Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

How to Teach a Child to Argue

figarospeech.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

11–20 of 57 posts

Re: How to Teach a Child to Argue

#11

Post by amalcon »

inigojones wrote: post #7

> Dorothy: “Dad, you look tired. Want to sit down?” > Me: “Thanks. Where did you have in mind?” > Dorothy: “Ben & Jerry’s.” There's a difference between argument through reason and manipulation. I think this guy is teaching his kids to be manipulative. The little dialog above shows that the daughter doesn't care a wit about how her father feels, she's just using the emotion as a point of leverage. If I had kids and t…

It would probably disturb me, but I'm not sure I'd truly be disappointed. People are going to try that sort of manipulation on the child, and it's important that they be aware of the technique. It increases their resistance to it.

The "advertising inoculation" mentioned in the article is an example of this.

Re: How to Teach a Child to Argue

#12

Post by sketerpot »

There's a lot of merit in what the author calls "argument by the stick", arguments in which convincing the other guy is not the primary goal. If you argue with someone in public, as in most online arguments, simply making your opponent look stupid can make the onlookers more likely to agree with you. I've seen this happen in creationism/evolution debates: the only way to win a debate with a creationist is by trouncing them so hard that the peanut gallery silently drifts toward accepting evolution. And, invariably, someone claims that this strategy is completely ineffective because it fails to convince the one hard-line religious nut that you're arguing with. (I'm sure other examples exist, but I'm most familiar with this one.)

Re: How to Teach a Child to Argue

#13

Post by grandalf »

Growing up I was usually given my way if I could make a good persuasive case for it.

I like this approach and one day when I have kids I'll probably use it with them.

However I was never encouraged to be manipulative, only clear and logical.

As a result, I expect that most people will respond to reason, which is far from the truth of how the world works.

Re: How to Teach a Child to Argue

#14

Post by shard »

inigojones wrote: post #7

> Dorothy: “Dad, you look tired. Want to sit down?” > Me: “Thanks. Where did you have in mind?” > Dorothy: “Ben & Jerry’s.” There's a difference between argument through reason and manipulation. I think this guy is teaching his kids to be manipulative. The little dialog above shows that the daughter doesn't care a wit about how her father feels, she's just using the emotion as a point of leverage. If I had kids and t…

I wouldn't feel disappointed. I'd be delighted at the clever twist she put on the answer. The response would be to out-clever her answer: "Sure! You're inviting me so you're buying, right?"

Re: How to Teach a Child to Argue

#15

Post by grandalf »

sketerpot wrote: post #12

There's a lot of merit in what the author calls "argument by the stick", arguments in which convincing the other guy is not the primary goal. If you argue with someone in public , as in most online arguments, simply making your opponent look stupid can make the onlookers more likely to agree with you. I've seen this happen in creationism/evolution debates: the only way to win a debate with a creationist is by trounci…

It may be a useful technique at times, but I think it's more productive to establish as much common ground as possible, then highlight where each person diverges.

In most cases, divergence among rational people can be traced to different priorities. I think the same would apply if discussing religion with a rational religious person (something I don't think is totally impossible).

For example, here's my argument about why I'm an atheist:

God gave humans rational minds where he gave animals teeth and claws. He surely didn't give us rational minds so that we would stop using rationality. Thus, God intended humans to be atheists at first. If He intended humans to be faithful (which you claim) then he intended it not as a counter to rationality but as the result of the application of rationality. Just as the bird is meant to flap its wings in order to alight, the human is meant to exercise the full strength of his rationality in order to thrive.

By contrast, God also created angels, who lack the problem of rationality-inspired doubt. They are in essence "faith robots" who are incapable of achieving faith, since they start out with it. Such a being is really little more than a slave or automaton.

As we all know, the plight of humans toward faith is a far higher cause than if we were simply pre-programmed. God intended humans to have a journey whose reward at the end (a solid, rational, unwavering faith) is not something that can be gained by reciting something as a child or sitting unquestioningly in a pew, but must (and should) be earned via the most earnest rational inquiry one can muster.

Thus I, an atheist, am completely confident that if God one day wishes me to be faithful I will discover that faith through the same process of rationality that currently makes me an atheist. QED.

Re: How to Teach a Child to Argue

#16

Post by tokenadult »

I immediately emailed the link to my sixteen-year-old son, so that he and I can discuss it. (He's off to the ARML Central Region tournament, so he won't see it right away.) I too like the idea that learning how to usefully disagree is an important life skill.

Re: How to Teach a Child to Argue

#17

Post by randallsquared »

grandalf wrote: post #15
sketerpot wrote: post #12

There's a lot of merit in what the author calls "argument by the stick", arguments in which convincing the other guy is not the primary goal. If you argue with someone in public , as in most online arguments, simply making your opponent look stupid can make the onlookers more likely to agree with you. I've seen this happen in creationism/evolution debates: the only way to win a debate with a creationist is by trounci…

It may be a useful technique at times, but I think it's more productive to establish as much common ground as possible, then highlight where each person diverges. In most cases, divergence among rational people can be traced to different priorities. I think the same would apply if discussing religion with a rational religious person (something I don't think is totally impossible). For example, here's my argument abou…

A counterargument that I've heard to abbreviated forms of this argument runs like, "God gave us the ability to feel lust and envy, as well, but that doesn't mean that He intends us to follow through with fornication and coveting, and we know this because He told us so in His inerrant Word..." ;)

Re: How to Teach a Child to Argue

#18

Post by dxjones »

evgen wrote: post #5
dxjones wrote: post #4

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes, rather "argue", the article is actually about: persuading, negotiating, debating, reasoning, communicating. Not just being "argumentative". In Canada, we call the class on rhetoric "Critical Thinking".

> Yes, rather "argue", the article is actually about: persuading, negotiating, debating, reasoning, communicating. Which are all forms of argument. (Ok, the last one is more general than "argue" but it is far too broad to be useful in this context.) One of the minor points the author made is that people often try to downplay disagreement or avoid dealing with it to their detriment. Acknowledge the disagreement up fro…

In some contexts (like a class on philosophy, or pitching a startup) I agree with you. "That is a valid argument."

However, for most parents the colloquial meaning of "arguing" or "being argumentative" understood as the opposite of "being reasonable".

"Go to bed now!", insisted Mom. "Don't argue with me", she told the six-year-old. "We can talk about your bedtime tomorrow, after you have had some sleep, but I am not going to negotiate your bedtime at 11pm on a school night."

Re: How to Teach a Child to Argue

#19

Post by grandalf »

randallsquared wrote: post #17
grandalf wrote: post #15

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It may be a useful technique at times, but I think it's more productive to establish as much common ground as possible, then highlight where each person diverges. In most cases, divergence among rational people can be traced to different priorities. I think the same would apply if discussing religion with a rational religious person (something I don't think is totally impossible). For example, here's my argument abou…

A counterargument that I've heard to abbreviated forms of this argument runs like, "God gave us the ability to feel lust and envy, as well, but that doesn't mean that He intends us to follow through with fornication and coveting, and we know this because He told us so in His inerrant Word..." ;)

Good points... I'd counter-argue something like:

Lust is a variation on an emotion that is necessary to truly be close to God, known as rapture. Lust is simply the profane version of it. We may misuse any of the gifts God gave us, but that doesn't mean that their intended purpose isn't to bring us closer to him.

Post reply on HN