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

Beginner's Guide to Arguing Constructively

liamrosen.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

11–20 of 109 posts

Re: Beginner's Guide to Arguing Constructively

#11

Post by conanbatt »

"A debate as a collaboration to find the truth"

Any clash of ideas could have any number of purposes, and of all the garden variety reasons to engage in one, this must be one of the lesser ones.

Anecdotally I would rank the commonality of reasons to debate as:

1- Getting something out of it

2- Sharpening your teeth to achieve #1 later

3- Escalating a situation

4- For the kicks of it. (some personalities just love it)

To find out the truth you have much better options than getting into conversation with an adversarial position.

Re: Beginner's Guide to Arguing Constructively

#12

Post by liamrosen »

hn_throwaway_99 wrote: post #6

I'll make these arguments: 1. I don't really think any of the tips and strategies in this article are helpful unless both (or all) parties go in to it with this same mindset. Which means that, for example, I believe it is simply impossible to have these kind of "constructive arguments" on, say, Twitter, for example. One of the things I like most about HN is the guidelines are clear about the goals of the forums, and…

> I don't really think any of the tips and strategies in this article are helpful unless both (or all) parties go in to it with this same mindset.

You'd be surprised. If there's a scale from 0 to 100, where 100 is "devoted follower of the Beginner's Guide to Arguing Constructively", I think it's possible to have a decent constructive argument with people who are about 30-40 and up. I've certainly done so myself.

If you lead by example, many people will conform the standards of the debate to your tenor. Not all, of course, but that's when you have to know when to quit.

> Which means that, for example, I believe it is simply impossible to have these kind of "constructive arguments" on, say, Twitter, for example.

That was mentioned in the guide :)

> everyone argues from an emotional perspective.

Certainly you'd agree that there's a scale? It's not black and white. I will edit this part to make that more clear.

Re: Beginner's Guide to Arguing Constructively

#13

Post by Barrin92 »

>"Separate Your Arguments From Your Emotions"

>"This may sound callous, but if you've tried every strategy in this guide and your debate partner continues to operate at the bottom of the pyramid (for example, continuing to spout inflammatory ad hominem attacks), sometimes the best way to empathize with them is to pretend they have an undiagnosed mental illness."

The article reads like you took every smartass redditor on the planet and condensed them down into an article. Why can I not express emotions in an argument, or why do I need to be 'rational', or why can I not be subjective? I don't mean this in an offensive way but why is everyone who argues supposed to pretend they're autistic, because that's honestly how this piece comes across.

Re: Beginner's Guide to Arguing Constructively

#14

Post by adrianmonk »

hn_throwaway_99 wrote: post #6

I'll make these arguments: 1. I don't really think any of the tips and strategies in this article are helpful unless both (or all) parties go in to it with this same mindset. Which means that, for example, I believe it is simply impossible to have these kind of "constructive arguments" on, say, Twitter, for example. One of the things I like most about HN is the guidelines are clear about the goals of the forums, and…

I agree emotions are important. Given how all of our brains work, it's not realistic to take them out of the equation.

But it is important to maintain some moderation and rein them in. Emotions are powerful, and if you don't learn to exercise some degree of control them, then they will control you.

I think it helps to understand that emotions have a purpose. For example, fear helps you avoid threats, and anger pushes you toward taking action that is needed to change a situation. If they're serving their purpose constructively, that's good.

But if they're not, they need to be controlled. For example, when fear makes you avoid something which is actually safe, or when anger makes you act in a rash manner or suffer mentally over things you cannot change.

Re: Beginner's Guide to Arguing Constructively

#18

Post by jhardy54 »

Barrin92 wrote: post #13

> "Separate Your Arguments From Your Emotions" > "This may sound callous, but if you've tried every strategy in this guide and your debate partner continues to operate at the bottom of the pyramid (for example, continuing to spout inflammatory ad hominem attacks), sometimes the best way to empathize with them is to pretend they have an undiagnosed mental illness. " The article reads like you took every smartass reddi…

Do you think that people with autism don't have emotions? I'm trying to understand your comment but I'm having a hard time coming up with a generous interpretation.

Re: Beginner's Guide to Arguing Constructively

#19

Post by hn_throwaway_99 »

adrianmonk wrote: post #14
hn_throwaway_99 wrote: post #6

I'll make these arguments: 1. I don't really think any of the tips and strategies in this article are helpful unless both (or all) parties go in to it with this same mindset. Which means that, for example, I believe it is simply impossible to have these kind of "constructive arguments" on, say, Twitter, for example. One of the things I like most about HN is the guidelines are clear about the goals of the forums, and…

I agree emotions are important. Given how all of our brains work, it's not realistic to take them out of the equation. But it is important to maintain some moderation and rein them in. Emotions are powerful, and if you don't learn to exercise some degree of control them, then they will control you. I think it helps to understand that emotions have a purpose. For example, fear helps you avoid threats, and anger pushes…

I totally agree with what you've written, with perhaps one small clarification/caveat/nuance. A mistake I've made in the past was to think about "controlling" emotions, as if emotions and logic were mutually exclusive, opposing forces. For example, take your excellent example about how a maladjusted fear response can make you afraid of things that aren't actually dangerous. The solution to this problem is not to try to "control" the fear, e.g. by telling yourself "there is nothing logically to be afraid of". The solution is actually to experience more of that fear - in a controlled, gradual and safe manner, which is what exposure therapy is all about.

Again, I'm not saying that this is what you meant by "controlling" or "moderating" emotions, but just want to clarify that learning how to express emotions in a constructive way usually makes an argument that much more forceful that trying to "rein in" your emotions and make them subservient to logic.

Post reply on HN