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

281–290 of 307 posts

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

#281

Post by sctb »

LoSboccacc wrote: post #124
douche wrote: post #71

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

Welcome to the pussy generation, which can't take criticism unless they also get their medal and can't learn anything from references until a video explains them in caring words what's best and worst for them.

Please don't comment like this here. Hacker News is for intellectually interesting discussion, and uninformative lamentations don't meet that bar.

https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html

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

#282

Post by munchbunny »

AstralStorm wrote: post #267
munchbunny wrote: post #30

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If they're trying to get something and are willing to screw others over for it, then you have to give them an easier way to get what they want. Maybe they actually want something else? Or maybe they can get the thing some less damaging way? If that all fails then you have to find other strings to pull. Figure out what currencies they care about (think social pressure) and see how you might be able to use them to help…

How Machiavelian. We're talking about people, not things. People are often inconsistent. You cannot reduce them to a simple stratagem without a risk of total mistake.

I didn't suggest a simple strategem, I suggested a way of thinking about how to dissuade someone who is willing to burn you or things or people you care about to gain something. How you implement what I said will vary from person to person. It can be Machiavellian if you're a student of the Jack Bauer school of persuasion, but for normal people it's just negotiation.

Everybody has that ledger in their head when they make a decision but what's on that ledger can vary dramatically. If you want to both dissuade an irrational actor and keeping things civil, then you need to figure out what's on that ledger and whether you have a way of adjusting those items, maybe by offering a more palatable (to you) alternative, or by changing the perception of the costs/benefits, or by actually changing the costs/benefits, and so on.

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

#283

Post by GFischer »

biofox wrote: post #116
vintermann wrote: post #102

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

It sounds like a variant of Pascal's Wager - and Pascal himself is widely regarded as extremely intelligent, as the article states :)

http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/pascal-wager/

http://www.iep.utm.edu/pasc-wag/

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pascal%27s_Wager

edit: I missed jahnu's post inmediately below, with a similar theme "That's the essence of Pascal's Wager"

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=12486377

edit2: and mcguire

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=12488731

So I guess I should say "me too"

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

#284

Post by GFischer »

jgalt212 wrote: post #157

Why prove to a man he is wrong? Is that going to make him like you? Why not let him save face? He didn't ask for your opinion. He didn't want it. Why argue with him? You can't win an argument, because if you lose, you lose it; and if you win it, you lose it. Why? You will feel fine. But what about him? You have made him feel inferior, you hurt his pride, insult his intelligence, his judgment, and his self-respect, an…

Good quote. I should re-read How To Win Friends and Influence People.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/How_to_Win_Friends_and_Influen...

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

#285

Post by GFischer »

shostack wrote: post #162
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…

Ah, I see you too have learned how to have a happier marriage.

This is not the kind of comments encouraged at HN, but, that said, I laughed really hard at this :)

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

#286

Post by WWKong »

AstralStorm wrote: post #270
WWKong wrote: post #60

Here is a method to get the other person on your side of the issue: ask them the reasons the counter point could be reasonable. "Could you think of some reasons why one would vote for Trump? Seriously." Use responsibly.

The way you phrased it makes the question sound like a trap. It presumes one couldn't think of any reason. Try "What are some reasons one would vote for Trump?" Neutral tone of voice included.

Agreed. That is what I was aiming for. You worded it better.

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

#287

Post by humanrebar »

AstralStorm wrote: post #252
humanrebar wrote: post #155

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> A stronger argument is that we have managed to create building blocks of life from basic physics and chemistry. No superpowers required for that. No. Just some creators.

No, just a few known laws of physics and chemistry. The conditions required are expected to happen spontaneously during planet formation. We just don't have a handle on how common those conditions are. And many other subsequent conditions, for cellular life, for multicellular, for tissues and organs. Finally, for intelligence and sapience.

The point is that we cannot prove there is no creator by creating life. There is still a creator involved.

The 'best result' (assuming we're itching to disprove God) would be to show an origin of life is plausible. But even that doesn't prove where life on Earth actually came from.

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

#288

Post by Nursie »

crististm wrote: post #280
Nursie wrote: post #245

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The fundamental difference is that a hypothesis is not (or should not be, different argument) accepted as fact by the scientific establishment before it is tested and shown true or false with empirical evidence. As such it doesn't matter where it comes from so long as it is tested before acceptance . Which is why I struggle to understand the bootstrapping problem that the other poster talks about. --edit-- To put it…

Hypothesis origin does not matter. But not all things can be tested - think about dual slit experiment. You can't reproduce the experiment in the sense that you'll know which slit will be taken.

But you can reproduce the probability distribution aspect of it quite reliably. If you think the dual slit experiment presents a problem to the scientific method or empiricism you're quite wrong.

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

#289

Post by ojosilva »

AstralStorm wrote: post #265
ojosilva wrote: post #199

This is very shallow. Negotiation theory is not helpful when you're plainly or partially wrong, or just in a very weak position to defend. Here's a classic negotiation example that I just can't crack: Her: I've told you, please don't leave your socks on the floor. Him: (mirroring) Leave my socks on the floor? Her: Yes. Please throw them in the laundry bin right after you take them off. Him: (open-ended question) How…

Sometimes, a game cannot be won. Negotiation cannot be done if the other party is not willing.

One way to break such a stalemate is to increase your empathy to the point you become the psychiatrist and the other party the patient.

Here he could debase Her argument as being a manifestation of an obsessive compulsive disorder. If she agrees to that "diagnosis" just a little, he might be able to move to a kill by proposing that the socks remain on the floor as a form of therapy that will help Her treat her overwhelmingly obsessive behavior.

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

#290

Post by woodandsteel »

jandrese wrote: post #273
emodendroket wrote: post #194

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm curious what your position is. Young-Earth creationism plus evolution? Or something different? I can't quite discern it from your post.

It's probably best not to go any further down this discussion tree in this thread. This issue has a tendency to dominate the discussion whenever it appears, derailing the original conversation entirely.

Perhaps you could post a link to some place that expresses a view similar to yours.
Post reply on HN