Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

To tell someone they're wrong, first tell them how they're right

qz.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

81–90 of 307 posts

Re: To tell someone they're wrong, first tell them how they're right

#81

Post by thisone »

ehnto wrote: post #51
Retra wrote: post #41

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I've learned plenty (and changed my mind many times) from having people simply tell me that I'm wrong.

I have found programmers to be far more receptive to blunt criticism than my other non-programmer friends. I think it's just a frame of mind to accept that will be wrong a lot and that is fine. It would take a whole lot of cognitive dissonance to get through a decent sized software project and imagine it is all flawless or couldn't be even slightly better in some way.

If you think you are wrong, and someone tells you that you are wrong, you are being proved right.

It's not much different to my mind, and I fall into that camp of people who always think they're wrong.

Try to tell me I'm completely right, I'll argue with you why I'm not

Re: To tell someone they're wrong, first tell them how they're right

#82

Post by dredmorbius »

jobu wrote: post #22
rayiner wrote: post #16

Learning how to do this is an essential skill. Most people are not idiots. If they disagree with you, it's probably not because they are being irrational, but because they're starting from a different premise, making different assumptions, or assigning different values to different aspects of the problem. Only when you understand their argument well enough to articulate it in your own words can you effectively presen…

Usually I try to resolve disagreements by asking questions. Either they end up poking holes in their own arguments or I learn where I made a mistake. Telling someone they're wrong is useless. After that they can only think of reasons why they're correct.

I employ that tactic as well, though even it fails to proceed with distressing frequency.

Re: To tell someone they're wrong, first tell them how they're right

#83

Post by dredmorbius »

Artoemius wrote: post #72
teen wrote: post #19

Earlier quoted context omitted.

i would argue that most people are in fact idiots

That depends on how you define an idiot. It's true that one half of people literally has less-than-average intelligence...

If defined traditionally (from the Greek), it's the literal truth.

http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?term=idiot&allowed_in_fr...

Re: To tell someone they're wrong, first tell them how they're right

#85

Post by dredmorbius »

nate wrote: post #17

A very similar effect is the "backfire effect" http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Backfire_effect I've been spending a lot of time focusing on this with customer support. When a customer is hot about a problem it doesn't help at all to show facts about anything. It really helps though to begin with a place of empathy of how you understand how they feel if you were in a similar situation. For example, had a great experience…

The simpering sympathising and apologising thing can go much too far as well. My reaction to that is "stop apologising and fix the damned problem".

Experience teaches that it's almost always a sign of someone who's not empowered, or worse, not capable, of actually improving the situation. At worst their role is to actively impede the process, a circumstance far too frequently encountered.

Re: To tell someone they're wrong, first tell them how they're right

#86

Post by donw »

Artoemius wrote: post #70
alsetmusic wrote: post #65

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Only when you understand their argument... I couldn't agree more. As a lifelong believer in science, raised in the Midwest among creationists, I have come into many conversations with intelligent people who somehow place faith in front of evidence. It's demoralizing to realize the frequency that this phenomenon occurs. I've recently scheduled a trip to the Creation Museum to observe the message at its core (half fo…

Sorry, most people are indeed not idiots, but that doesn't apply to creationists. It's one thing to go to a church (there even might be purely social reasons), and it's another thing to discard overwhelming scientific evidence and believe something based on the principle of not needing any evidence at all. I become especially sad when I think of the confused minds of the poor children of these people. On the topic, I…

The point is not that creationism is an obvious case of twisting the facts to fit theories.

It is that, if you want to have any hope of bringing a creationist over to your side, you need to be able to understand and articulate both their arguments, and their point of view.

If you can establish that you understand them, they are going to be a lot more receptive to you asking the hard questions about their beliefs (this is best done by asking them to convince you to be a creationist, and then asking those hard questions).

Calling those people idiots does nothing other than give them a legitimate reason to dislike both you, and by extension, other people that "believe in evolution".

Somewhat related to that, creationists tend to be deeply religious, so books like The God Delusion -- which I very much enjoyed, by the way -- are almost guaranteed to turn off a creationist. It would be better to recommend books that explain evolution through a Christian world-view, as they will have a much easier time relating to the material.

