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

521–530 of 599 posts

Re: Most arguments are about ego, not ideas

#521

Post by Fr0styMatt88 »

t-writescode wrote: post #481
scoofy wrote: post #479

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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’m someone who operates in both modes on the receiving end, so I think I can answer some of this. I’m going to come at it from a slightly different angle, but I think the spirit will get there. Sometimes, I’ve been working on troubleshooting my PC for hours already. I’m tired. I’m angry because I’ve spent all that mental capital, etc., so I come to friends to rant a little bit. And then they start offering solutions…

When I find myself feeling like that, a good reframe I like using is to turn those comments into commiseration; “What about trying A?” — “Yeah it’s f*ked aye, I tried A, B and C and it STILL didn’t work!”.

Re: Most arguments are about ego, not ideas

#522

Post by [deleted] »

Johanx64 wrote: post #418
post-it wrote: post #358

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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 men…

[deleted]

Re: Most arguments are about ego, not ideas

#523

Post by oddly »

t-writescode wrote: post #481
scoofy wrote: post #479

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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’m someone who operates in both modes on the receiving end, so I think I can answer some of this. I’m going to come at it from a slightly different angle, but I think the spirit will get there. Sometimes, I’ve been working on troubleshooting my PC for hours already. I’m tired. I’m angry because I’ve spent all that mental capital, etc., so I come to friends to rant a little bit. And then they start offering solutions…

I usually ask people straight at that point whether they want solutions for me or if they just want me to listen with empathically. Depends on the person how I bring this though, but it tends to work.

Re: Most arguments are about ego, not ideas

#524

Post by indoordin0saur »

manmal wrote: post #334
indoordin0saur wrote: post #303

Most people make their ideas and opinions part of their identity. And so if it turns out they are wrong about something then a part of them has died, or at least severely injured and needs to be healed. A few people are not like this and their ideas are more like a collection of trading cards they keep in their pocket. They think they have a pretty good collection but are not opposed to throwing out one for another i…

I don't think that's opinions, but, rather, going wherever the wind blows.

Some people have a consensus-based mechanism for identifying if something is true or moral or fashionable. They basically believe whatever is the majority opinion, weighted for perceived social status or expertise or whatever else. I think this is normal for most non-technical people who don't have strong critical thinking skills themselves. So they outsource all the heavy thinking to the society at large.

Re: Most arguments are about ego, not ideas

#525

Post by threethirtytwo »

kevinsync wrote: post #504
threethirtytwo wrote: post #425

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> In reality, illogical appeals to emotion tend to win the day Not to a neutral party. Debates and arguments that can change the course of a project happen in front of a neutral committee (ideally) in that case logic can win. > 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 accolade…

I almost never reply to replies on something that I wrote in a public forum, because I stand by what I wrote as a complete statement and don't feel the need to defend it further. In this particular case, because the whole topic is about "argument", I found it funny enough to break my own rule. For what it's worth, I did read your post twice before I replied, just to see if I didn't get it on the first pass. What I to…

It’s just wording for the same thing. Arguments can be persuasive.

When you say you persuaded someone it meant you gave a persuasive argument. You’ve turned the discussion into word play but essentially we are in agreement that I am right. No need to argue when we both agree.

Re: Most arguments are about ego, not ideas

#526

Post by folkrav »

what wrote: post #191
folkrav wrote: post #92

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Do I need to hold the opinion that water is wet for it to be factual? To answer your question, if by climate change you refer to the dramatic post-industrialisation acceleration of warming and climate disturbances, the correct answer is "the overwhelming majority of existing evidence points to yes".

Is water wet though? It’s the substance that makes other things wet, but is it wet itself?

If we go full on aykchyually on this, technically no, sure. I however assume most English speakers would be familiar with the idiom lol

Re: Most arguments are about ego, not ideas

#527

Post by effed3 »

probably only peoples who has the gift of doubt can argue in the common search of knowledge. Everything else, right or wrong, are, as stated, more about ego, quite useless about real problem solving..

Sure no one like to be wrong, so to argue with is necessary to spark interest in the search of alternative point of view.

