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

271–280 of 599 posts

Re: Most arguments are about ego, not ideas

#271

Post by tedggh »

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…

This could work with someone you don’t know well and should be the default approach. But you also need to trust your instinct and know when debating it’s not worth pursuing. It could be a coworker you have known for years who has certain toxic attitude. Humans are complex beings, we don’t know what’s going on with other people’s lives and minds. It takes years of dedicated study and experience to attempt to understand other people’s issues. You are not going to suddenly become a psychologist or behavioral therapist by just listening and kindly discussing. Some of these attitudes have an underlying problem that has nothing to do with work, it could be upbringing or mental health, or a combination. It just happens that Software Engineers may be more likely to suffer from these problems than people in other professions, just by the nature of it.

Re: Most arguments are about ego, not ideas

#272

Post by hakunin »

Johanx64 wrote: post #72
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…

The frustrating part about arguing - on the internet: 1. Infinite supply of people. 2. 90%+ of times before you get anywhere, you find out the person doesn't have "what it takes". At minimum you have to filter out 90%+ of people that simply don't have the mental faculties to evaluate what is and isn't a valid argument, before you even get started. All this just takes energy and there's just no benifit. Its like imagi…

Agree, mostly. On the internet, I like to be selective about only addressing new substantial claims.

In person, at work, etc, it makes sense to spend more energy, be more patient to get on the same page, and you get more benefit if you succeed.

Re: Most arguments are about ego, not ideas

#273

Post by eduction »

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…

>They never mention they could’ve been wrong

As thrw045 has pointed out, they do precisely this toward the end of the post.

Re: Most arguments are about ego, not ideas

#274

Post by jhedwards »

In my workplace we argue without ego and with the assumption that we are working together to find the best way to do something. If someone realizes that the other person is right, they will say something like "Ah, OK, yes that's true..." and from that point on it stops being an argument and becomes a collaboration where both of us examine the correct position to make sure we're clear on it and its potential downfalls.

Reading this article has me a bit surprised, and the culture the author describes does not sound like an engineering culture to me. I am a bit saddened to think that people have to work in such an environment, and I am curious what it would take to change such an environment for the better.

Re: Most arguments are about ego, not ideas

#275

Post by jknoepfler »

threethirtytwo wrote: post #167
malfist wrote: post #45

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

The value is in the feeling of euphoria you get when dominating the other person by being unequivocally right. This isn’t philosophy. It’s biology. Every human feels good when this happens and millions of years of evolution has made most humans have feelings of euphoria when being right. The fact that this thread even exists speaks to the fact of the extremely high survival benefit this behavior confers onto a human.…

Ease off the adderall bud.

There's a lot of sloppy thinking in that post, starting with the pseudo-scientific framing in terms of evolutionary psychology... which is ironic given then ScIeNcE-bro tone... couched against an artificial and incorrect taxonomy of reason into "philosophical, logical and scientific"... in reality those are intersecting at times, orthogonal at others, and the devil is generally in the details... but it certainly doesn't make sense to impose some kind of juvenile "batman vs superman" power scaling hierarchy on top of them...

The reduction of the results of an argument to a binary win/loss between two people is probably the most humorously absurd bit. There are many outcomes of an argument. Sometimes it pivots research in a fruitful direction. Sometimes it leads to compromise. Sometimes parties talk past one another. Sometimes it serves to create an artifact for later analysis/reflection. Sometimes it causes us to pause and re-evaluate before acting. Sometimes it plants a seed that bears fruit later. Sometimes it strengthens both parties by refining their respective views. Sometimes it wastes everyone's time and nothing valuable comes of it.

Pursuit of knowledge or aligning action to truth isn't an arm-wrestling contest with winner-takes-all outcomes. That's just a silly framing that doesn't reflect reality, it's the kind of way you see the world of you aren't actually part of knowledge production and consume "debates" as influencer-slop from Ben Shapiro types.

