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

Argue well by losing

haacked.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

11–20 of 39 posts

Re: Argue well by losing

#11

Post by kabouseng »

thaumasiotes wrote: post #3

In the past I frequently tried to begin arguments / discussions by carefully going over what I thought of as background assumptions. (To me, this is at least closely related to the proposed step 1, restate your opponent's position clearly.) My experience suggests that if you do that, the other party will never stop disagreeing with you no matter how far up the chain you go. Many, many, many arguments never happened i…

>>My experience suggests that if you do that, the other party will never stop disagreeing with you no matter how far up the chain you go.

Absolutely true.

There was a MOOC about argumenting at coursera I think. The proffessor had the same viewpoint. One of the lessons was that you have to start at a common reference point and argument from there. If you and the other person have no common reference points, you will never resolve your difference of opinion ever.

Re: Argue well by losing

#12

Post by paddy_m »

I recently read Crucial Conversations. It is big on finding a shared purpose in a conversation, and maintaining a feeling of safety. I recommend it strongly.

Re: Argue well by losing

#13

Post by Shish2k »

jpswade wrote: post #4

You can’t win an argument. You can’t because if you lose it, you lose it; and if you win it, you lose it. Why? Well, suppose you triumph over the other man and shoot his argument full of holes and prove that he is non compos mentis. Then what? You will feel fine. But what about him? You have made him feel inferior. You have hurt his pride. He will resent your triumph. And – A man convinced against his will Is of the…

When I argue about things with similarly-minded friends, we all win all the time -- the aim is never to make the other person agree with yourself, but for both parties to agree on what's correct (which is sometimes what you think, sometimes what they think, and sometimes a third thing entirely).

It's a shame that my "similarly-minded friends list" is in the single digits :(

(It's not even that most people are stubborn and loud - quite the opposite - it's that they interpret constructive criticism (sometimes even neutral discussion) as conflict and shy away from it)

Re: Argue well by losing

#14

Post by shiven »

bluecalm wrote: post #7
hooande wrote: post #5

How to compose a successful critical commentary: 1. Attempt to re-express your target's position so clearly, vividly and fairly that your target says: "Thanks, I wish I'd thought of putting it that way." 2. List any points of agreement (especially if they are not matters of general or widespread agreement). 3. Mention anything you have learned from your target. 4. Only then are you permitted to say so much as a word…

I agree about the principle. Few remarks: 1. I think being forthcoming about it is very important. Especially when it comes to obvious unclear points/mistakes which are easy to correct. You should do that before attempting the commentary. The main reason is to save time (if correction is obvious, you might as well do it yourself) another is to show good attitude ("I try resolve this issue instead of nitpicking, see ?…

And based on your viewpoint, how successful are you at convincing others to "Get to Yes"? There must be numerous situations where you may have had to deal with people and convince them of the strength or correctness of your ideas. Do you dryly put forth the facts and let the chips fall where they may? Or do you give your ideas a fighting chance of being accepted, especially when your un-emotional, unequivocally-logical suggestion may well be the only viable way out of a situation? Do you ever have to build consensus amongst a team of smart, driven people who may not all be Turing-complete automatons?

Re: Argue well by losing

#15

Post by acjohnson55 »

Thought-provoking article. I often battle friends on Facebook over issues of politics, economics, and stuff, and I definitely notice that people are generally more interested in winning than learning. In fact, that's the model cable news shows and presidential debates teach us. It's all about introducing some obscure fact or anecdote that your opponent can't possibly know off-hand to force them to have to research enough to rebut, acquiesce to your position, duck and counter with their own obscure fact, throw an exasperated ad hominem, or quietly slink away. But none of those tactics involve actually trying to learn some better picture of the truth or examining your own belief schema.

I think we've kind of moved to a post-fact society in this sense. Every position has it's own set of miscellaneous facts that seem to support it, and those facts are typically unverifiable, or at least certainly unverified. Factual debate seems to quickly descend into partisanship. I've come to believe that it's far more interesting and useful to debate principles instead.

Re: Argue well by losing

#16

Post by networked »

hooande wrote: post #5

How to compose a successful critical commentary: 1. Attempt to re-express your target's position so clearly, vividly and fairly that your target says: "Thanks, I wish I'd thought of putting it that way." 2. List any points of agreement (especially if they are not matters of general or widespread agreement). 3. Mention anything you have learned from your target. 4. Only then are you permitted to say so much as a word…

>1. Attempt to re-express your target's position so clearly, vividly and fairly that your target says: "Thanks, I wish I'd thought of putting it that way."

There's a closely related concept with a pretty catchy name, which is something that's often useful for making concepts stick; perhaps HN could make use of it. That concept is the "steel man":

>Sometimes the term "steel man" is used to refer to a position's or argument's improved form. A straw man is a misrepresentation of someone's position or argument that is easy to defeat: a "steel man" is an improvement of someone's position or argument that is harder to defeat than their originally stated position or argument. [1]

It can be used as a noun or a verb, e.g.

>We will want to "steel-man" NASA's argument. [2]

This can be considered a stronger version of the idea in 1. since it deals with improving not only the expression but also the substance of the opposing side's argument.

[1] http://wiki.lesswrong.com/wiki/Steel_man

[2] http://lesswrong.com/lw/hab/rocket_science_and_big_money_a_c...

Re: Argue well by losing

#18

Post by adolph »

paddy_m wrote: post #12

I recently read Crucial Conversations. It is big on finding a shared purpose in a conversation, and maintaining a feeling of safety. I recommend it strongly.

"Dialogue: The Art Of Thinking Together" is another good one.

http://www.amazon.com/Dialogue-The-Art-Thinking-Together/dp/...

Re: Argue well by losing

#19

Post by digitalengineer »

hooande wrote: post #5

How to compose a successful critical commentary: 1. Attempt to re-express your target's position so clearly, vividly and fairly that your target says: "Thanks, I wish I'd thought of putting it that way." 2. List any points of agreement (especially if they are not matters of general or widespread agreement). 3. Mention anything you have learned from your target. 4. Only then are you permitted to say so much as a word…

>I read the book...

I freaking love this. The books that get mentioned casually here at HN rock! I have no idea who you are man, but thank you!

Re: Argue well by losing

#20

Post by scott_s »

thaumasiotes wrote: post #3

In the past I frequently tried to begin arguments / discussions by carefully going over what I thought of as background assumptions. (To me, this is at least closely related to the proposed step 1, restate your opponent's position clearly.) My experience suggests that if you do that, the other party will never stop disagreeing with you no matter how far up the chain you go. Many, many, many arguments never happened i…

Regarding your last paragraph, people explain their current problems as a coping mechanism . But when people do that, what they're really looking for is someone to understand them. It's an emotional thing, and you provided it.
Post reply on HN