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

Re: Most arguments are about ego, not ideas

#411

Post by jbboehr » Wed, Jul 01, 2026, 4:21 PM UTC

mi_lk wrote: post #376

maiti_ma wrote: post #352

Earlier quoted context omitted.

`Mencius said: "The trouble with people is that they are too fond of being teachers to others."` I never thought about this but I really believe it to be true and would love to know why is that. For example, whenever I want to get an interaction going with very small kids, I would pretend to not know something and they'd be super happy to teach me - works every time.

I can see how one’s tendency to preach being associated with their ego I would also make a distinction between kids’ ‘teaching’ behaviors you describe and the one in Mencius’s quote

A slightly more charitable interpretation might be: sharing useful information creates the possibility of reciprocity.

Re: Most arguments are about ego, not ideas

#412

Post by rramadass » Wed, Jul 01, 2026, 4:21 PM UTC

"Argumentation" is one of the necessary rhetorical modes. You cannot escape it altogether in human interactions since it is central to conflict resolution and negotiation. The key is to understand psychology/sociology of both oneself/others along with rational approaches and know when to emphasize one over the other.

For some background see;

1) List of Cognitive Biases - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_cognitive_biases

2) List of Fallacies - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_fallacies

3) Modes of Discourse - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Modes_of_discourse

4) Argumentation Scheme - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argumentation_scheme

5) Conflict resolution - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conflict_resolution

6) Negotiation - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Negotiation

Re: Most arguments are about ego, not ideas

#413

Post by bryanrasmussen » Wed, Jul 01, 2026, 4:23 PM UTC

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…

The misanthropic lover of chaos in me hears you trying to be a better person and wants to shout "no you're wrong, this is what he really means!"

https://medium.com/luminasticity/the-comic-misanthrope-in-a-...

But I guess I should try to be a better person too, ugh.

on edit: I put in the link because while off subject does sum up the misanthropic personality pretty well, and their impulses.

Re: Most arguments are about ego, not ideas

#414

Post by redsocksfan45 » Wed, Jul 01, 2026, 4:26 PM UTC

khalic wrote: post #65

auggierose wrote: post #51

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Every "fact" you state really includes the opinion that the "fact" is indeed a fact. Is climate change man-made?

Are you arguing against the existence of an objective reality? Seems a little extreme. There are countless facts, indisputably so. Gravity, death, the fact you wrote me an answer, the fact I'm writing you an answer. These aren't opinions

[dead]

Re: Most arguments are about ego, not ideas

#415

Post by inglor_cz » Wed, Jul 01, 2026, 4:28 PM UTC

b40d-48b2-979e wrote: post #266

AussieWog93 wrote: post #99

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The blog goes back to 2007. Every single post made prior to ChatGPT has a very strong irreverent sense of humour as well as specific Chinese-English phrases. If you speak to Chinese migrants/colleagues/suppliers you'll recognise it immediately: https://wangcong.org/2009/04/09/got-a-new-job/ https://wangcong.org/2019-03-14-how-to-pretend-to-be-a-linux... https://wangcong.org/2008/12/25/when-i-was-in-portugal/ Then mag…

Curious how he ignores evidence and instead replies to other comments to make ad-hominem attacks.

You mean me? I didn't have time to check all those links yet, though I appreciate the effort.

Re: Most arguments are about ego, not ideas

#416

Post by etruong42 » Wed, Jul 01, 2026, 4:29 PM UTC

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

Identifying the market is also important. There's the free market of capitalism. Then there are the other powers even in that market that can still say you're wrong, such as regulators, governments, politics, violence, etc.

If you're looking for an outcome, you still need to assess the circumstances that can generate that outcome, even if the author has identified one particular strategy that people often get wrong and one possible alternative.

Re: Most arguments are about ego, not ideas

#417

Post by rootlocus » Wed, Jul 01, 2026, 4:29 PM UTC

> If someone was wrong, I wanted them to know it, and I wanted them to know exactly why. I collected counterarguments the way I collected patches. I believed that if I just laid out the logic clearly enough, the other person would have no choice but to come around. Truth would win.