I argue with people all the time. At work, with friends. It's generally a form of productive commerce. I see things one way and have knowledge/strengths that I bring to bear through my perspective. Others have their own knowledge/strengths. Working together, we might build a scalable data system, prioritize a road map, design a better game, make food decisions at a restaurant, have an enlightening political conversation, improve a speedrun. Whatever, the ends are various. The means are often spirited debate, in which, generally, everybody wins. That's just kind of the first principal of macro economic theory, if you need a bro-system to cash things out into.

Re: Most arguments are about ego, not ideas

#276

Post by kevinsync »

threethirtytwo wrote: post #167
malfist wrote: post #45

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

The value is in the feeling of euphoria you get when dominating the other person by being unequivocally right. This isn’t philosophy. It’s biology. Every human feels good when this happens and millions of years of evolution has made most humans have feelings of euphoria when being right. The fact that this thread even exists speaks to the fact of the extremely high survival benefit this behavior confers onto a human.…

> No philosophical analysis can beat one from a scientific and logical perspective.

I disagree, and offer the world of 2026 as anecdotal evidence lol. Most of what you wrote implies that every person participates in arguments honestly, with full faith, and are both cognitively capable of, and actively willing to, receive, evaluate and ultimately accept the argument as a zero-sum "winner". In reality, illogical appeals to emotion tend to win the day.

This also kind of refuses to acknowledge that a lot of people simply don't feel the need to be right; some people move in silence, others just don't care for the friction, or need the accolades. Still others don't enjoy the company of self-righteous, unbending, argumentative people, or have wildly different perspectives on a topic due to life experiences that are unfathomable to the rest.

I believe that multiple things can often be right simultaneously, and it's exactly that kind of positive sum philosophy that drives the most argumentative and need-to-be-right people completely insane haha. Different strokes for different folks man.

Re: Most arguments are about ego, not ideas

#277

Post by Forgeties79 »

MichaelApproved wrote: post #21
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…

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 generally agree with the sentiment but the one element I haven’t been able to quite square with it all is how internet debates are about the other people reading. So when someone says something wildly inaccurate/messed up about a topic, say DEI or something, when nobody pushes back and/or they don’t have their comment sufficiently downvoted (if possible) there is an implied “they are right.” Believe it or not a lot of people reading forums are still forming opinions!

To use a charged example but maybe less controversial than DEI on HN, let’s say it’s some ridiculous claim about vaccines (“they cause autism.”) The reason harmful ideas like that spread is because people throw them out online and other people online read them/hear them. I have a hard time believing that loud, public pushback isn’t important. If it’s not, then making those loud, public claims initially wouldn’t be so effective. Grifters making money off scaring people away from life saving vaccines and towards their snake oil supplements wouldn’t be successful if these platforms didn’t convince people. But I also acknowledge that it’s not necessarily my place and it’s not good for my mental health to participate.

So I don’t really know what the answer is. But it just doesn’t feel right to let some of that stuff just sit out in public unchallenged. I know a lot of what I think comes from being “a child of the Internet.” There’s no doubt my personal experience on the Internet was fundamental to my more progressive values I now hold. So again, I have no clue what the answer is here or whose responsibility it is.

Re: Most arguments are about ego, not ideas

#278

Post by whack »

There are 2 very different kinds of arguments. Arguments where you're trying to convince the other person. And arguments where you're trying to convince bystanders. These require completely different tactics.

If you're trying to convince the other person, be humble. Be gentle. Be subtle. Ask them questions. Let them think they came up with the idea entirely on their own. If any bystanders are watching this discussion, they are more likely to think that the other person is right, or that they are "winning". But this will give you the best possible chance of convincing the person you're talking to.

If you're trying to convince bystanders, project confidence. Present compelling evidence. Pick apart the other person's arguments and show why its flawed. Chances are, this will make the other person dig in even more strongly and resent you. But this will give you the best chance of convincing neutral bystanders.

Use the right tool for each job. If you're using "debate tactics" in a 1:1 discussion, you will never get the desired results, no matter how data-driven and logical your arguments are. I've made this mistake far too many times, and this seems to be what OP is getting at as well

Re: Most arguments are about ego, not ideas

#279

Post by jayd16 »

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 conflating all religious following with lack of reason. There are those that are fully unreasonable and those that find it reasonable from their current perspective.
Post reply on HN