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

Most arguments are about ego, not ideas

wangcong.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

111–120 of 599 posts

Re: Most arguments are about ego, not ideas

#111

Post by jacobgold »

Most people don't care enough to argue at all. But no team ever created anything great without a lot of arguing. It's the only way to get to a "best idea wins" culture. It has to be productive arguing to be useful though, and it has to stay non-toxic to be sustainable.

Even on the best teams you should expect arguments to go off the rails sometimes. It takes real experience to learn how to argue well across a bunch of different personalities. When you get it right, arguing is genuinely fun and productive for everyone involved, and that's how you know you're doing it well.

Re: Most arguments are about ego, not ideas

#113

Post by gedy »

rob74 wrote: post #85
ta2112 wrote: post #46

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Also most things worth arguing over fall somewhere in the middle, and won’t have an absolute right answer. It sounds like the author has learned something important though.

I'm 52, and over my lifetime I felt that there is actually an ever-increasing number of things that used to have an absolute right (scientifically proven) answer that become controversial. Climate change. Vaccines. Whether the earth is round - that kind of stuff. And, while I agree with the author's approach to let people learn from the consequences of their mistakes, what if the consequences of their mistakes (or th…

> Whether the earth is round

I honestly think a lot of the flat earther types in particular are basically trolls and/or enjoy being stubborn/argue about common knowledge, for no other reason because they can.

Re: Most arguments are about ego, not ideas

#114

Post by ryanmcbride »

anthonypasq wrote: post #81
a4isms wrote: post #60

Here's a simple idea: You can't reason someone out of a position they didn't reason themselves into. And three interpretations to consider: 0: The default: That person is irrationally attached to being wrong. Best to walk away, argumentation will be futile, and I have a life to lead. 1: Whoa! Sometimes that person is me. 2: If they didn't reason themselves into it, how did they get into it? What if their position rep…

> You can't reason someone out of a position they didn't reason themselves into. this is a pithy think to say but its really not true, and every person that has lost their religion and been convinced by rational argument is a counter example.

I always interpreted it more as saying that the person has to reason themselves out of their position.

A similar saying that I think I picked up here would be, "I can explain it to you, but I can't understand it for you."

Re: Most arguments are about ego, not ideas

#115

Post by JumpCrisscross »

malfist wrote: post #76
cogman10 wrote: post #58

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> What is the goal when you start arguing with someone online? Is that goal achievable? For me the goal is twofold. I'm arguing for the people reading the comment chain, not necessarily the commenter's sake. I know it's nearly impossible to convince someone you are arguing with. But also I do try and have an open mind. It's not common that I change my position, but it does happen. For example, I was once a climate ch…

> I'm arguing for the people reading the comment chain, not necessarily the commenter's sake. I'm not sure people are reading comment chains deeply enough to be swayed by two strangers arguing online. All too often these days, folks are just engaging in point scoring type arguments and readers just agree with their tribe. Not saying it doesn't happen, nor that it's a good goal taken with care. But me personally the R…

> I'm not sure people are reading comment chains deeply enough to be swayed by two strangers arguing online

I do, and I have. I’ve also argued something with someone and come out the other side convinced of their position. (Sometimes immediately. More often down the road. Nevertheless, a valuable exchange.)

Re: Most arguments are about ego, not ideas

#116

Post by win311fwg »

malfist wrote: post #45
MichaelApproved wrote: post #21

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The point being made is to pick your battles. The author’s point is that, even if you are correct 100% of the time, fighting every battle is toxic to yourself and everyone around you. They are saying to look past the fact that you might be right and consider that it’s not worth the effort anyway. Now, I will attempt to put down my phone and not respond to any replies I get to the contrary. Sweating intensifies…

I've been reading the writings of stoic philosophers each morning and journaling about what I read and I think this fits in well with that philosophy. We're all here on Earth to enrich ourselves (and I don't mean materially) and those around us. Arguing with strangers online is antithetical to that premise. You don't better yourself by engaging in pointless squabbling, and you don't enrich the other person or those a…

> You don't better yourself by engaging in pointless squabbling

Not always, but it is at least always entertainment. If the alternative you would have chosen is watching a mindless movie then you're no worse off.

> and you don't enrich the other person or those around you by doing so.

It is inherently a solitary activity. You are right that the likelihood of a bystander gaining anything from it is nearly zero, but there was never any reason to think they would. It was never about them. Squabbling, as you call it, happens so you can learn about yourself.

Re: Most arguments are about ego, not ideas

#117

Post by kelseydh »

Dumblydorr wrote: post #4

They never mention they could’ve been wrong. The author assumes they’re always right, but that trying to convince others and argue them to their right side is not valuable. How about: maybe I’m wrong and I didn’t let their ideas influence me. How about: even when I think I’m right, it will be better to calmly kindly discuss, listening as much as talking, not debating or arguing or speaking over them, but attempting t…

I "argue" constantly with my coworkers: they are savage in PR reviews identifying mistakes/improvements, and I give it back the same.

It's collegial, not hostile or insulting. Yet it's arguing nonetheless. We are exchanging ideas to create better software. Using steelmans and devil's advocate to evaluate new ideas / approaches.

Ego-less arguing is easier with engineering work because people are not emotionally invested in code the way they are on a political issue.

Re: Most arguments are about ego, not ideas

#119

Post by latexr »

> The market rewards being right in a way that no argument ever will.

But it doesn’t. We don’t live in a meritocracy. You could have the best product in its category while selling very little, while your competitor which is a multinational corporation with an inferior product beats you on marketing and price to a level you could never match.

There’s a reason “the market can remain irrational longer than you can remain solvent” is a popular saying.

The whole article would’ve been better without that whole “Don’t Win the Argument, Profit From the Difference” section. Its inclusion muddies the point and shifts the perception of the author’s motivations. Most ideas in the world which are worth debating don’t immediately translate to money.

> In this world, there is no one you can change. Not your spouses, not your friends, not your kids, and of course not strangers on the internet.

Myself and a long time friend would be the first to tell you that we were profoundly changed by each other. We are very different people from when we met, and have each other to thank for a lot of that.

Re: Most arguments are about ego, not ideas

#120

Post by tekchip »

Almost none of the discussion here accounts for time and growth. Almost all of us have had that moment where someone "argued" with us over something we were wrong about and unwilling to change at the time. Then later we have that aha! moment where we've let the ego go, changed, or simply realized the poor outcome they were trying to warn us of. Being right doesn't mean right now. Checking your ego means stating your cade, making the truth, or rightness visible, and then moving on to allow that person to find their way back to what you e given them. And, as many have pointed out if the ego is checked then you're also already primed to be wrong, and learn something yourself. Even if it means later when you've had time to digest it.
Post reply on HN