This is probably how flat earthers think. If you engage in arguments without being prepared to be proven wrong, and you're hoping people to accept your argument as truth instead of both of you arriving at the truth together, you're not debating, you're being eristic (which is a fancy word I just found).

Re: Most arguments are about ego, not ideas

#418

Post by Johanx64 » Wed, Jul 01, 2026, 4:30 PM UTC

post-it wrote: post #358

Johanx64 wrote: post #72

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

> 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. I don't think this is true. There are times when I do think it's true, and when I start feeling that way I know it's time to step back because I can no longer engage constructively. Text is a hard medium to have a back-and-forth in. The features th…

The problem, fundamentally, is that unlike a computer program that won't compile if there's syntax errors, or that will crash on null pointer dereference, etc.

There's no such mechanisms in place to ensure logical consistency and coherance of made claims.

Thus the onus is on you to quickly realize that the other party "doesn't have what it takes" and bail out, or you're arguing with a person that doesn't have the mental capacity to recognize syntax errors and subtle bugs, they are simply interested in arriving at their destination and couldn't care less if they arrived there with an unbroken chain of valid chess moves.

> I don't think this is true. There are times when I do think it's true, and when I start feeling that way I know it's time to step back because I can no longer engage constructively.

I love how you don't even care if it's true, merely how you think at any given moment (and this changes with mood) and how those thoughts makes you feel.

If you're unable to entertain the idea significant amount of people don't have "what it takes" (which is a fact, btw), have you ever been able to engage constructively?

One of the hallmarks of a person who isn't interested in playing chess is a person who focuses not on what IS true, but "what they think" or "how they start feeling" about chess moves at any given time, etc. Ie. focus is about vibes.

Re: Most arguments are about ego, not ideas

#419

Post by al_borland » Wed, Jul 01, 2026, 4:31 PM UTC

duped wrote: post #351

al_borland wrote: post #321

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Do people really lose their religion because of logic and reason? I’ve never seen this. There is usually some deeper story. If someone asks me why I don’t believe, despite being raised in the church, I’ll simply say it didn’t make sense and babble on about reason and logic if they push. This is just a shield to avoid sharing the truth with people I don’t trust on a very deep level.

Yes. Your experience is not every experience.

This is why I said “usually”, and provided an example from my life, instead of saying “always” as if it was a universal fact.

Re: Most arguments are about ego, not ideas

#420

Post by toofy » Wed, Jul 01, 2026, 4:32 PM UTC

the main pieces that i had to truly understand in order to recognize and stop most online arguing were:

1) performativeness. if the person responding to you is performing for other readers rather than having a genuine good-faith discussion with you, just move on. i still catch myself being performative sometimes and it grosses me out when i recognize it lol.

2) real world vs online behaviors. if someone is an asshole in the real world, we just wouldnt talk to them. not sure how we've convinced ourselves that online is different. if someone refuses to take the time to respond in a socially normal way, then why would you take the time to respond? if they wont take the time to be social, why would you?

little ass kids learn this shit in like kindergarten. if someone is a dick, no one is friends with them. if my friends and i are in a bar and some random is being an asshole, we dont "debate" them, we move on. again, tiny children learn this shit lol.

3) real people whose opinions you care about. make a list. when i did it, it turned out to be less than 20. the people on your list are the only people you should feel any obligation towards. not randoms on the internet. dont spend your valuable time/energy/mental arguing with random internet assholes. your list of real people are the only ones you should feel any obligation towards because if you value them, they likely value you opinions as well.

4) good faith. you'll know in one or two responses if the person replying is there in good-faith. if they're not, move on.

5) knowledge peers. its ok to recognize that someone is not on the same knowledge level as you in a topic. whether they know more or know less, either way, its ok. if we're lucky we are experts in one or two topics and dipshits in most topics. accept that fact. i know this is tough in our industry, we are overflowing with people who think they're smarter than they are. its ok to recognize that the other person is not your knowledge peer on the topic and adjust accordingly: up, down, or out.

6) conversation vs debate. if someone doesnt recognize there is a vast difference between normal conversation and debate, dont waste your time. honestly, they're typically gross to engage with.

and of course, find real world hobbies. once you have the hobby, it naturally becomes "why would i argue with this dickbag online when i could be doing something way more fun."