How to Teach a Child to Argue • Hacker News Board

Re: How to Teach a Child to Argue

#51

Post by ars » Sun, May 31, 2009, 9:00 AM UTC

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…

"Kids whose parents let them win consistently have their world views shattered when they find out that they aren't the best at everything."

The corollary to that, is that kids who never win quickly realize that playing the game is pointless, and give up.

Re: How to Teach a Child to Argue

#52

Post by grandalf » Sun, May 31, 2009, 2:46 PM UTC

klipt wrote: post #48

grandalf wrote: post #45

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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). B…

Good point... From Wikipedia:

Doubt as a path towards (deeper) religious faith lies at the heart of the story of Saint Thomas the Apostle. Note in this respect the theological views of Georg Hermes:

... the starting-point and chief principle of every science, and hence of theology also, is not only methodical doubt, but positive doubt. One can believe only what one has perceived to be true from reasonable grounds, and consequently one must have the courage to continue doubting until one has found reliable grounds to satisfy the reason.[3]

Re: How to Teach a Child to Argue

#53

Post by petercooper » Sun, May 31, 2009, 4:05 PM UTC

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 think this guy is teaching his kids to be manipulative.

No shit Sherlock! It's called "How to Teach A Kid To Argue." That's where you bat a point of debate back and forth in an attempt to manipulate the other side to agreeing with you or at least seeing your viewpoint.

Reasoning is manipulation because you use reason to change other people's opinions or actions.

Re: How to Teach a Child to Argue

#54

Post by petercooper » Sun, May 31, 2009, 4:09 PM UTC

shard wrote: post #49

beta wrote: post #42

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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!

And appeal to probability, appeal to consequences and fallacy of the undistributed middle.. :)

Re: How to Teach a Child to Argue

#55

Post by babycakes » Mon, Jun 01, 2009, 3:32 AM UTC

dxjones wrote: post #4

TallGuyShort wrote: post #2

A more appropriate (though less-intriguing) title would be "How to Teach your Child to Reason and Communicate". I think it's a great technique - my university requires freshman to take a class on rhetoric - and it really changed the way I communicate. I was more focussed on what I need to do to communicate effectively rather than what my audience needed to do.

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".

His book distinguishes between "arguing" and "fighting." The five components you describe above fall under the heading "argument."

I highly recommend "Thank You for Arguing." It's a wonderful book that takes classical rhetoric, a relatively dry subject, and turns it into something entertaining to study.

Re: How to Teach a Child to Argue

#56

Post by [deleted] » Mon, Jun 01, 2009, 2:30 PM UTC

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…

[deleted]

Re: How to Teach a Child to Argue

#57

Post by beta » Mon, Jun 01, 2009, 2:32 PM UTC

petercooper wrote: post #54

shard wrote: post #49

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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!

And appeal to probability, appeal to consequences and fallacy of the undistributed middle.. :)

Yuck. Yes, I must really resist the temptation to comment after all nighters. Manipulation == psychopathy, is a bit much.

I too assert however that manipulating the audience in spite of appealing to reason is unethical, and that some sort of notion that we should practice manipulation so as to strengthen ourselves to it is rubbish, if we consider manipulation to be unethical in the first place. Hence, if it's beneath us, even if using manipulation made us better at persuasion through appeals to ethos and pathos, or at least better apt at detecting and exposing manipulation, what what would be the point after having compromised our own values in the first place?