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

251–260 of 599 posts

Re: Most arguments are about ego, not ideas

#251

Post by altruios »

miyoji wrote: post #196
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.

People aren't convinced by rational arguments. Someone who does not believe in god will not be convinced to believe by a proof of god's existence, and someone with faith will not become an atheist because someone debunks the proof. The rational arguments form a structure that beliefs can hang on, but the core process of changing ones mind is not rational. Like many people, I have changed my thinking on many topics ov…

> Someone who does not believe in god will not be convinced to believe by a proof of god's existence.

But of course that's not true. I would believe in a God with proof of their existence. I simply have not encountered such proof that hold up to my standards of proof of such an extraordinary claim.

Re: Most arguments are about ego, not ideas

#252

Post by jll29 »

One point that was not addressed is the sorry feeling one gets when others are wrong and you are right, but for whatever reason you cannot convince them otherwise, and as a consequence they are going to go in a direction that they will severely regret, or would regret if they survived it, entirely foreseeable (sadly).

I have often had to tell myself "I wish they had listened to me." or, not quite "I wish I was wrong", but at least "I regret that I was right." because it led to a situation where someone suffered without objective need for it. Only a jerk would proudly state "Ha, of course I was right, they should have listened to me."

Re: Most arguments are about ego, not ideas

#253

Post by notnaut »

throw0101a wrote: post #182
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…

> They are saying to look past the fact that you might be right and consider that it’s not worth the effort anyway. Sometimes it's worth considering what the effort is on . Another assumption is that you should effort is in convincing someone rather than understanding them: play dumb on the topic, and perhaps ask the other person questions to see why they think the thing(s) they do. Knowing other people's cognitive b…

Language is a flawed vessel for conveying truth and the more people accept that they will never truly (like at a deep, fundamental level - not just truth-like via utility) be understood or understand, the more humility they might approach difficult discussions with, potentially facilitating the cooperation and coordination that language can be great for, rather than the dharma-combat people’s egos have them fighting every time they perceive a verbal slight or challenge.

Re: Most arguments are about ego, not ideas

#254

Post by ryanmcbride »

ketzu wrote: post #216
ryanmcbride wrote: post #114

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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."

No because I believe you CAN reason a person out of a position they reasoned themselves into, but if they hold a position that they DIDN'T reason themselves into, THEY have to do the reasoning.

Re: Most arguments are about ego, not ideas

#255

Post by eudamoniac »

I interpret all posts online to be micro-essays intended to sway the multitude of anonymous readers in some way. When I argue with a post, I am not in dialogue with the poster, not really; I am working to counteract the first micro-essay's sway with my own ideas.

Kantian ethics indicate that it would be unethical for me to allow posts I consider harmful in sway to remain unargued. I am fighting for truth or what I think should be truth.

Re: Most arguments are about ego, not ideas

#256

Post by EvanAnderson »

lelandfe wrote: post #172
sejje wrote: post #136

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I do the same, except mostly I delete the responses. The writing was important to me, but the reading is rarely important to someone else. It would be wasting their time. I would guess I post about 40% of the comments I write.

Lincoln famously wrote and never mailed letters as a way to vent emotions.

It's so bizarre to me that this works and I can't say I believed it until I tried. I shouldn't be surprised that it's so easy to trick our brains.

I assume the phenomenon where I write 90% of an email, save it as a draft to finish later, never remember to finish it, get asked about it and have irrefutable certainty I sent it, then finally discover it as an unfinished draft is a facet of the same trickery. Stupid brain... Grrr.

Re: Most arguments are about ego, not ideas

#257

Post by hakunin »

gobdovan wrote: post #214
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.

That's how claims work. Why would I argue against nobody? Happy to engage if you disagree with the claim.

I only somewhat disagree with the post in the second part, with reasons enough to start the conversation.

Re: Most arguments are about ego, not ideas

#258

Post by playorizaya »

Right/Wrong is almost useless in 2026+

People will know they are wrong, but if they are supporting a friend's case or boss's they will choose them over you (naturally) even if you can definitively prove them wrong. There's upside and often no downside to being wrong or even outright lying in some cases, so people do it.

People will know 1 of the 4 in the group is right, but they don't want to be outnumbered or cast in an unfavorable light, so they will all choose the "wrong" stance on purpose, to be more socially accepted.

100% of people in a conversation can know that 1 person is right, but because nobody likes that person, nobody will agree with them.

You might be right a lot but that isn't going to help you win any arguments. It nearly means nothing. You get from a group what you negotiate with the group, and short of showering everyone in $100 bills daily nobody is going to worship you for anything, especially not "being right a lot". You're better off being conventionally attractive rather than conventionally intelligent (when it comes to easy social acceptance).

Furthermore, there are so many battlefields, so many arguments to lose, you'll eventually (hopefully) find a better use of your time!

Re: Most arguments are about ego, not ideas

#260

Post by nashashmi »

Some key lines:

> There is no “right” without a “wrong” to make it right

> Once I stopped treating correctness as an absolute, I stopped needing to win.

> Arguments Are About Ego

> They feel first, then reason backward to justify the feeling

> let people meet their own consequences, because that’s the only teacher they’ll actually listen to.

> when someone [asks], I give everything I have.

> Let people disagree. Their disagreement is where the money, and the meaning, is.

> Every hour spent trying to change someone who didn’t ask is an hour stolen from the one person (yourself) you can change

I am sure each person will extract different lessons here from their walk of life, but as an engineer the lines above are a watershed moment on how to view the world. Engineers are quite intelligent creative people who have big dreams. And sometimes in pursuit of those dreams with a feeling of intelligence we swim in creativity ... and put ourselves in a God-complex. We don't judge humans appropriately when we are in this God-complex.

1. Appreciate the wrong. It is a different way of thinking.

2. Stop trying to win. This is not a fight.

3. Arguments are about ego, but ego is about defending yourself. So arguments are really in self-defense.

4. If someone has more emotion than intelligence at a given moment, ignore their ideas. It doesn't count. It is clouded. This is how women judge between informations. They look at the emotion of the person speaking. The calmest one wins.

5. Some people like making bad decisions because it helps them learn. You can't do anything here.

6. Information provided vs Corrections made: But when someone does not seek information, don't give it. And don't correct someone unless you are their boss.

7. You can't change people... is a lesson I can never understand.

Post reply on HN