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

101–110 of 127 posts

Re: Kids, Would You Please Start Fighting

#101

Post by dieterrams »

_dps wrote: post #63
dieterrams wrote: post #62

Earlier quoted context omitted.

‘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…

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

You're certainly right about the long tradition behind 'debate', and yet, it does still carry the connotations I mentioned earlier, to the extent that one would likely have to say "let's a have a fair and honest debate about X" in order to temper some of the unproductive tendencies that tend to arise in a debate.

Re: Kids, Would You Please Start Fighting

#102

Post by DoreenMichele »

quadcore wrote: post #11
hmwhy wrote: post #5

I really don't want to say this in an uncivil way but can people please stop spamming Hacker News with these articles full of cherry-picked scientific studies from New York Times or can their posts be automatically weighted less if their goal is to promote articles from NYT? It's really frustrating having to spend a couple of minutes to read seemingly interesting articles only to find out a few minutes later it's pro…

I agree. I've submitted a Ask HN: ban nytimes lately - and got banned. Ive also sent an email to moderator asking for a feature that allows the ban of domains per user. Note that I've actually enjoyed this post, but anyway, if someone wants to read nytimes, he knows where to find it. EDIT: what's my opinion precisely you may ask? I think those are not hacker news per the guidelines. They are often general - good - bu…

Probably a better practice than commenting here about is:

1. Flag articles you don't want here.

2. Don't participate in discussion of those articles, not even to talk about how you don't want them here.

3. Submit, upvote and comment on things you do want here.

I used to self post my own writing fairly regularly. I mostly have stopped. I don't feel it really goes well even though I posted stuff for a time in part because some people said they wanted to hear from me. I am still trying to figure out what exactly to write about these days, having recently abandoned a bunch of projects.

And I am saying that to try to make the point that what people say they want or don't want in comments seems to have a poor signal to noise ratio. I haven't personally found it to be a reliable indicator of what works on HN.

A much stronger indicator of interest or lack thereof boils down to "voting with your feet" as a means to indicate what isn't wanted here and "voting with your wallet (attention)" as to what is wanted here.

Give attention to things you want here. Starve other things of attention. Even if it doesn't have a notable impact on what appears on the front page, it will positively impact your experience of the site

Re: Kids, Would You Please Start Fighting

#103

Post by flycaliguy »

stretchwithme wrote: post #85

I wonder how technology could be used to enhance debate. What if each side of an argument had a fixed percentage of talk time, enforced by software? Would people ratchet down their arguments and stop interrupting each other? Would they conserve their time so they can get a lengthy last word? What if you actually LOST time when you interrupted the other side?

You might enjoy poking around some of the links here https://wiki.lesswrong.com/wiki/Debate_tools

Re: Kids, Would You Please Start Fighting

#104

Post by muzani »

DoreenMichele wrote: post #75
muzani wrote: post #10

This is sort of why me and my wife pick fights with our kids where we can. We stress them to the point of snapping, then cool them down. It feels a little like bullying, but we cut back and emphasize that we still love them. My 5 year old daughter in particular inherits the stubbornness of both her parents. She often she says something she regrets immediately (e.g "I hate you!"), cries on realizing it, but refuses to…

I hope you are merely expressing something really, really badly. Because this sounds like emotionally abusive, unhealthy behavior being justified as some kind of good preparation for a dog-eat-dog world.

Yeah, I think something got lost in translation. I suppose "bullying" and "snapping point" have more sinister meanings in other cultures, and not the playful meaning I intended.

Re: Kids, Would You Please Start Fighting

#105

Post by [deleted] »

muzani wrote: post #104
DoreenMichele wrote: post #75

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I hope you are merely expressing something really, really badly. Because this sounds like emotionally abusive, unhealthy behavior being justified as some kind of good preparation for a dog-eat-dog world.

Yeah, I think something got lost in translation. I suppose "bullying" and "snapping point" have more sinister meanings in other cultures, and not the playful meaning I intended.

[deleted]

Re: Kids, Would You Please Start Fighting

#106

Post by kbutler »

_dps wrote: post #61
kbutler wrote: post #58

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 pr…

I understand "optimally" to emphasize concision and clarity.

Profanity is either seeking to evoke an emotional response, or basically just "very" as DoreenMichelle says.

As such, profanity is semantically a really poor intensifier.

While a listener declares Crocker's rules in order to optimize communication by saying "I won't take offense," a speaker can optimize communication by clearly stating what is wrong, rather than just "This is !#$%&, you !$_&!"

Re: Kids, Would You Please Start Fighting

#107

Post by closeparen »

walshemj wrote: post #94
dhimes wrote: post #65

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

From a discusion on here a while back hs and uni debation seems to have not much conection to real world parlimentray debates and would fail outside its own artificial world.

In professional politics, debate is an open charade, an excuse to get on camera and rally your supporters. High school and university debate actually care about argumentation, for example, and the electorate very much doesn’t.

Re: Kids, Would You Please Start Fighting

#108

Post by davesque »

_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…

"Argue as if you're right but listen as if you're wrong."

How about arguing and listening as if you know exactly as much as you do and nothing more? It's not hard to imagine a case in which both arguing "as if you're right" and listening "as if you're wrong" would be inappropriate or down right foolish.

Re: Kids, Would You Please Start Fighting

#109

Post by woodandsteel »

iovrthoughtthis wrote: post #15
_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…

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).

* agree on the meaning of the words you use.

Agreed, this is very important.

One way to handle it when the two of you have different meanings for a word is to keep using the word, but add a different qualifier in front for each meaning, i.e. logical proof versus empirical proof.

Re: Kids, Would You Please Start Fighting

#110

Post by woodandsteel »

_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…

>• Argue as if you’re right but listen as if you’re wrong.

On the listening side, something that often helps is what is often called active listening. This is where you say back to the person what you think they are saying, and they agree you got it right or correct it until you do. It is amazing how this can often lower the emotional level and make the disagreement more productive.

Post reply on HN