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

41–50 of 57 posts

Re: How to Teach a Child to Argue

#41

Post by klipt »

grandalf wrote: post #19
randallsquared wrote: post #17

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Ok, so presumably you have enough of a religious background to argue from the viewpoint of your opponent. There are advantages to that approach but also disadvantages.

The advantage is that, if there is any claim to rationality in your opponent's view, you can use it to build a bridge to alternate viewpoints that they'd never normally consider. It can be very persuasive.

The downside is that this persuasiveness can be so strong as to feel invasive. That can provoke an angry reaction; in some countries it could endanger your life. There's a reason that several religions prescribe harsh punishment for apostates: someone who has left a religion knows enough about it (and about what they see as its shortcomings) to be dangerously good at 'leading others astray'.

In addition, by arguing from their axioms you are implicitly accepting large parts of their viewpoint which they can then use against you. For example, any sufficiently persuasive argument against Christianity from a Christian viewpoint can be met with "The devil can cite Scripture for his purpose." Why should they trust someone who seems to acknowledge Christianity as true, only to argue against it? Surely only someone on the side of the devil would fight God while acknowledging his existence.

And once they've labeled you as being on the side of devil, the more persuasively you argue, the more sure they'll be that they're right ... and that you're just deliberately lying to lead them astray.

Re: How to Teach a Child to Argue

#42

Post by beta »

dusklight wrote: post #22
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…

But now you are putting your own ethics on the concept of manipulation. If we are taught manipulation is wrong, we never learn how to use it and we are less able to defend against it, and it puts us at a disadvantage when we have to deal with a less scrupulous person who doesn't have a problem using it. Instead if we are taught that manipulation is a tool, and like any tool can be used for good or evil depending on t…

But now you are putting your own ethics on the concept of manipulation

No kidding. That's the whole point of the parent post in the first place isn't it? He's asserting that manipulation, is self evidently wrong, that there is no justification to resort to manipulative tactics over argument through reason.

Here's a counter example for you: If we taught that murder is wrong, we'll never use it and we are less able to defend against it... etc. That's actually, exactly how most people are brought up and for good reason. We generally consider murder to be wrong.

Let me tell you something, the world seems to be raising more individuals comfortable with implementing these sort of manipulative tactics, "appealing to the audience" as it were. As far as I can tell, what this article promotes is a sure fire way to encourage your child to grow up into being a manipulating psychopath; nothing could be further from fostering talent for argument through reason.

Re: How to Teach a Child to Argue

#43

Post by [deleted] »

Wallo wrote: post #35
grandalf wrote: post #13

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.

Yeah I was raised in a family where logos and ethos reign supreme, pathos is personally the weakest path in an argument. I totally agree with his parenting style, great article all around.

[deleted]

Re: How to Teach a Child to Argue

#44

Post by nirmal »

shard wrote: post #14
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?"

My father loved to have back and forths with me trying to come up with a clever response. But the most important lesson he taught me was that there is a time and place for such things.

Re: How to Teach a Child to Argue

#45

Post by grandalf »

klipt wrote: post #41
grandalf wrote: post #19

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Ok, so presumably you have enough of a religious background to argue from the viewpoint of your opponent. There are advantages to that approach but also disadvantages. The advantage is that, if there is any claim to rationality in your opponent's view, you can use it to build a bridge to alternate viewpoints that they'd never normally consider. It can be very persuasive. The downside is that this persuasiveness can b…

Good points. In response to the "devil could use scripture for his benefit" I'd argue:

What tool did God give only to humans to bring them closer to Him? Rationality. Thus, who would want you to suppress this but God's opponent Satan.

What does this irrational faith look like? It's like the child's faith in the easter bunny, juvenile and hollow, the kind that will not stand up to scrutiny. Is this the kind of faith that God intended for you? Did He want you to simply claim things that you do not fully believe? Did He want your prayers to be lies or mere wishes?

All I am arguing is that God wants your faith to come from his greatest gift to you, which is Reason, not from the part of you that can easily lie to yourself about things, for that is what Satan is trying to harness.

Satan knows that faith is difficult and knows that you would happily take the easy way out. He knows that you would enjoy patting yourself on the back for being more faithful than others and for enjoying the resulting feelings of superiority. It is Satan's victory over God when your faith is shallow and self-serving.

Only a solid, adult faith that has been honed by every ounce of your rationality can help you get closer to god by avoiding the various traps laid by Satan.

Re: How to Teach a Child to Argue

#46

Post by Angostura »

I accidentally invented a game with my daughter when she was about 3 which she really seemed to enjoy and appears to have helped her at school in terms of reasoning and thinking out of the box.