Re: To tell someone they're wrong, first tell them how they're right

#87

Post by Trill-I-Am »

civilian wrote: post #76
Artoemius wrote: post #70

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Sorry, most people are indeed not idiots, but that doesn't apply to creationists. It's one thing to go to a church (there even might be purely social reasons), and it's another thing to discard overwhelming scientific evidence and believe something based on the principle of not needing any evidence at all. I become especially sad when I think of the confused minds of the poor children of these people. On the topic, I…

You're right that creationists are pretty deep into idiot territory. But alsetmusic's fact-finding mission could still be useful! Right now he doesn't even know where to start on how to construct an argument, because he doesn't know what creationists have been told. There are probably many pieces of evidence in the creationist museum that are valid "holes" in science, that we're still looking to fill. He'd be able to…

The creation museum posits that dinosaurs and humans existed at the same time before the great flood a few thousand years ago. They also say that dragons were real.

Re: To tell someone they're wrong, first tell them how they're right

#88

Post by Cogito »

jaywunder wrote: post #66
PakG1 wrote: post #62

While this is an important skill to have, I've also learned over time that there are certain types of people where it's easier to let them "be right" and accommodate the consequences. I didn't always think this way. In the past, I would say that people are reasonable, it's always possible to figure out what the truth is, especially if I acknowledge the possibility that I am often wrong. But now I realize that some pe…

> While this is an important skill to have, I've also learned over time that there are certain types of people where it's easier to let them "be right" and accommodate the consequences Generally when that happens to me I've come across what I like to call a "fundamental argument." Where neither party is correct and neither party is wrong. A good example of this is "do you believe in religion" because nobody can prove…

I'm all for "fundamental arguments" as you call them, but they are probably the least interesting arguments imaginable. Their only claim to being interesting, from my point of view, is because they tend to arise as the last bastion of a belief system that has been whittled away by evidence.

Let's take your example a little further, starting with the perhaps more general: "Do you believe in a higher power?".

I agree that it is impossible to disprove the existence of a higher power, however I do think it is possible to prove (not that I think it will be proved, ever). Things that were previously taken as evidence of such a proof are now generally accepted as natural phenomena (lightning as a crude example).

The nature of what would prove the existence makes for a much more interesting argument than the mere possibility of existence.

"Do you believe that the higher power interacts with this universe?"

"Do you believe that we can measure that interaction?"

"What would that measurement look like?"

"Why haven't we actually measured that?" (perhaps a loaded question!)

If someone chooses to believe in a higher power that is unable to interact with us, and has no impact on anything we do, good for them! Potential issues arise when people believe that the higher powers does interact with the world, and so I find that discussion much more interesting than merely if such a thing could exist or not.

Re: To tell someone they're wrong, first tell them how they're right

#89

Post by dredmorbius »

douche wrote: post #71
h4nkoslo wrote: post #56

This is also known as the "shit sandwich" (when leavened with another helping of praise on the other end), and is instantly recognizable once you see the pattern. The risk is that your initial praise is seen as disingenuous by its recipients, or that it goes too far and reifies their underlying value system when it actually is contradictory to yours. Incidentally, Barack Obama was particularly good at this constructi…

I hate this pattern. If something is fucked up, tell me, so I can fix it. Don't waste my time buttering me up first and patting me on the back afterwards, just get to the point. It's one thing I do kind of miss about working shitty, dangerous construction and logging jobs summers in college. There's no time for pussyfooting around when a miscommunication means somebody gets crushed or mangled by heavy equipment. Brus…

I'm with you on most of that (the sandwich), but (the shit) it requires a community of trust, and some healthy functioning people, at least within that specific context.

I've had a recent online experience in a community in which all interaction is anonymous -- but the anonymity isn't persistent, rather, identities are created and assigned for each discussion.

This almost perfectly destroys any and all sense of community. It also interacts poorly with several other site dynamics, but the result is phenomenally toxic.

I do know online communities, usually smallish (5-50 people, occasionally more, but rarely >150) where that kind of banter can develop. I've seen it in workplaces, but rarely, and even then often only between a few people. Like you I've seen it in jobs involving physical work, close quarters, and danger, and those were some of the most awesome times of my life. There's a strong sense of missing that in much technology and online interaction.

I've also seen places which are almost the antithesis of this. Where there's no trust, or camarderie, or sense of shared purpose. Financial industry and political environments seem to be the epitome of this. In banking, the culture permeates inside organisations, in politics, it's usually confined to rivalries across party lines, though not always. In either case, though, you find that there's an excessive need for formality, protocol, and ego-buttering which isn't so necessary elsewhere.

And which apparently you and I both find tedious.

Re: To tell someone they're wrong, first tell them how they're right

#90

Post by School-Cotton »

regularfry wrote: post #77
Artoemius wrote: post #72

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That depends on how you define an idiot. It's true that one half of people literally has less-than-average intelligence...

Depends on the distribution. And which average.

IQ is distributed normally.
Post reply on HN