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

571–580 of 599 posts

Re: Most arguments are about ego, not ideas

#571

Post by movpasd »

I think an important realisation for me was this: peoples' egos being involved in their arguments, people being irrational, and so on, these are not merely deviations from an ideal rational self that we could reach were we to put enough effort in. It is just how people are. There's a word for it: politics.

Once I started looking for it, I started noticing some of my colleagues' abilities to navigate their way through meetings and disagreements and getting their way without things even becoming arguments, the ability of some people to just put a room at ease or to communicate. And the inability of others to do so.

"Politics" is an unsavory term for somebody with engineering predilections. It evokes backhandedness and self-interest. But you can't actually both be a human being and be "above it". Every sentence, no matter how concrete and technical, is a social act with social ramifications.

I've come to have a lot of respect for people who are actually able to lead and make things happen. It is not a skill I am terribly practiced with.

Re: Most arguments are about ego, not ideas

#572

Post by lucianbr »

swat535 wrote: post #511
lucianbr wrote: post #375

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Someone who does not believe in god will not be convinced to believe by a proof of god's existence I'm sure some atheists could be convinced. The rule "all atheists will reject evidence of God" seems false. The rule "all atheists will accept evidence of God" also seems false. Life is more complicated than that. It depends on the atheist and on the evidence.

This is not true, Atheists position is that there is no God. Agnostics position is that there may, or may not be a God. In this case, you're talking about Agnosticism rather than Atheism.

My entire point was that some people are able to change their position.

Re: Most arguments are about ego, not ideas

#573

Post by khalic »

auggierose wrote: post #565
khalic wrote: post #65

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

> Are you arguing against the existence of an objective reality? Seems a little extreme. No, I am not arguing against the existence of an objective reality. I argue against the capability of most people to accurately assess what that objective reality is. You for example apparently cannot even assess the meaning of my clear and simple sentence, why would I trust you to be able to assess any more complex situation?

Nobody’s asking you to trust peoples’ assessments, this is why reproduction exists in science.

Your sentence was very much ambiguous, you should think before writing

Re: Most arguments are about ego, not ideas

#574

Post by watwut »

scoofy wrote: post #479
ttd wrote: post #471

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

> 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.

I mean, in that case, the municipality needs to get rid of that nerd asap. And the companies can and should push against that nerd asap.

Re: Most arguments are about ego, not ideas

#575

Post by auggierose »

khalic wrote: post #573
auggierose wrote: post #565

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Are you arguing against the existence of an objective reality? Seems a little extreme. No, I am not arguing against the existence of an objective reality. I argue against the capability of most people to accurately assess what that objective reality is. You for example apparently cannot even assess the meaning of my clear and simple sentence, why would I trust you to be able to assess any more complex situation?

Nobody’s asking you to trust peoples’ assessments, this is why reproduction exists in science. Your sentence was very much ambiguous, you should think before writing

There is nothing ambiguous about my sentence. Once you learnt thinking, read it again.

Re: Most arguments are about ego, not ideas

#576

Post by XorNot »

swat535 wrote: post #511
lucianbr wrote: post #375

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Someone who does not believe in god will not be convinced to believe by a proof of god's existence I'm sure some atheists could be convinced. The rule "all atheists will reject evidence of God" seems false. The rule "all atheists will accept evidence of God" also seems false. Life is more complicated than that. It depends on the atheist and on the evidence.

This is not true, Atheists position is that there is no God. Agnostics position is that there may, or may not be a God. In this case, you're talking about Agnosticism rather than Atheism.

The distinction has always been assinine.

An agnostic and atheist both live their lives as though there is no god. Because it is equally meaningless to say "there might be a god" but describe no further characteristics of such an entity, akin to "their might be faires but you can't see them, hear them, touch them and they have no effect on the world in anyway".

People trying who insist on a difference are just emotively trying to find some perceived middle ground from which they will claim intellectual superiority.

Re: Most arguments are about ego, not ideas

#577

Post by khalic »

auggierose wrote: post #575
khalic wrote: post #573

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Nobody’s asking you to trust peoples’ assessments, this is why reproduction exists in science. Your sentence was very much ambiguous, you should think before writing

There is nothing ambiguous about my sentence. Once you learnt thinking, read it again.

If you can't find the issue with your statement, you should probably not be giving anybody lessons about thinking or learning...

Re: Most arguments are about ego, not ideas

#578

Post by prmph »

dctoedt wrote: post #545
prmph wrote: post #263

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I can be absolutely certain of my perception and recollection of what my consciousness is experiencing and has experienced. Note that the truth of this statement does not depend on any certainty about external reality, nor does it depend on certainty that what I perceive or remember is happening or actually happened.

> I can be absolutely certain of my perception and recollection of what my consciousness is experiencing and has experienced. There's abundant evidence to the contrary — at least as far as your recollection of what your consciousness previously experienced. (IOW: Memory is extremely fallible.)

Way to miss the point.

I said I can be sure of what I am recollecting, not whether the my recollection actually matches what happened.

Re: Most arguments are about ego, not ideas

#579

Post by dctoedt »

prmph wrote: post #578
dctoedt wrote: post #545

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I can be absolutely certain of my perception and recollection of what my consciousness is experiencing and has experienced. There's abundant evidence to the contrary — at least as far as your recollection of what your consciousness previously experienced. (IOW: Memory is extremely fallible.)

Way to miss the point. I said I can be sure of what I am recollecting, not whether the my recollection actually matches what happened.

Please reread my comment — yours has two possible meanings.

Re: Most arguments are about ego, not ideas

#580

Post by snarf21 »

jadbox wrote: post #490
snarf21 wrote: post #392

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is indeed part of the problem. Life today is just too complicated. Take a simple topic like wind turbines: there is so so much to truly understand about materials, net lifetime carbon offset, environmental issues, recycling, capacity, placement, etc. that is is all but impossible to become a true subject matter expert on this one issue alone. Even gaining a cursory understanding of the issues at hand requires ma…

Since it seems like you may have research this, how do you feel about wind turbines?

Honestly, I have barely looked into it. The main thing I know is that there is currently about ~7 year payoff in terms of carbon. My general sense is that we should be investing in solar and batteries and not doing wind except in specific isolated situations but I don't have the knowledge to back that up right now.

I'd also argue that people above are making my point for me. It isn't enough to say that wind is better than coal. Lots of things are better than coal. That still doesn't mean that it is the right choice or best use of our time and resources to help combat climate change. The switch to EV is going to be long and slow but attacking electricity generation carbon is something we can do more directly more quickly (assuming the political will). The calculus on the quickest and biggest bang for our buck is insanely complicated.

Post reply on HN