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

You don't have to engage with people on the Internet

xeiaso.net

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

31–40 of 226 posts

Re: You don't have to engage with people on the Internet

#31

Post by DiggyJohnson »

Kamq wrote: post #23
oddity wrote: post #4

I was fortunate to learn this from pointless internet flamewars early in my life. Understand why you're in an argument and what you hope to accomplish by being in an argument. On the internet, it is usually very clear that you will accomplish nothing except maybe introduce receptive onlookers to a new idea, so the choice to minimize engagement is easy. I think applying this has generally made me more successful outsi…

> On the internet, it is usually very clear that you will accomplish nothing except maybe introduce receptive onlookers to a new idea, so the choice to minimize engagement is easy. I'm going to disagree here. I've learned quite a lot from internet arguments. Admittedly, the majority of it was from attempting to argue positions I don't hold. You're taking it as a given that the only goal of an argument is to convince…

GP seems to say this already.

The thrust of their point is that the time spent engaging isn’t worth it for the person debating, not whether it does or doesn’t impact the perspectives on those that view the debate.

Re: You don't have to engage with people on the Internet

#34

Post by notacoward »

Kamq wrote: post #23
oddity wrote: post #4

I was fortunate to learn this from pointless internet flamewars early in my life. Understand why you're in an argument and what you hope to accomplish by being in an argument. On the internet, it is usually very clear that you will accomplish nothing except maybe introduce receptive onlookers to a new idea, so the choice to minimize engagement is easy. I think applying this has generally made me more successful outsi…

> On the internet, it is usually very clear that you will accomplish nothing except maybe introduce receptive onlookers to a new idea, so the choice to minimize engagement is easy. I'm going to disagree here. I've learned quite a lot from internet arguments. Admittedly, the majority of it was from attempting to argue positions I don't hold. You're taking it as a given that the only goal of an argument is to convince…

> there can be value in making an argument specifically in bettering your own understanding of a point

If you want someone to educate you, the polite thing to do is ask. This kind of "stealth learning" where you say things you don't believe, expecting to learn via corrections, is inconsiderate and inefficient. I know people who have lost practically all of their friends because they couldn't bring themselves to acknowledge anyone else's expertise in either the subject itself or how to explain it. Don't be that guy.

ETA: Even if what you want is a spirited debate, mutual consent and respect matter. A voluntary debate can be a lot of fun for everyone, contrarian provocation out of the blue much less so.

Re: You don't have to engage with people on the Internet

#35

Post by oddity »

Kamq wrote: post #23
oddity wrote: post #4

I was fortunate to learn this from pointless internet flamewars early in my life. Understand why you're in an argument and what you hope to accomplish by being in an argument. On the internet, it is usually very clear that you will accomplish nothing except maybe introduce receptive onlookers to a new idea, so the choice to minimize engagement is easy. I think applying this has generally made me more successful outsi…

> On the internet, it is usually very clear that you will accomplish nothing except maybe introduce receptive onlookers to a new idea, so the choice to minimize engagement is easy. I'm going to disagree here. I've learned quite a lot from internet arguments. Admittedly, the majority of it was from attempting to argue positions I don't hold. You're taking it as a given that the only goal of an argument is to convince…

You're not wrong. You can think of internet arguments as a method of developing a thought and collecting counterarguments in a real environment to refine it. The choice of forum affects the quality of the counterargument though, and developing a thought can be done with a crowd more likely to give constructive feedback. If some random website works for you, that's fine.

My statement is more that if you're interested in external impact, exposing someone to a new idea should be treated as the most likely outcome, so assess your effort spent accordingly. I've gotten a lot of value out of reading the different sides of other people's arguments, but I know I personally wouldn't have wanted to spend time being part of it.

Re: You don't have to engage with people on the Internet

#37

Post by Wowfunhappy »

notacoward wrote: post #34
Kamq wrote: post #23

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> On the internet, it is usually very clear that you will accomplish nothing except maybe introduce receptive onlookers to a new idea, so the choice to minimize engagement is easy. I'm going to disagree here. I've learned quite a lot from internet arguments. Admittedly, the majority of it was from attempting to argue positions I don't hold. You're taking it as a given that the only goal of an argument is to convince…

> there can be value in making an argument specifically in bettering your own understanding of a point If you want someone to educate you, the polite thing to do is ask . This kind of "stealth learning" where you say things you don't believe, expecting to learn via corrections, is inconsiderate and inefficient. I know people who have lost practically all of their friends because they couldn't bring themselves to ackn…

I'm okay with people trying out different viewpoints—I do think it's a good way to explore new ideas—but I'd prefer the post be prefaced with "to play devil's advocate" or something to that effect.

Re: You don't have to engage with people on the Internet

#38

Post by s1artibartfast »

notacoward wrote: post #34
Kamq wrote: post #23

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> On the internet, it is usually very clear that you will accomplish nothing except maybe introduce receptive onlookers to a new idea, so the choice to minimize engagement is easy. I'm going to disagree here. I've learned quite a lot from internet arguments. Admittedly, the majority of it was from attempting to argue positions I don't hold. You're taking it as a given that the only goal of an argument is to convince…

> there can be value in making an argument specifically in bettering your own understanding of a point If you want someone to educate you, the polite thing to do is ask . This kind of "stealth learning" where you say things you don't believe, expecting to learn via corrections, is inconsiderate and inefficient. I know people who have lost practically all of their friends because they couldn't bring themselves to ackn…

I think that's really depends on what you're trying to learn. If you want to learn about someone's position it may be better to ask them than play Devil's Advocate. If you want to learn about the devil's position, the other person won't be able to help you.

As you mentioned, time, place, and consent are important. You see this a lot in forums dedicated to debate. What consent means in general forms like this one is a little bit more ambiguous. Some people are looking to debate and some people are looking to just talk.

Re: You don't have to engage with people on the Internet

#40

Post by AnIdiotOnTheNet »

notacoward wrote: post #34
Kamq wrote: post #23

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> On the internet, it is usually very clear that you will accomplish nothing except maybe introduce receptive onlookers to a new idea, so the choice to minimize engagement is easy. I'm going to disagree here. I've learned quite a lot from internet arguments. Admittedly, the majority of it was from attempting to argue positions I don't hold. You're taking it as a given that the only goal of an argument is to convince…

> there can be value in making an argument specifically in bettering your own understanding of a point If you want someone to educate you, the polite thing to do is ask . This kind of "stealth learning" where you say things you don't believe, expecting to learn via corrections, is inconsiderate and inefficient. I know people who have lost practically all of their friends because they couldn't bring themselves to ackn…

> If you want someone to educate you, the polite thing to do is ask. This kind of "stealth learning" where you say things you don't believe, expecting to learn via corrections, is inconsiderate and inefficient.

Unfortunately, it is also unreasonably effective. I mean, learning by being wrong is how learning works. It's how science works.

Often the fastest way to find the right answer to a problem is to loudly and confidently proclaim the wrong answer.

As the ancient advice goes: want to know how to do something in Linux? Tell a bunch of Linux users Linux can't do that.

Sometimes I argue things I hope aren't true, but just don't have a good argument against in the hopes someone better equipped will come along and convince me I'm wrong.

I think as long as you're civil and willing to admit defeat then it isn't really a problem.

Post reply on HN