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

471–480 of 599 posts

Re: Most arguments are about ego, not ideas

#471

Post by ttd »

scoofy wrote: post #454

This article really resonates with me. During college and graduate school studying philosophy, picking apart someone's argument and pointing out the esoteric and nuanced ways which made it wrong was celebrated. The general attitude in my cohort was: "I want to be wrong, because when I realize I'm wrong, I've become smarter." This was probably the most intellectually fulfilling period of my life. (Note here: some of t…

I respectfully submit that your neat categorization of interactions into those three profiles may reflect a gap in your understanding of others. Namely, that your definition of what makes a "good faith" conversation may not be the only one, nor the only correct one.

The vibe that people care about - that's the unspoken channel in any conversation. Physical, emotional, thoughts that don't get said. Perhaps to the one you're talking to, a good faith conversation is one that cares about or prioritizes the vibes.

IANAP (I am not a philosopher)

Re: Most arguments are about ego, not ideas

#472

Post by cogman10 »

juleiie wrote: post #470
cogman10 wrote: post #284

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The online stranger's argument was convincing because they brought a lot of evidence from research papers to general climatologist opinions which completely debunked a lot of the talking points I'd used (without me exposing those in the conversation). It also made me go back on my own sources and question where they were coming from. Let's just say the anti climate change positions become a lot less convincing when y…

Climate change being anthropogenic is so easy to verify nowadays that when someone has contrary conviction it isn’t because they don’t know the data. Data won’t help it at all. It’s available two clicks away, there is no shortage of it. People want to believe otherwise and you will never actually convince anyone on the internet using data on anything in 99% of the cases. Persuasion is an art and most of the people on…

> Climate change being anthropogenic is so easy to verify nowadays that when someone has contrary conviction it isn’t because they don’t know the data.

I agree and this is true. But my opinion and position there shifted around 2010 or so.

It's true the data was there and available in a few clicks. But I wasn't seeking it out and instead was relying on trusted sources that were lying to me.

Now-a-days, though, even my parents are on board with climate change being real. It's just too apparent for anyone that can remember what the world was like 10 or 20 years ago.

Re: Most arguments are about ego, not ideas

#473

Post by jack_h »

projektfu wrote: post #369
jack_h wrote: post #325

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> ... 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?"

Perhaps you could expand upon the parallels you’re seeing as it seems like you’ve fundamentally misunderstood my post.

Re: Most arguments are about ego, not ideas

#477

Post by jkingsbery »

greenie_beans wrote: post #108
jkingsbery wrote: post #102

Since this is at the top of Hacker News: this article is not good advice generally. Here's what I do (and mentor people to do the same): 1. Don't start with the argument, start with the data. Debates/arguments/discussions etc. are what to do about the underlying data, but I've found very often the disagreement stems from people having different bits of data. Before you get into how to marshall an argument, you have t…

would you like to argue about this?

I'm both happy to argue about it, and have someone tell me why I'm wrong.

Re: Most arguments are about ego, not ideas

#478

Post by dualvariable »

satvikpendem wrote: post #372
jakub_g wrote: post #344

Semi-related piece of advice for younger folks: When you join a new team, don't try to change team tools, processes etc. starting in the very first week. Most things are the way they are for a reason. Your "obviously better" idea may lack the full context. Start with observing the situation, talking to people to build understanding and historical context, and don't jump to conclusions too early. Sometimes you'll be r…

Chesterton's Fence. I recommend people read more into this and other concepts in mental models, such as logical fallacies.

It isn't even necessarily just Chesterton's Fences. The problem can just be picking your battles. Processes that are working well enough for the team don't need to be fixed right away to be better, and that'll dump a bunch of cognitive load onto the team in the short term. If you show up and on day one you want to fix 4 different processes, the team is going to hear that over the next 3 months you want to completely change how they do all their work, while they need to keep the rest of their work going. That is moving a whole lot of proverbial cheese all at once. Of course, teams can stagnate, and some of this can be good, but you need to spread it out, do the politics up front to get people to agree that processes need to get upgraded, and ease them into the changes over time.

Re: Most arguments are about ego, not ideas

#479

Post by scoofy »

ttd wrote: post #471
scoofy wrote: post #454

This article really resonates with me. During college and graduate school studying philosophy, picking apart someone's argument and pointing out the esoteric and nuanced ways which made it wrong was celebrated. The general attitude in my cohort was: "I want to be wrong, because when I realize I'm wrong, I've become smarter." This was probably the most intellectually fulfilling period of my life. (Note here: some of t…

I respectfully submit that your neat categorization of interactions into those three profiles may reflect a gap in your understanding of others. Namely, that your definition of what makes a "good faith" conversation may not be the only one, nor the only correct one. The vibe that people care about - that's the unspoken channel in any conversation. Physical, emotional, thoughts that don't get said. Perhaps to the one…

People are allowed to care about what they care about, I think you're right there.

My only point is that, for me, if I'm discussing a subject where I'm exasperated and am complaining in a questioning way, say (to take a random example):

>Why are my local supervisors are advocating and incentivizing return to office!?! Having to go into the office is pointless and terrible!

Suppose this policy seems insane to me, and I can only suggest that it is happening because my local politicians are corrupt jerks who only care about corporate interests.

But, now, suppose that someone in the conversation is a municipal finance nerd and believes that since dangerous local budget deficits are being driven by work from home policies, that city finances and looming cuts to important services might be what is pushing the return to office mandates, not is something the politicians want, but as a kind of compromise.

So, for me personally, I very much want this person to suggest new paradigm as an alternative explanation. I many not be satisfied with the explanation, but it has more explanatory power than "the politicians are crazy" theory that I currently hold.

I have found, however, that a huge number of folks that would pose these questions aren't actually looking for an explanation, they are just trying to express their frustration, and seek reassurance that they are in good company and are being heard. If that's what people want, I'm now happy to oblige them. I just don't understand why they would want that from the conversation, but to each their own.

Re: Most arguments are about ego, not ideas

#480

Post by fridder »

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 think you are spot on. Also if you are actively listening you may learn that the fault is in how you are communicating your ideas instead of the ideas themselves being flawed
Post reply on HN