To tell someone they're wrong, first tell them how they're right • Hacker News Board

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

#111

Post by GarvielLoken » Tue, Sep 13, 2016, 7:38 AM UTC

donw wrote: post #55

geowwy wrote: post #38

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>> If they disagree with you, it's probably not because they are being irrational... It's interesting to compare this POV with the Scott Adams'. In his school of thought all people are mostly irrational, even if they think otherwise: http://blog.dilbert.com/post/147595892021/how-persuaders-see...

Oddly enough, I think that both of these viewpoints work together very nicely. Human beings are, generally speaking, irrational. We have a sort of flashlight'o'rationality that we can shine on specific things for periods of time, but most of how we behave is guided by a mixture of instinct, culture, emotion, and our life experiences. It is pretty well-established that even highly rational people tend to choose a posi…

It is generally better to live your life irrational and do decisions irrational, because this usually indicates decisions based on values, humanism and real human empathy. Rationality in it self is autistic and schizophrenic, a closed system that is doomed by Gödel to always try, but never achieving completeness and consistency. A never ending lie that we can know it all rationally.

I actually think that humans work the other way around. At our core is a giant GPU parallel computing system that deals in emotions and our culture. Slapped on to the system is a slow weak single core trying desperately to control everything. I can recommend the book "The Master and His Emissary" by Iain McGilchrist.

Notice especially in the Schizophrenic Paranoia in the link in the GP. Most people are dumb, but there are the evil "Persuaders" who are out to get you. And you are the enlightened one who has figured out the "truth". Classic delusion.

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

#112

Post by afarrell » Tue, Sep 13, 2016, 7:39 AM UTC

johngalt wrote: post #25

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…

Someone could also disagree with me because they are correct and I am in error. They may have knowledge or perspective that I lack. My first step is to try and find something they know that I don't before crafting persuasive arguments. Maximize for total knowledge not winning arguments.

"So my current understanding (or perception) is..." Is one way that I like to open disagreements. It isn't ambiguous about the fact that we disagree, but it indicates that I am the open to changing my understanding based on new information.

EDIT: verb tense agreement

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

#113

Post by flukus » Tue, Sep 13, 2016, 7:39 AM UTC

reitanqild wrote: post #80

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…

Creationist, son of creationists here :-) Although I guess there are creationists and there are creationists: If you ask me about science I will answer with science. I did well in school, including biology and introduction to astrophysics. If you hold a gun to my head and ask if I still belive this nonsense about the world being created I'd guess I'd say yes (if I can't get around to disarming you, I don't like armed…

> On a more serious note: For me, the distinction between belief and science disappear somewhere around "all models are wrong, some are useful". For me, both models have been very useful.

What useful model does creationism put forward?

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

#114

Post by marklgr » Tue, Sep 13, 2016, 7:45 AM UTC

reitanqild wrote: post #80

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…

Creationist, son of creationists here :-) Although I guess there are creationists and there are creationists: If you ask me about science I will answer with science. I did well in school, including biology and introduction to astrophysics. If you hold a gun to my head and ask if I still belive this nonsense about the world being created I'd guess I'd say yes (if I can't get around to disarming you, I don't like armed…

No snark, but I guess white supremacists also find their model pretty useful. The obvious question is, does anything go, provided it makes some people feel good somehow?

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

#115

Post by bonoboTP » Tue, Sep 13, 2016, 7:50 AM UTC

vintermann wrote: post #102

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…

Imagine that there's a meteor heading towards earth. All evidence suggests that it will hit in three days, and wipe out all multicellular life - it's a big one. What do you do? How do you live your life your last three days? One school of thought says, disregard the evidence. Assert, against it all, that the meteor is going to miss. Or if that's hard, decide to trust someone who asserts it (this is usually easier). T…

It's one of the usual arguments for ignoring the "simulation argument".

I think there's a bigger problem with the religious version that you presented. Namely, for any religion/concept of God, you can imagine another one that wants you to do opposite things. How do you know which God's existence to assume? You're back to trying to find evidence for one God against another God. In practice, this would probably also provide evidence against the claim that "no Gods exist". It's hard to think of evidence of the form "If there's a God, it probably wants X as opposed to not X." that really needs that pre-condition.

So the religious person may just as well go back to trying to gather evidence for God against no-God, because they need to gather evidence for God against the God-that-desires-opposite-things anyway.

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

#116

Post by biofox » Tue, Sep 13, 2016, 7:56 AM UTC

vintermann wrote: post #102

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…

Imagine that there's a meteor heading towards earth. All evidence suggests that it will hit in three days, and wipe out all multicellular life - it's a big one. What do you do? How do you live your life your last three days? One school of thought says, disregard the evidence. Assert, against it all, that the meteor is going to miss. Or if that's hard, decide to trust someone who asserts it (this is usually easier). T…

This is one of the simplest, and most useful, explanations for religious belief I've seen. Thank you!

There's a tendency to write off creationists and theists as completely irrational and stupid, without giving any thought to their motivations.

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

#117

Post by enraged_camel » Tue, Sep 13, 2016, 7:58 AM UTC

Trill-I-Am wrote: post #87

civilian wrote: post #76

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Exactly. It's pure fantasy. Looking for shreds of intelligence in it is foolish. To

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

#118

Post by amelius » Tue, Sep 13, 2016, 8:01 AM UTC

A better way is to first teach them logic. Then tell them they're wrong.

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

#119

Post by reitanqild » Tue, Sep 13, 2016, 8:03 AM UTC

flukus wrote: post #113

reitanqild wrote: post #80

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Creationist, son of creationists here :-) Although I guess there are creationists and there are creationists: If you ask me about science I will answer with science. I did well in school, including biology and introduction to astrophysics. If you hold a gun to my head and ask if I still belive this nonsense about the world being created I'd guess I'd say yes (if I can't get around to disarming you, I don't like armed…

> On a more serious note: For me, the distinction between belief and science disappear somewhere around "all models are wrong, some are useful". For me, both models have been very useful. What useful model does creationism put forward?

Mostly not creationism specifically but my religion.

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

#120

Post by Swizec » Tue, Sep 13, 2016, 8:07 AM UTC

reitanqild wrote: post #80

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…

Creationist, son of creationists here :-) Although I guess there are creationists and there are creationists: If you ask me about science I will answer with science. I did well in school, including biology and introduction to astrophysics. If you hold a gun to my head and ask if I still belive this nonsense about the world being created I'd guess I'd say yes (if I can't get around to disarming you, I don't like armed…

My favorite explanation has been: science answers What/How, religion answers Why. It's when we start asking one a question for the other that we get into trouble.

Which is what I don't like about [some] creationism. It tries to use a Why tool to answer a How question.

And as long as you take Biblical stories to be metaphors and/or best-effort explanations from before we had the data that we have now, they're perfectly fine stories that make plenty of sense as an explanation.

Adam&Eve for instance. If all you know is that it takes a man and a woman to produce a baby, it stands to reason that at some point there had to have been the first pair.