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

Re: Most arguments are about ego, not ideas

#361

Post by monkeydust » Wed, Jul 01, 2026, 3:46 PM UTC

keiferski wrote: post #180

I really love the art of a good argument, but likewise I’ve come to realize that most people don’t form their opinions from deep rational analysis on an issue, and therefore aren’t going to change that opinion from a new rational analysis. They form opinions from their life experiences, culture, and so on. This applies to myself, too – the supposedly deep rational analysis I have on an issue oftentimes is just as pro…

'Intelligence is what you do when you don't know, -> came up somewhere, I think on LinkedIn but stuck in my head.

Re: Most arguments are about ego, not ideas

#362

Post by palmotea » Wed, Jul 01, 2026, 3:46 PM UTC

yodsanklai wrote: post #124

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 noticed that with some people (and possibly most people), it's not even a matter of who's wrong or right, simply asking to justify or explain their claims may be perceived as an attack and enough to trigger an argument.

> simply asking to justify or explain their claims may be perceived as an attack

I think that's because that often is a prelude to an attack.

I know someone who mainly asks for explanations or justifications when they're getting angry about something (and it's obvious). There's high chance the next thing that will happen is some kind of outburst (or quiet seething resentment). With them, the question "why did you do X?" almost never has any element of curiosity to it.

Re: Most arguments are about ego, not ideas

#363

Post by projektfu » Wed, Jul 01, 2026, 3:48 PM UTC

stronglikedan wrote: post #317

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…

> Now, I will attempt to put down my phone and not respond to any replies I get to the contrary. I know you were joking, but you should try it sometimes. It's very cathartic to get things out of your system and then ignore any replies. It's my default mode.

I often write a comment in a thread here and, satisfied I got it out of my head, hit the back button without hitting reply. I know, you might look at my comment history and say I don't do that enough, but imagine how bad it would be if I always replied!

Re: Most arguments are about ego, not ideas

#364

Post by dahart » Wed, Jul 01, 2026, 3:49 PM UTC

andsoitis wrote: post #14

One reason TO argue is to seek out opposite points of view, which you can then use to hone your own thinking, including doing a 180.

Absolutely! And if you are seeing out opposite points of view, don’t underestimate the power of being (or appearing to be) ignorant and/or wrong. Of course, the article’s conclusion about just asking questions, instead of trying to contradict, is also a very good way to seek out points of view and also keep people talking, without making them angry or shut down…

Re: Most arguments are about ego, not ideas

#365

Post by Antoniocl » Wed, Jul 01, 2026, 3:49 PM UTC

lxe wrote: post #335

Careful with this philosophy. It does work well for the short term. At some point of constant following of 'disagree and commit' mantra, you'll end up in a world where you have zero agency and zero energy to constantly do the work you hate.

Well I think that a proper implementation of "disagree and commit" differs significantly from what's described in the article.

The author seems to be suggesting that rather than discussing technical trade-offs and nuance, you instead ship whatever the other person proposes, even if you believe it is wrong, without going through the discussion.

I always interpreted "disagree and commit", at least in a healthy form, to be more about cases where, after both sides had presented their interpretation of a technical decision and both had understood the other's point of view, they still differed in opinion as to how it should be handled a meaningful way that was unlikely to be resolved from further communication. From there, rather than wasting more time on debating, simply agreeing to disagree, shipping to move on.

The key difference being that you aren't simply accepting whatever is told you, even if you believe it to be blatantly wrong, and silently shipping based on that feedback. You're actually engaging with each other and trying to solve the problem together but not getting locked in intractable arguments.

What OP is proposing seems significantly more toxic and honestly like something I would expect from someone playing corporate politics rather than trying to excel as an engineer.

Re: Most arguments are about ego, not ideas

#366

Post by snootypoot » Wed, Jul 01, 2026, 3:49 PM UTC

the author is 100% correct. this is why i find it pointless to debate politics and social issues with most people. far too often people are not arguing for an idea, they are arguing to defend something that has become their identity and it is fused with their ego.

Re: Most arguments are about ego, not ideas

#367

Post by JKCalhoun » Wed, Jul 01, 2026, 3:49 PM UTC

throw4847285 wrote: post #340

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 agree. Despite ending on a note of self-improvement, I wasn't really convinced that the author has any self-awareness to speak of. For example: > When you argue with someone, you think you’re debating an idea. Often you’re not. You’re challenging their sense of self. Oh, they're going to acknowledge that there are emotional reasons for their addiction to arguing. > So I’ve drawn a line. I only discuss pros and cons…

Especially in software.

Approach A: implementation is hands-down the fastest.

Approach B: implementation is written so clearly and concisely that it's essentially self-documenting.

Approach C: a lot of attention paid to future proofing the code, parameter checking, sanity checking…

Which of the above was the most "logical" approach that the recipient was just not understanding?

(EDIT: Approach D: adheres closely to coding patterns in the rest of the framework.

I could probably come up with others…)

Re: Most arguments are about ego, not ideas

#368

Post by post-it » Wed, Jul 01, 2026, 3:50 PM UTC

StilesCrisis wrote: post #129

Reeks of AI prose past the first paragraph or two. I don't need to know a bot's opinion on how to convince others.

I thought the same thing. I do think the first section was written or at least edited by hand. The rest could've been an email, so to speak.

Re: Most arguments are about ego, not ideas

#369

Post by projektfu » Wed, Jul 01, 2026, 3:51 PM UTC

jack_h wrote: post #325

rob74 wrote: post #85

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

> ... 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. I think there are multiple things here that need to be disentangled. The first is that just because science "proves" something that doesn't mean the political, civil, or economic path is near…

It's like that political cartoon. "What if climate change is false and we've made the world a better place for no reason?"

Re: Most arguments are about ego, not ideas

#370

Post by post-it » Wed, Jul 01, 2026, 3:52 PM UTC

stickfigure wrote: post #144

There are two tools I usually employ in "technical arguments": * The socratic method. I ask questions. Why did you do it this way? What are the tradeoffs? Get them to explain their reasoning. And not in an accusative way, I'm genuinely interested in how they arrived at the decision. Sometimes I just need more context; sometimes they rethink; sometimes we figure out something new together. It is a voyage of discovery,…

> Why did you do it this way?

One thing that I find helps is just avoiding the word "why" as well. Restructuring to say "how come" or "I'm wondering..." or "am I understanding right that..." helps avoid putting people on their guard.

It even works on AIs, interestingly enough.