Kids, Would You Please Start Fighting

Post by bayonetz » Mon, Jan 15, 2018, 4:57 AM UTC

nine_k wrote: post #97

bayonetz wrote: post #93

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Good points though the term debate has become a dirty word to me. I frame it as preferring "dialogue" over "debate" where dialogue refers the kind of exchange you laid out and debate is more of a conflict or competition where the aim is to win rather than advance truth. That's why it's so important to be transparent about your goals and values in an exchange. It's frustrating to let your guard down for a dialogue and…

The problem is that a "debate" where winning is the aim and truth is not are pretty common. Certain exposure to them, understanding their basic mechanics, and the skill of telling them from a truth-seeking "dialog", would be valuable for kids. It's important for the same reason why understanding cognitive biases is important.

Post by [deleted] » Mon, Jan 15, 2018, 8:26 AM UTC

DoreenMichele wrote: post #113

DrScump wrote: post #112

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Flag articles you don't want here. This is how unexplained flagging (there are no categories to explain why a reader is flagging) becomes a problem. People then flag articles that they simply disagree with, as opposed to using flags only to signal inappropriateness (spam, language, duplication, self-promotion, etc.). For example, Craigslist used to have different flags for different reasons, e.g. Prohibited by police…

HN has a counter measure: vouching. So if something gets flagged, people who think it doesn't deserve to be can counterweight it with a vouch. I am old and cranky and at a point where I would rather see more of that than more off topic pissing and moaning about what one or two individuals would like to see or not see here. It's lots of sound and noise, but no real action. I am suggesting they take action because my e…

Post by iovrthoughtthis » Mon, Jan 15, 2018, 10:36 AM UTC

bayonetz wrote: post #120

_dps wrote: post #95

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If you're just talking about how one word or another primes people's behavior I have no quibble; in fact I may even support such a substitution in some cases. But I think you are too harsh on the idea of winning as inherently bad. If you are a saint and your opponent is a nazi, you fundamentally disagree on what the truth is. The way you advance truth is by winning (i.e. persuading an audience, or perhaps even your o…

In my experience, there isn't a whole lot of "winning" in scenarios of fundamental disagreement. Sides just dig in and entrench. Not much to be done there I think. My debate vs dialogue distinction is more about the priming of behavior, as you call it, in the more common scenarios that are well short of fundamental disagreement -- scenarios at risk of turning in to a contest instead of maintaining the spirit of a mut…

Post by Jotto999 » Tue, Jan 16, 2018, 3:58 AM UTC

Jotto999 wrote: post #33

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 block myself from all sites that Media Bias Fact Check has on any of their lists of biased sources. It has greatly improved my experience of the internet, similar to hiding YouTube comments. I'd rather waste a few seconds clicking an unreadable link, than waste a few minutes reading something I don't want to be influenced by.