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

I want to lose every debate

sive.rs

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

61–70 of 386 posts

Re: I want to lose every debate

#61

Post by concordDance »

nordsieck wrote: post #34

There's a sort of hidden weakness to "losing": it's extremely difficult for people to correctly filter out BS at scale. I'm not talking about on an individual encounter level - BS almost always loses to truth. But the percentage isn't so high that smart and/or successful people never fall for BS in their lifetime. Especially since BS is under evolutionary pressure to be extremely believable. That's a big part of the…

> at least the parts where criticism is acceptable

This is an important effect to note. If criticism of an idea is not socially allowed then you cannot rely on mainstreamness as a proxy for truth.

There's also another effect worth noting: if an idea is relies on building blocks outside daily experience (e.g. anything about the large scale) and requires quantification as part of the argument then its going to struggle to propagate (both the guys with the megaphones and your average Joe are bad at thinking quantatively). Incorrect ideas about the dangers of nuclear power being the classic example.

Re: I want to lose every debate

#62

Post by Cthulhu_ »

wnkrshm wrote: post #55

You can understand people and where they come from, information about why they believe what they believe. But it's naive to think this can always foster common ground - some beliefs are entirely incompatible with the existence of the listener.

I've heard a good one about that; there's opinions and there's morals. You can debate about whether, idk, donuts are good or not; that's a personal opinion, the stakes are pretty low with that.

But other disagreements are on a moral level; things like racism, some people are morally bankrupt and have Strong Beliefs about what should happen with people not like them. I don't believe you can (or should) debate with people like that.

And I think that the anti-science 'debates' can also hit people on a moral level; how DARE you hold these strong beliefs that do hold up to scientific scruteny? (think flat earthers etc).

Re: I want to lose every debate

#64

Post by concordDance »

The_Colonel wrote: post #50
nordsieck wrote: post #34

There's a sort of hidden weakness to "losing": it's extremely difficult for people to correctly filter out BS at scale. I'm not talking about on an individual encounter level - BS almost always loses to truth. But the percentage isn't so high that smart and/or successful people never fall for BS in their lifetime. Especially since BS is under evolutionary pressure to be extremely believable. That's a big part of the…

> But the mainstream is also exposed to the most criticism (at least the parts where criticism is acceptable), which means that BS tends to get filtered out more quickly as well. This is what I worry in relation to ChatGPT. Producing quality, believable BS is currently expensive, and the price of exposing it is relatively manageable. But with ChatGPT, it will be possible to produce huge amounts of BS which will be ex…

It's also worth noting that ChatGPT is a BS generator that's only allowed to generate BS for one side of a number of modern arguments.

Re: I want to lose every debate

#66

Post by Cthulhu_ »

o_m wrote: post #25

I agree with this, and I hate when people say "debating is pointless because no one ever change their mind".

One great advice I've heard is that, before even going into a debate, you ask someone "What would it take for you to change your mind on this subject?"

People won't change their mind if they don't have an open mind to begin with, or if they're not open to debate on a subject matter in the first place.

A lot of people - online and off - will engage in debate for debate's sake, even though all parties involved are not willing to change their opinion. They just want to be heard.

I mean who here would have an open mind about e.g. flat earth or whether the Holocaust actually happened (to invoke Poe's law)? I sure don't, and I don't feel guilty about it either; I don't need to consider anyone's point of view if I find their opinion morally reprehensible, and if they strongly hold those beliefs and are unwilling to accept alternatives, they're not worth the effort or time. They can go back to their echo chambers.

Re: I want to lose every debate

#67

Post by Cthulhu_ »

kuu wrote: post #9

I would say that more importantly than winning or losing a debate is to know which debate you should participate.

Great point. A lot of people debate for debate's sake, because their opinion is out there. That's probably what I do on HN, I post and never look back or respond to any replies. Not a good trait, but anyway.

Best thing to do, if you detect you're about to enter a debate, is to ask "What would it take for you to change your opinion?". If they reply with "nothing" or a vague answer or whatever, exit the debate. Likewise though, ask yourself the same question.

Re: I want to lose every debate

#68

Post by vidarh »

atoav wrote: post #41
sokoloff wrote: post #24

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I recently read a similar point phrased in a way that really resonated: “if you’re right, you’ll still be right in five minutes” (so you might as well listen carefully in case you’re wrong).

While this is good advice, it is still in a debate-mindset where, ultimately, it is about "winning" a conversation. But if you argue with someone who holds factually wrong opinions is it truly winning "if you showed them" and they think "what an asshole" and move on? That type of person is practised at brushing off a debate loss. That means if you enjoy winning such a debate it tells more about you than about the per…

"Winning" a debate can have value if there's an audience and where there's something important at stake, but people need to consider that if you get into "debate mode", there's virtually zero chance the other side will consider your viewpoint for a second, so it's a tradeoff with respect to whether convincing an audience matters or having a good conversation where both sides are open to learning something.

I absolutely agree with you that the best conversations tends to come from the latter approach you describe. Unfortunately, it can often be difficult and take some skill to avoid pushing the other person into "debate mode" by making them feel like they're losing. Especially if there's an audience, however small.

Re: I want to lose every debate

#69

Post by dayjaby »

noud wrote: post #42
tsuujin wrote: post #21

I’d like to offer an alternative framing: don’t debate at all, just listen. While high school debate did teach me many positive lessons and I am thankful that I spent four years of my life doing it, many years later I have come to understand that it also taught me something truly negative: that the point of a conversation is to win. I have put a lot of time in my adult life unlearning that trait, and reflecting on th…

When someone tries explaining something to me, I try to summarize what this person said when they are finished. E.g., "So you're saying that " or "It seems like ". This forces me to actively listen and remember what the other person has said. Afterwards, I'm looking for a response in the lines of "That's correct!" or "That's right!", or a correction and explanation that I haven't heard it correctly. Even if I don't a…

Reminds me of the interview with Jordan Peterson, where the interviewer said "so you're saying that ".

So I agree with you as long as you don't fall into that trap of putting false words in the other mouth.

Re: I want to lose every debate

#70

Post by dagw »

Cthulhu_ wrote: post #46
tsuujin wrote: post #21

I’d like to offer an alternative framing: don’t debate at all, just listen. While high school debate did teach me many positive lessons and I am thankful that I spent four years of my life doing it, many years later I have come to understand that it also taught me something truly negative: that the point of a conversation is to win. I have put a lot of time in my adult life unlearning that trait, and reflecting on th…

That sounds like the public debates which seem to be more of a thing in the US in general, but go back to e.g. the Greek and Roman traditions; two people debating with an audience taking in both sides. The problem I have with modern-day debates (I mainly catch the political ones) is that they're not at all good or in good faith, there's a lot of "but YOU did this", a lot of dismissals, and no good structure; the mode…

Populists (e.g. Trump) are not good at all in debates.

Depends what you think the point of the TV debate actually is. Trump, for all his flaws, instinctively understood the actual point of the televised debate, and crushed all his primary opponents. He knew that his target audience didn't care if he was right or wrong on any of the facts or detail, they want someone who looked strong and confident and commanding, so that's what he focused on.

Post reply on HN