Most arguments are about ego, not ideas • Hacker News Board

Re: Most arguments are about ego, not ideas

#211

Post by lowbuzz » Wed, Jul 01, 2026, 2:46 PM UTC

khalic wrote: post #110

croes wrote: post #98

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There people that gravity doesn’t exist and it’s some kind of buoyancy. Death as the final end of existence? There are many religions that claim that isn’t true. Nowadays it’s even harder who wrote what but next week if I don’t find that text again, can I be sure it was written or could be just in a dream?

1. yes they are objectively wrong, a persons belief does not need to be tied to a fact 2. death as in death of the body, it's very much inescapable 3. the last part is just uncertainty, hardly an argument against objective reality

Let me be annoying and tell you about your second point as I don't really understand your first one. Your perspective is that of a living looking at a dead body. Death itself though isn't an experience of life, Meaning that we can't really talk about what happens after we die. We just don't know and we probably can't know what or how death is. So any answer goes, really. I mean you are right uncertainty doesn't exclude objective reality, but my question in an argument would be: What do you even mean by objective reality?

Re: Most arguments are about ego, not ideas

#212

Post by throw0101a » Wed, Jul 01, 2026, 2:46 PM UTC

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.

> 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.

And what of people that were convinced by rational argument that a God must exist? To some (Aristotle, Plotinus, Leibniz, etc) it is irrational to deny such existence:

* https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/35592365-five-proofs-of-...

You also seem to imply that rationality is a single monolithic thing:

* https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Whose_Justice%3F_Which_Rationa...

Re: Most arguments are about ego, not ideas

#213

Post by txutxu » Wed, Jul 01, 2026, 2:47 PM UTC

I also stopped arguing, I don't waste energy or my focus on random stuff, did happen with the age I think... unless... unless it's my wife or my mum who is wrong. If I think I'm right and they wrong, I will argue with al my energy. Of course!

Re: Most arguments are about ego, not ideas

#214

Post by gobdovan » Wed, Jul 01, 2026, 2:48 PM UTC

hakunin wrote: post #25

One of the most cancerous developments of our generation is a bunch of people isolating themselves from everyone else, and having their perfect unchallenged audience captured views spread far and wide. On a more personal level, the reason people are frustrated about arguing is because they can’t fully articulate their reasons. They don’t realize it themselves. The older you get and the more practiced you get at argui…

> isolating themselves & having their [...] views spread far and wide

> most cancerous developments & the less contentious it becomes

Your comment complains that people cannot articulate their reasons, while making a sweeping, emotionally loaded claim whose reasons are themselves barely articulated.

Re: Most arguments are about ego, not ideas

#215

Post by gchamonlive » Wed, Jul 01, 2026, 2:48 PM UTC

This is still about being right or wrong. About people and not ideas, otherwise there would be no issue in the first place, there would just be the duty and the acceptance.

Re: Most arguments are about ego, not ideas

#216

Post by ketzu » Wed, Jul 01, 2026, 2:48 PM UTC

ryanmcbride wrote: post #114

anthonypasq wrote: post #81

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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."

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

But that interpretation would make the second half a moot point, wouldn't it?

> You can't reason someone out of a position they didn't reason themselves into.

If you want to say a person can only reason themselves into any position, it could become "You can't reason someone out of a position."

Re: Most arguments are about ego, not ideas

#217

Post by lotsofpulp » Wed, Jul 01, 2026, 2:49 PM UTC

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…

>They probably won't change their mind, and you're probably not going to either. If the outcome is foretold, what's the value produced from the effort?

The outcome is not foretold. I have learned a lot from being corrected by someone who knows more than me or points out a fault in my assumptions/logic. I have also learned from seeing subject matter experts arguing with each other.

Re: Most arguments are about ego, not ideas

#218

Post by al_borland » Wed, Jul 01, 2026, 2:49 PM UTC

memcg wrote: post #200

I think that there are times as a leader\supervisor\co-worker\parent\coach where you might argue despite knowing you won't change the outcome simply to show that you are willing to fight for those you represent.

There is also some value it stating your beliefs about something going in the wrong direction. Maybe not a full blown argument, but putting it out there so when things eventually fail and blow up, there are no stones cast in your direction for not speaking up earlier. Just be careful to avoid the, “I told you so,” which is also off-putting.

Re: Most arguments are about ego, not ideas

#219

Post by mattw2121 » Wed, Jul 01, 2026, 2:49 PM UTC

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…

Do you have a recommendation to start reading about stoicism, but potentially not the early philosophers? A more modern text?

Re: Most arguments are about ego, not ideas

#220

Post by jnd-cz » Wed, Jul 01, 2026, 2:50 PM UTC

That blog post is technically correct but not very human. To be curious human to me means questioning other people why they believe what they believe and trying to understand their thinking about it. Of course not always there's good place to have such open minded discussion. If one side, or both sides are only talking and not listening to each other it's pointless monologue and waste of time. It's not helpful to state bunch of facts and let the other person "deal with it". As it's pointed out, often people want to just share something and aren't interested to be lectures or have their opinion changed, that can come later with some introspection, when ready. Personally I wouldn't want to talk to someone who thinks they know it all already and are looking only for arguments.