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

291–300 of 307 posts

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

#291

Post by woodandsteel »

dagw wrote: post #166
gambiting wrote: post #131

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"I think creationist's thinking is something like this: 1. If evolution is true, then God is not." Serious question - is this US-specific line of thinking? Because I was raised in Poland, which is ultra-religious and if you aren't a catholic you will be ostracized from your community, and yet evolution was NEVER questioned in my education, and I went to private catholic schools. It's widely accepted by everyone, I th…

is this US-specific line of thinking? Indirectly. Creationism is really only a thing within certain subsets of baptist and evangelical branches of Christianity, and these branches haven't take a large hold in Europe, whereas in the US they've flourished. Catholics have never really gone for it, even in the US, as far as I'm aware.

I have read that there are Muslims, at least in other countries, who are young-earth creationists and anti-darwinists.

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

#292

Post by mapt »

danso wrote: post #5

From a straightforward standpoint, having to think about how the other person is right, and then to incorporate in a rebuttal, simply takes more time . Which for me is helpful because that physical delay curbs the kinds of reflexive emotional responses that I regret later.

It takes more time and a lot more patience and some common-ground factual context. Which is why bomb-throwing is the game-theoretically preferred public debate tactic with a mixed audience, such as the practice of politics.

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

#293

Post by dragonwriter »

dagw wrote: post #166
gambiting wrote: post #131

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"I think creationist's thinking is something like this: 1. If evolution is true, then God is not." Serious question - is this US-specific line of thinking? Because I was raised in Poland, which is ultra-religious and if you aren't a catholic you will be ostracized from your community, and yet evolution was NEVER questioned in my education, and I went to private catholic schools. It's widely accepted by everyone, I th…

is this US-specific line of thinking? Indirectly. Creationism is really only a thing within certain subsets of baptist and evangelical branches of Christianity, and these branches haven't take a large hold in Europe, whereas in the US they've flourished. Catholics have never really gone for it, even in the US, as far as I'm aware.

> Catholics have never really gone for it, even in the US, as far as I'm aware.

Catholics haven't gone for it the way certain branches of Protestantism have because adhering to Young Earth creationism in the face of empirical evidence to the contrary is largely, in those branches of Protestantism, a defense of a particular extreme form of a sola scriptura (a Protestant doctrine which directly contrasts with Catholicisms dual role for scripture and tradition) with Biblical literalism (which is likewise not a Catholic doctrine.)

There are Young Earth Creationists in the Catholic Church, but its a matter of personal belief that is far removed from the core doctrine and identity of the Church.

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

#294

Post by orsenthil »

munchbunny wrote: post #282
AstralStorm wrote: post #267

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

The particular family member that I mention, did not come for any negotiation. They wanted to have something irrespective of the cost (even at the cost of health) to others in the family.

It was a failed argument that I saw when rationalization was not helpful for my families welfare. I could not take it law either, as law does not cover many family scenarios.

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

#295

Post by vintermann »

GFischer wrote: post #283
biofox wrote: post #116

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 edi…

I assume you speak about the third step, that if you suspect existence may meaningless, you might as well assume it has a meaning, because if you were correct it doesn't matter that you are wrong anyway (by definition).

I don't think it's like Pascal's wager, because there's no need for probability here, and you're not trying to avoid any bad outcome. I think it's more like how Pascal rejected the concern that he might be insane (if you ask yourself "how do I know I'm not crazy?" you're basically already assuming you're not crazy).

But, I haven't actually read all of Pascal's Pensees. What extracts I have read of it suggests to me that he's heavily straw-manned both by later philosophers and people writing about it today, so for all I know the "wager" was more like this, too.

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

#296

Post by chillacy »

apathy wrote: post #227
zouhair wrote: post #181

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What I really dislike is when I calmly convince them that I am correct to just check later and find out that I was completely wrong.

If you are interacting with the right people, a review of events will reveal that they gently led you to discover this. I'm kind of pissed that I guy I disagreed with seems to have been banned here, for example. I was curious where he was coming from and whether my foundation was as shaky as his appeared to me. (I think it was a guy, but I'll never know) The best teachers I've ever had simply laid out all the evidenc…

Unfortunately laying out the evidence is pretty powerful too. You have so many choices, from omission/overplaying of evidence to mislead the availability heuristic, to picking and choosing what sources are good and bad.

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

#297

Post by LoSboccacc »

sctb wrote: post #281
LoSboccacc wrote: post #124

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

> Please don't submit comments complaining that a submission is inappropriate for the site If you think a comment is egregious, click on its timestamp to go to its page, then click 'flag' at the top.

1 - 1 tie, I guess?

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

#298

Post by 98Windows »

GarvielLoken wrote: post #158
98Windows wrote: post #139

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think it resonates because we've all seen both methods in action, and the proposed one (at least for me) has always lead to a better outcome. The psychologist has also most likely seen even more examples in all the literature he has read and so can add a bit more weight to the argument. What would convince you of the hypothesis? A quantitative study?

I think you misunderstood me 180 degrees. I was not advocating stronger evidence. I was questioning our culture need for "Now scientist have finally proven the old x is correct/incorrect". Wasn't Pascal beautiful passages already obvious true before this psychologist made his statement?

But lots of things seem obviously true but turn out to be wrong or problematic. It is nice to get more than one opinion.

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

#299

Post by collinmanderson »

zouhair wrote: post #181
johngalt wrote: post #25

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

What I really dislike is when I calmly convince them that I am correct to just check later and find out that I was completely wrong.

That's happened to me a few times. Kind of annoying. :)

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

#300

Post by coldtea »

AstralStorm wrote: post #254
coldtea wrote: post #138

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I have come into many conversations with intelligent people who somehow place faith in front of evidence. Which can be a very intelligent and rational thing to do. It all depends on the end goal ("discover how the world actually works" vs "calm your soul through belief in a higher power", etc.). People can do very stupid things (dangerous to them, to the detriment of their health, social relations, etc) in pursuit…

If the goal is irrational, the method to achieve it does not matter. Ex falso quod libet.

>If the goal is irrational, the method to achieve it does not matter.

That's actually patently false. I might have an irrational goal of driving a Ferrari while pouring ketchup on my head, but not all methods are equally capable of realising it.

And of course, if I break into a bank and steal money as the method to get the Ferrari I could be put to jail (either before or after realizing my dream) -- so the method absolutely does matter.

>Ex falso quod libet

That is about logical statements -- it says nothing about methods of realising a goal, except if your goal is to build correct logical propositions.

Post reply on HN