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

Kids, Would You Please Start Fighting

nytimes.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

61–70 of 127 posts

Re: Kids, Would You Please Start Fighting

#61

Post by _dps »

kbutler wrote: post #58
cornyNetHandle wrote: post #24

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It isn't about calling someone a moron, it is about being able to respond, "Thanks, I can be fucking stupid at times, can you show me where I am being moronic here?". It is also about being able top unguard your own language should you know that the other person is operating by the rules, not to be insulting, but so to not worry about it for that conversation and so not having to run that whole level of extra process…

But you could further optimize your communication by dropping the profanity. A listener declaring Crocker's rules says they will not be offended, but at best, profanity communicates your emotional reaction to a situation. In seeking optimal communication of information, profanity is largely wasted bandwidth.

> But you could further optimize your communication by dropping the profanity.

I have certainly been in stressful situations with people where I was confident they were struggling to say what they really meant because they were angry and trying to remain civil.

Giving someone permission to vent at you, in the interest of also giving you a truth they've struggled to present politely, is one of the functions of this practice.

I think you may be taking "optimally" to mean something like "ideally"; in this context I take it to be "the best available". It would be ideal for the angry person with the important truth to find a polite way to present that truth — but with emotion involved the best available option may be to accept some profanity along with the truth, in preference to the truth being hidden behind an attempt to stay civil.

Re: Kids, Would You Please Start Fighting

#62

Post by dieterrams »

Mithaldu wrote: post #52
_dps wrote: post #2

The article quotes studies claiming that people who grow up with conflict in their personal lives are more likely to be comfortable with differing opinions and certain forms of creative debate. Since there's seemingly some benefit of exposure to these kinds of negative experiences, they mention advice on how to mitigate the negative aspect of conflict. But I think it's actually great advice to teach children/students…

> debate The last time i had a conversation with an american trained in "debate", it was quickly obvious that reality and truth were the last thing on his mind, but scoring rethoric points was the first. The rest of your points are good, but i think if you start it out with the word debate, many americans are going to mentally short-circuit to that style of conflict, instead of "respectful conversation".

‘Debate’ does seem to have strong connotations of a rhetorical fight. ‘Discourse’ has been the preferred word among philosphers and other circles that discuss this sort of thing.

Re: Kids, Would You Please Start Fighting

#63

Post by _dps »

dieterrams wrote: post #62
Mithaldu wrote: post #52

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> debate The last time i had a conversation with an american trained in "debate", it was quickly obvious that reality and truth were the last thing on his mind, but scoring rethoric points was the first. The rest of your points are good, but i think if you start it out with the word debate, many americans are going to mentally short-circuit to that style of conflict, instead of "respectful conversation".

‘Debate’ does seem to have strong connotations of a rhetorical fight. ‘Discourse’ has been the preferred word among philosphers and other circles that discuss this sort of thing.

"Debate" has a long tradition of meaning a formalized presentation of opposing views, each represented by a person or team, for the purpose of evaluating relative merits.

"Discourse" is a much broader term and does not imply formal structure, opposition, merit evaluation, or that advocacy of particular ideas is associated with particular speakers.

IMO "Debate" is absolutely the right term for what the advice suggests, which is to reframe a conflict situation into a situation where there are norms of fair argument and expectations of equal access to present opposing views, with the hope of evaluating the merits of said views.

Re: Kids, Would You Please Start Fighting

#64

Post by whatyoucantsay »

I wouldn't encourage children to fight but when children are accompanied by adults at all times and have all their conflicts mediated for them, it almost certainly stunts their social skills. Similarly, banning all physical contact in primary schools is a poor way to encourage emotional health... for any mammal.

http://www.bbc.com/future/story/20131014-the-touching-moment...

https://stpauls.vxcommunity.com/Issue/Us-Experiment-On-Infan...

Re: Kids, Would You Please Start Fighting

#65

Post by dhimes »

Mithaldu wrote: post #52
_dps wrote: post #2

The article quotes studies claiming that people who grow up with conflict in their personal lives are more likely to be comfortable with differing opinions and certain forms of creative debate. Since there's seemingly some benefit of exposure to these kinds of negative experiences, they mention advice on how to mitigate the negative aspect of conflict. But I think it's actually great advice to teach children/students…

> debate The last time i had a conversation with an american trained in "debate", it was quickly obvious that reality and truth were the last thing on his mind, but scoring rethoric points was the first. The rest of your points are good, but i think if you start it out with the word debate, many americans are going to mentally short-circuit to that style of conflict, instead of "respectful conversation".

Debate is a sport over here in America, where high school teams compete. It's just as you say: they are not seeking truth, they are trying to win.

It's reflected in our adversarial legal system as well. I personally don't like it that way, but there are people who think it's the best way.

Re: Kids, Would You Please Start Fighting

#66

Post by thomastjeffery »

_dps wrote: post #17
iovrthoughtthis wrote: post #15

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is fantastic advise for effective debate. I would add: * agree on the meaning of the words you use. * be upfront about how willing you are to be wrong / change your mind (I phrase this as "what would have to be true for you to accept I am right" and vice versa for my beliefs).

