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

21–30 of 109 posts

Re: Beginner's Guide to Arguing Constructively

#21

Post by hn_throwaway_99 »

liamrosen wrote: post #12
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 y…

>> 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.

Actually, not really. You seem to be missing my primary point, which is that thinking that things lie along a single scale where on one hand you have "pure, platonic ideal of reason" and on the other end you have "emotional hysterics". I don't think it works that way. I think the sibling commenter put it best:

>> everyone argues from an emotional perspective

> You kind of have to. If you were not emotionally invested in some way, you wouldn’t be arguing.

That is, I think step one is try to understand why you (and your debate partner) are emotionally incentivized to care about the topic in the first place.

Re: Beginner's Guide to Arguing Constructively

#22

Post by emmelaich »

liamrosen wrote: post #12
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 y…

I agree, but usually only one on one.

If the other party is with people, they tend to play to the audience.

Re: Beginner's Guide to Arguing Constructively

#23

Post by JamesBarney »

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…

> 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.

The author never says you have to do any of those things. Just that if you want to argue constructively, then maybe being expressing a lot of hostility, irrationality, and subjectivity isn't the best way to do it.

Re: Beginner's Guide to Arguing Constructively

#24

Post by TrackerFF »

First you gotta find out if the other party is any interested in debating. Or at least in good faith.

Too often, their mind is set in stone, and their agenda is to convince whoever is listening to you, that they're right - or that you're wrong.

Point is - if they're not interested, there's not a single thing you can do about it. Waste of time and energy.

Re: Beginner's Guide to Arguing Constructively

#25

Post by TheSpiceIsLife »

hn_throwaway_99 wrote: post #19
adrianmonk wrote: post #14

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

I agree with the you in the general sense here, and want to point out that, in my opinion / experience, this:

> 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.

is true for some of the people some of the time. There is a wide range of approaches that will work for some and not for others, in various circumstances.

Re: Beginner's Guide to Arguing Constructively

#26

Post by cycomanic »

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 with your point 1 and would go even further. With some people it is impossible to have constructive debates because they reject the fundamental premise of there being arguments that are supported by facts. Such people will reject any fact even if it is counter their fundamental believes.

In such case you are not arguing with the person but your argument is with the observers which might not be so fundamentalist in their views. There is in fact an excellent book that lays out this argument. Unfortunately it is only available in German, its called "Wie man mit Fundamentalisten diskutiert, ohne den Verstand zu verlieren: Anleitung zum subversiven Denken" by Hubert Schleichert. The rough translation of the title is: "how to argue with fundamentalists without loosing your mind. Instructions to subversive thinking".

He discusses some of the rhetorical tricks used by fundamentalists of every color using some historical examples and how to counter these strategies. For everyone who knows some German this is a highly recommended read.

That said, I highly appreciate the OP blog, because the arguments with fundamentalists are definitely in the minority and a more constructive argument culture is needed, especially online.

Re: Beginner's Guide to Arguing Constructively

#27

Post by phobosanomaly »

da39a3ee wrote: post #8

> "An argument should be a collaboration between two people to find the truth." This makes me sad because I agree. And yet, in the USA, your right-wing uncle probably isn't that interested in the truth. And the new generation of identity-politics liberals are the generation who have grown up taught in an academic world infested with post-modernism; they are also less interested in truth, but to their credit, very int…

I'm a leftie, but to be honest I have a left-wing and a right-wing uncle and they're both completely disinterested in the truth.

One thinks Trump is god, and the other feels the same way about Noam Chomsky. One thinks Hillary eats babies, and the other thinks the CIA did 9/11.

Meanwhile, the landscaping guy at work seems to have a pretty balanced take on things and he doesn't vote because he's not a citizen. He's one of the few people I can talk politics with over a cup of coffee and not want to pull my hair out.

I think it would benefit us all to be able to take a disinterested look at this whole deal.

Re: Beginner's Guide to Arguing Constructively

#28

Post by TheSpiceIsLife »

TrackerFF wrote: post #24

First you gotta find out if the other party is any interested in debating. Or at least in good faith. Too often, their mind is set in stone, and their agenda is to convince whoever is listening to you, that they're right - or that you're wrong. Point is - if they're not interested, there's not a single thing you can do about it. Waste of time and energy.

Likewise, if you are going in already convinced you're right there's also no point.

Re: Beginner's Guide to Arguing Constructively

#29

Post by phobosanomaly »

Aeolun wrote: post #10
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…

> everyone argues from an emotional perspective You kind of have to. If you were not emotionally invested in some way, you wouldn’t be arguing.

I commonly argue positions I don't necessarily agree with.

Often these are ideas that I don't agree with, but I can't articulate exactly why I disagree.

When I argue it, I can get others to argue against the idea, and so I can discover points that I may not have been able to put to words.

It's essentially idea farming.

Re: Beginner's Guide to Arguing Constructively

#30

Post by glaugh »

emmelaich wrote: post #22
liamrosen wrote: post #12

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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 y…

I agree, but usually only one on one. If the other party is with people, they tend to play to the audience.

Fwiw, I have had some discussions on FB that seemed to improve with some of these strategies.

This goes a bit against the spirit of the thing, but a side-effect seems to be that if one is using these tools in a public forum like FB (which of course goes against this article's advice), one does come off as more reasonable to anyone in the audience who is undecided. (I think...)

Post reply on HN