Remembering Hagakure: "To give a person an opinion one must first judge well whether that person is of the disposition to receive it or not. One must become close with him and make sure that he continually trusts one's word." ..... "Have him receive this in the way that a man would drink water when his throat is dry, and it will be an opinion that will correct faults."

Words from a more civilized ages.

Re: Most arguments are about ego, not ideas

#528

Post by jodrellblank »

palmotea wrote: post #338
hamdingers wrote: post #319

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's generous to assume all the difficult accounts you encounter are lacking mental faculties. Many are participating with the goal of wasting your energy. This site in particular is infested with accounts that seem to have some real intelligence behind them, but they use that intelligence to respond to the most absurd and frustrating interpretation of your comments.

> It's generous to assume all the difficult accounts you encounter are lacking mental faculties. It's also not uncommon for people who are arrogant to think that most people who disagree with them are stupid. They assume they're right so disagreement is a sign of a defect (and helps avoid uncomfortable thoughts like, "could I be wrong?"). > Many are participating with the goal of wasting your energy. > This site in p…

> "They assume they're right so disagreement is a sign of a defect"

Take a step back and look at the original linked blog post through this lense, and you'll see an article where the author is a priori correct and other people are only wrong because they are too irrational and emotional to accept the author's flawless logic. There's no mention that author might be wrong about anything, e.g. for the author to argue so that they can learn things and change their mind. There's no room for the author failing to change someone's mind because the author's communication skill, reasoning, logic, isn't strong enough, only because the other person is defective and cannot be reasoned with. (Having taken those positions, the author declares themselves humble).

(Let's quickly address "the moment you insist on standing on the high ground, you’ve created the low ground someone else must stand on" by observing that we can all stand on "murder is bad" and nobody needs to stand on "murder is good"; and wonder how the author managed to miss that. (My answer: because this isn't about logic; if not-arguing is doing other people a favour, then it's a virtue and the author can feel good about it. It's a defense so the author doesn't need to change)).

> [article] "Worse, most people don’t learn from advice at all. They learn from consequences. They have to touch the stove themselves. Words bounce off; pain sticks"

That this is an example which applies to children. Adults do not have to jump off a cliff to accept that jumping off a cliff is a bad idea. But it's still a weak argument. The experience of being burned by a stove includes the sensation of hot metal, pain, burnt skin, burnt hair smell, lingering pain, blistering, scabbing, healing... to suggest that the words "it will burn you" is the territory, and that the words adequately communicate the lived experience to someone who has not had that experience, is the Detached Lever fallacy[1]; it's something that a person who lives with text would argue.

[1] https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/zY4pic7cwQpa9dnyk/detached-l...

Re: Most arguments are about ego, not ideas

#529

Post by erikerikson »

the_af wrote: post #498
erikerikson wrote: post #155

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This. The problem is that the author may have been right, every time, in the narrow context of consideration they were arguing from and about. But often the problems being solved are multi-dimensional and on some other level. One could get closer to your wonderful suggestion with the far more indulgent "Maybe I'm right but not yet thinking about a contextual factor or value that might be important. What could possibl…

> The problem is that the author may have been right Even worse, it's very likely the author wasn't even right most of the time. They claim a frequent occurrence is that "the room" turns against them. Now, their rationalization is that they are ego-driven, yadda yadda, no other possibility of why "the room" is often against their position. If they were rational as they claim to be, maybe they could show some insight…

I see your cynicism and it could be correct, I'm not sure. I also could see it being as described but irrelevant in the manager's mind who knows about the pending sale that will put off the pending funding cliff and company collapse. I could also see that the person is, as admitted, technically correct but being such a jerk that no one is interested in letting them have increased influence. So many other possibilities.

Regardless, this story about the situation, especial if true, seems less likely to support them in seeing a richer tapestry of considerations and perspectives.

Re: Most arguments are about ego, not ideas

#530

Post by [deleted] »

Johanx64 wrote: post #418
post-it wrote: post #358

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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 men…

[deleted]
Post reply on HN