Live data from Hacker News

Most arguments are about ego, not ideas

wangcong.org

291–300 of 599 posts

Re: Most arguments are about ego, not ideas

#291
post #25

One of the most cancerous developments of our generation is a bunch of people isolating themselves from everyone else, and having their perfect unchallenged audience captured views spread far and wide. On a more personal level, the reason people are frustrated about arguing is because they can’t fully articulate their reasons. They don’t realize it themselves. The older you get and the more practiced you get at argui…

Even worse than "a bunch of people" is when the majority behaves like that.

Re: Most arguments are about ego, not ideas

#292

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> What is the goal when you start arguing with someone online? Is that goal achievable? For me the goal is twofold. I'm arguing for the people reading the comment chain, not necessarily the commenter's sake. I know it's nearly impossible to convince someone you are arguing with. But also I do try and have an open mind. It's not common that I change my position, but it does happen. For example, I was once a climate ch…

Honestly if you change your opinion under effect of some online strangers then it wasn't a strong conviction in the first place

You say that like it's a bad thing, and not the defining characteristic of an well educated and well rounded human.

One of the best ways humans have developed for information transfer is rhetorical debate. You're supposed to argue for whatever you believe in vehemently, but critically, abandoning it as much as necessary to adopt a better, more accurate understanding or model.

Unquestioned or unchallenged ideas are significantly less valuable than challenged or improved ones. Arguing for and defending what you know is a good thing, holding on to convictions that aren't improving your life or the life of others is fucking stupid. And the idea that you can't learn something from another human because the medium is the Internet, is certainly a take to read from someone making a comment on the internet.

Re: Most arguments are about ego, not ideas

#293
> I only discuss pros and cons with smart people; I don’t argue right and wrong with ego-driven ones.

There is a certain logic to this. If someone can't reason, there is no point in giving them the truth. You might as well lie to them.

Of course, your ability to assess someone's reasoning depends often on their existing opinions, so there is a circular reasoning here where two sides with the same mindset can each believe the other to be stupid because of their position, and then refuse to engage in good faith discussions.

I don't make a lot of friends this way, but I usually try to just focus on facts no matter what, and do my best to separate the fact that I'm discussing ideas and not people. An idea might be good or bad given a certain situation, but not the people involved.

Re: Most arguments are about ego, not ideas

#294
post #261
post #226

The author's argument is hilariously wrong because we've been doing something for thousands of years: teaching. And it works, to some degree. And how do teachers teach? They don't start by trying to argue or by trying to prove students wrong. They teach by showing what's fascinating. Taking the time to show people what's fascinating, what's perplexing, where the tension lies, and how it's resolved, is teaching. Argum…

Teachers teach people who don't know the answer yet. So they aren't wrong when you teach them. They will (gladly) accept the knowledge. Once they know the answer, it gets more difficult to convince them that the answer they know is incorrect.

For more advanced students, those with preconceived ideas, teachers use a refutational style of teaching. It's not the same as argumentation because the goal is to find an appropriate bridge from one model (the preconceived, naive model) to another model (the one being taught). It works by pointing out a fascinating explanatory limitation in the naive model and then showing the students how the better model deals with said limitations.

Re: Most arguments are about ego, not ideas

#296

They never mention they could’ve been wrong. The author assumes they’re always right, but that trying to convince others and argue them to their right side is not valuable. How about: maybe I’m wrong and I didn’t let their ideas influence me. How about: even when I think I’m right, it will be better to calmly kindly discuss, listening as much as talking, not debating or arguing or speaking over them, but attempting t…

> They never mention they could’ve been wrong.

I noticed that as well. He's oblivious to why he enjoys correcting people in the first place, the emotion that compels him to do it.

The black and white, right or wrong thinking is also a fallacy.

It also reeks of an engineer with no real appreciation of how to run a business, who's never had to fire someone, or make tough financial decisions

Re: Most arguments are about ego, not ideas

#297
post #278

There are 2 very different kinds of arguments. Arguments where you're trying to convince the other person. And arguments where you're trying to convince bystanders. These require completely different tactics. If you're trying to convince the other person, be humble. Be gentle. Be subtle. Ask them questions. Let them think they came up with the idea entirely on their own. If any bystanders are watching this discussion…

If you're trying to convince an audience, it matters how you treat the person you're arguing with. Don't be a jerk. People notice that, and judge you for it. They judge your position for it - perhaps not intellectually, but emotionally.

The best possible thing to do in that situation is to out-evidence them, out-argument them, and out-nice them. And really, if the facts are on your side, you shouldn't have to be a jerk or manipulative.

Re: Most arguments are about ego, not ideas

#299
I realized many arguments end up not well because we keep focusing on the wrong thing and neglect the question that actually matter: why do you believe in what you believe; asking people to define the terms they use is also helpful and forces them to be precise and think more about their beliefs, which a healthy thing to do. People are often much nicer than we think when we approach them with kindness and they can see in our eyes that we actually care about them and not just winning. Yet at the same time we need to lower our expectations. Because we need to be kind to ourselves, otherwise we would feel too frustrated. I'm talking about daily life arguments. In some online arguments or public debates, sometimes you need to be harsher to protect others from what you claim and believe is wrong.

Re: Most arguments are about ego, not ideas

#300
Alternatively I’ve found it beneficial to try and clarify and further elaborate on your “opponents” reasoning. If you’re correct, then you should find the errors in their reasoning; without ever actually having to oppose them (your opponent and their arguments).
Post reply on HN