrong "brand" (i.e. manufacturer); they are instantly
| seen as garbage and discarded by most people.
|
| /s
| o_m wrote:
| I agree with this, and I hate when people say "debating is
| pointless because no one ever change their mind".
| Cthulhu_ wrote:
| One great advice I've heard is that, before even going into a
| debate, you ask someone "What would it take for you to change
| your mind on this subject?"
|
| People won't change their mind if they don't have an open mind
| to begin with, or if they're not open to debate on a subject
| matter in the first place.
|
| A lot of people - online and off - will engage in debate for
| debate's sake, even though all parties involved are not willing
| to change their opinion. They just want to be heard.
|
| I mean who here would have an open mind about e.g. flat earth
| or whether the Holocaust actually happened (to invoke Poe's
| law)? I sure don't, and I don't feel guilty about it either; I
| don't need to consider anyone's point of view if I find their
| opinion morally reprehensible, and if they strongly hold those
| beliefs and are unwilling to accept alternatives, they're not
| worth the effort or time. They can go back to their echo
| chambers.
| pessimizer wrote:
| I feel the same way. I'm going to try to defend my position as
| well as I can (sans dishonesty and rhetorical tricks), but
| actually winning an argument means it was probably a waste of my
| time. My goal is to be right about everything, so I wish that in
| every argument I have I'm on the wrong side because when somebody
| who is right convinces me that I am wrong, I become smarter than
| I was before the argument.
|
| I think it's pretty common to feel indebted to people who
| convinced you that you were wrong. Really what happened is that
| they put in the work before you got into it with them, and
| aggressively shared the benefits with you. Losing an argument is
| like someone beating the crap out of you, strolling into your
| home and ransacking it until they find your debts, then paying
| them off against your will.
|
| I walk into every argument hoping to lose, and hoping I don't
| embarrass myself too badly on the way to that loss. The worst is
| when you figure out that you were confidently, smugly wrong. But
| if you laugh with your opponent about how cocky you were, it
| makes it all better.
|
| edit: it's only worth my time to win in an argument if I'm trying
| to help someone I care about, or if I'm trying to argue against
| behavior that affects me or someone I care about negatively. Not
| an abstract effect, like when you pretend your tweets are social
| work, but concretely, like with a coworker that you depend on, or
| a neighbor.
| t344344 wrote:
| [flagged]
| [deleted]
| owenfi wrote:
| A corollary that helped me take criticism less personally: a
| friend once said "I ONLY like negative feedback".
|
| They went on to explain that positive feedback/compliments
| weren't helpful to them because they couldn't grow from it. The
| starkness of the statement was what I needed to recognize it.
| diffxx wrote:
| Interesting perspective. This requires a level of inner
| strength that many of us do not always have. Increasingly
| though I realize that I don't need a lot of verbal feedback.
| You can tell a lot just by people's physical reactions to you.
| And the corollary is that I notice that there are some people
| that I try and shut down with body language to get them to
| leave me alone.
| zh3 wrote:
| This reminds me Bertrand Russells's "The fundamental cause of the
| trouble is that in the modern world the stupid are cocksure while
| the intelligent are full of doubt".
|
| Though in my experience a lot of very intelligent people are
| pretty cocksure [0] and could do with a dose of humility.
|
| [0] Ref. the word 'cocksure', not that HN will ban me, but
| twitter might - cf. https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-
| norfolk-64451977
| devnullbrain wrote:
| This is very self-congratulatory and fails to account for the
| many times where winning a debate can have greater implications
| than navel gazing. If the author has never encountered these,
| he's either very lucky or has no meaningful views against the
| mainstream anyway.
| fedeb95 wrote:
| Sadly sometimes our desires aren't met
| JohnFen wrote:
| This is a special case of one of my life mottos: I've never
| learned anything by being right.
| curiousllama wrote:
| I used to think this too, but found it was mostly a manifestation
| of my intellectual cowardice, not a coherent position itself.
|
| An open-minded willingness to change one's mind is admirable. But
| if you change your mind too often, you end up thinking less
| yourself - you're outsourcing learning. It should get
| incrementally more difficult to change your mind the more you
| learn. Otherwise, you're just collecting facts, not actually
| understanding anything.
|
| Besides, you don't really hope you're wrong, and it's a bit
| arrogant to say so. Have you ascended above these petty emotions
| of the flesh? Being wrong is A Bad Thing, and "I believe I'm
| wrong" is an oxymoron.
|
| I think a better approach is "I'm always willing to change my
| mind, and hope I never have to." I'm often wrong, about things of
| which I'm unaware, and I always pursue the opportunity to be less
| wrong.
|
| But it's a worse title.
| JohnFen wrote:
| But discovering that you're wrong is a great thing. It means
| you've become just a little bit less ignorant -- and we're all
| ignorant of more things than not.
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2023-01-31 23:02 UTC)