There was a football up in a tree - "how could we get that down?" I asked and we proceeded to take turns starting off with the prosaic "use a stick" to the increasingly farfetched "helicopter" "string elastic between the houses and bounce... no it would get tangled".

We still play it today and as she gets older the form modifies and she gets more imaginative. There's a nice element of problem solving and silliness. I recommend it.

Re: How to Teach a Child to Argue

#47

Post by derefr »

pubbins wrote: post #30
stcredzero wrote: post #24

5. Let kids win sometimes. Some parents have a problem with this. I remember a conversation where a woman volunteered that she completely suppressed her kids every time. She was absolutely proud of this fact.

I very rarely let my kids win anything. You can play games of chance or setup situations where they can win. In the situation described in the blog post it's really a judgement call for the father - if the child was able to present a good argument, then she wins. Kids whose parents let them win consistently have their world views shattered when they find out that they aren't the best at everything. These children are…

Okay, "let them win" might have been a bit hyperbolic. Instead, how about this: handicap yourself so you are always a surmountable challenge. People learn best when winning is "just" a matter of putting all their effort into something and being ingenuitive. If something's below this level, they aren't learning much, and if it's above this level, the challenge seems insurmountable, and so http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Learned_helplessness kicks in.

Re: How to Teach a Child to Argue

#48

Post by klipt »

grandalf wrote: post #45
klipt wrote: post #41

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Ok, so presumably you have enough of a religious background to argue from the viewpoint of your opponent. There are advantages to that approach but also disadvantages. The advantage is that, if there is any claim to rationality in your opponent's view, you can use it to build a bridge to alternate viewpoints that they'd never normally consider. It can be very persuasive. The downside is that this persuasiveness can b…

Good points. In response to the "devil could use scripture for his benefit" I'd argue: What tool did God give only to humans to bring them closer to Him? Rationality. Thus, who would want you to suppress this but God's opponent Satan. What does this irrational faith look like? It's like the child's faith in the easter bunny, juvenile and hollow, the kind that will not stand up to scrutiny. Is this the kind of faith t…

And that might even work on some people. The problem is that as far as I know, there is actually support in the New Testament for blind faith - something about a doubting Thomas.

When fundamentalists say there's no morality outside of the bible, I've tried telling them to look at certain parts of the Buddhist scriptures (which in my opinion covers some of the moral parts of religion without the blind belief parts). But it just seems to go over their head. Anything outside the bible is suspect. If it seems to contradict the bible, it must be devilish. Etc.

Not every religion has a Kalama Sutta (also known as "Buddha's charter of free inquiry").

Re: How to Teach a Child to Argue

#49

Post by shard »

beta wrote: post #42
dusklight wrote: post #22

Earlier quoted context omitted.

But now you are putting your own ethics on the concept of manipulation. If we are taught manipulation is wrong, we never learn how to use it and we are less able to defend against it, and it puts us at a disadvantage when we have to deal with a less scrupulous person who doesn't have a problem using it. Instead if we are taught that manipulation is a tool, and like any tool can be used for good or evil depending on t…

But now you are putting your own ethics on the concept of manipulation No kidding. That's the whole point of the parent post in the first place isn't it? He's asserting that manipulation, is self evidently wrong, that there is no justification to resort to manipulative tactics over argument through reason. Here's a counter example for you: If we taught that murder is wrong, we'll never use it and we are less able to…

what this article promotes is a sure fire way to encourage your child to grow up into being a manipulating psychopath

Wow, talk about employing pathos to manipulate the audience!

Re: How to Teach a Child to Argue

#50

Post by pubbins »

derefr wrote: post #47
pubbins wrote: post #30

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I very rarely let my kids win anything. You can play games of chance or setup situations where they can win. In the situation described in the blog post it's really a judgement call for the father - if the child was able to present a good argument, then she wins. Kids whose parents let them win consistently have their world views shattered when they find out that they aren't the best at everything. These children are…

Okay, "let them win" might have been a bit hyperbolic. Instead, how about this: handicap yourself so you are always a surmountable challenge. People learn best when winning is "just" a matter of putting all their effort into something and being ingenuitive. If something's below this level, they aren't learning much, and if it's above this level, the challenge seems in surmountable, and so http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki…

This is the approach I try to take. I explained it poorly, but that's what I meant when I said "setup situations where they can win". But just letting them win so they don't have to feel sad about losing? Not with me.

One of my boys will call a foot race to the car when he's close enough to where he thinks he can beat me. When he says go, I'm coming full tilt. Or when we practice baseball I'll set up a contest - hit a ball past me and we go for ice cream.

Post reply on HN