I really like the part about agreeing on words, and I'd riff on a bit more with two sub-patterns i've found useful 1) "I see when you say X you mean [specific definition]. Given that definition I agree with you, but I disagree with the definition" 2) "When I say X it seems it means [specific definition] to you. Rather than fight over the definition I will avoid saying X and use different terms so we can keep moving"

This is a really problem with some specific topics like copyright, where the terms were invented for propaganda.

We really need a better word than "piracy".

Re: Kids, Would You Please Start Fighting

#67

Post by fallous »

_dps wrote: post #2

The article quotes studies claiming that people who grow up with conflict in their personal lives are more likely to be comfortable with differing opinions and certain forms of creative debate. Since there's seemingly some benefit of exposure to these kinds of negative experiences, they mention advice on how to mitigate the negative aspect of conflict. But I think it's actually great advice to teach children/students…

Note that being comfortable with differing opinions and being comfortable with certain forms of creative debate are two different things. A debate should be a voluntary contest between parties and is only possible if they both share and agree upon a base set of principles as the foundation for the debate. If an atheist and a theist "debate" the existence of God(s) it isn't a resolvable argument since their divergence of principles is at a fundamental level and the only thing they share are certain derived points that accidentally coincide. In this case the parties must either be comfortable with the fact that they differ in opinions or they are not. This does beg the question as to when one should be comfortable with a differing opinion. I suspect that those who have encountered real conflict having a larger comfort area for differences due to their understanding that conflict invites real costs.

In the case where legitimate debate can occur, the rules I usually try and follow/enforce are:

1. Establish the goal all parties wish to achieve (i.e., define success).

2. Establish the point at where our agreement on methods diverged.

3. All ideas should be orphans in that they have no privileges purely due to parentage.

4. Never ascribe to malice that which can adequately be explained by incompetence or ignorance.

5. Be ruthlessly honest about your own position, to include disclosing the weaknesses you know or suspect as well as disclosing the strengths of the opposing position (especially if the parties holding that position do not know it or present it themselves).

Personally I become uncomfortable when there is unanimous agreement on positions I know to be legitimately debatable, even if I hold that position. In those instances I will promptly switch sides and argue against my own position to insure it has been properly vetted.

In my experience the point that most reliably invites emotional response is failure of #3 since it's hard to move from "my idea" to "the idea." The most insidious failure is at #1 due to either misunderstanding or dishonesty since it corrupts the entire effort but can be very difficult to discover.

Re: Kids, Would You Please Start Fighting

#68

Post by thomastjeffery »

arglebarnacle wrote: post #47
true_religion wrote: post #44

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Traditionally, once the decision is made to go to war, all debate about the justifications for the war must end. Countries where the debate continues end up having a social split where part of the nation supports the war, and part does not. This kind of civil division is fatal during war time if your enemy isn't similarly hobbled. Any war, even the most worthy, is susceptible to having its justifications criticized b…

That's certainly true about total war where the nation's survival is threatened by defeat, but it's not true about the kind of limited wars was have seen since world war 2. In fact, because these wars are limited wars for the world powers that start them, but total wars for the postcolonial states in the receiving end, I think it's very correct that the public e.g. in the US continue to aggressively question the rati…

On that note, the US spends almost as much in defense as the entire rest of the world.

Losing a "war" in the middle East would not affect the US very much outside reputation.

Re: Kids, Would You Please Start Fighting

#69

Post by pasquinelli »

dieterrams wrote: post #62
Mithaldu wrote: post #52

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> debate The last time i had a conversation with an american trained in "debate", it was quickly obvious that reality and truth were the last thing on his mind, but scoring rethoric points was the first. The rest of your points are good, but i think if you start it out with the word debate, many americans are going to mentally short-circuit to that style of conflict, instead of "respectful conversation".

‘Debate’ does seem to have strong connotations of a rhetorical fight. ‘Discourse’ has been the preferred word among philosphers and other circles that discuss this sort of thing.

dialectic is a more precise word.

Re: Kids, Would You Please Start Fighting

#70

Post by eeZah7Ux »

true_religion wrote: post #44
bjourne wrote: post #42

I agree with the message. I think that it is our civic duty to ensure that debates are possible. Because when a society transcends into Fascism, the first thing that is lost is the right to disagree. If it becomes impossible to question the prevailing dogma and everyone who attempts to do so is labelled a traitor or worse, then the path to totalitarianism is open. People should remember the Iraq war and especially th…

Traditionally, once the decision is made to go to war, all debate about the justifications for the war must end. Countries where the debate continues end up having a social split where part of the nation supports the war, and part does not. This kind of civil division is fatal during war time if your enemy isn't similarly hobbled. Any war, even the most worthy, is susceptible to having its justifications criticized b…

> Traditionally, once the decision is made to go to war, all debate about the justifications for the war must end.

"traditionally"? This makes starting a war the perfect way to unite a country. Dictatorships and oligarchies seems to love this trick.

> This kind of civil division is fatal during war time if your enemy isn't similarly hobbled.

For dissenting citizens losing a war is often much better than dragging it longer or even winning it.

See Germany in WW2 for example.

Post reply on HN