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

How to Disagree

paulgraham.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

41–50 of 61 posts

Re: How to Disagree

#41

Post by Natsu »

TheAmazingIdiot wrote: post #31
nika wrote: post #11

DH0, upvoted to 5 (while my comments are 0 and -1): http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=2138625 This was my first day. I stuck around for a day or two, then I just logged out and stopped participating. Just use this as a site to find links, and when you're not logged in there's no incentive to go see what people said in reply to you, and no focus on karma score or anything. I don't know if the site requires a certain…

I have seen similar objections to my comments, along with the downvotes. Just as yummyfajitas said, if you evoke cognitive dissonance or frankly mess with peoples' worldview, they will downvote you. It matters not if you are discussing in a matters of science or otherwise. Meditation seems to be a popular thing here on HN, given the amount of "Zen", "Meditation", Buddhism, and other Eastern topics. One of my speciali…

> Reincarnation, in Tibet, is not seen as some religious belief but as a fact of life. This is to the point that payments can be arranged between lifetimes.

I just have to know how that works. How are you supposed to find the guy's reincarnation to get paid? Or do they pay your reincarnation?

Re: How to Disagree

#42

Post by jcr »

stcredzero wrote: post #16

The truly intellectually honest way to disagree: Take the idea in question, and give it some genuine love. Make an earnest attempt to make some form of the idea work in the context of everything you know. This is my litmus test for first-class minds. I've been using this for the past 25 years and I've found that those who truly take this approach are 1) uncommon, 2) impressively smart, 3) genuinely curious, and 4) se…

I really do like your litmus test, and in most situations it will work very well. None the less, please allow me to politely put on my "faker" hat for a moment to pick apart a straw-man corner case.

I deal with feasibility assessment, or at least I used to, so when giving an idea some love, I'm not only expected to find various ways an idea can work (if possible), but I'm also expected to find the pit-falls to avoid and the weaknesses to address. It is simply a matter of learning and stating both the potential risks and the potential rewards so a more informed decision can be made.

The finding of fault, or better said risks and caveats, is equally important to finding positive ways to interpret, implement and express an idea. The most important thing is how you express your findings, both the positive and the not-so-positive. There really is a difference between being critical and critical thinking.

For example, in terms of rhetoric, your post is stunningly beautiful. You crafted a rhetorical statement where no one can disagree with you without being a "faker" but in doing so, in terms of logic, your argument is fallacious (similar to Suppressed Correlative [1]). The fallacy might weaken your statement but it doesn't make your statement entirely wrong, and the clever rhetoric actually makes you look rather sharp.

The people who can interpret an idea in a positive light are wonderful to work with, so we agree on your main point. None the less, the people who can interpret an idea in a positive way while still spinning an iteration to politely address short comings are even better.

The point I'm trying to make, hopefully by example, is both the interpretation and iteration are important, but the most important part is fair and polite expression of both the good parts and the not-so-good parts. You may not agree with my result, but at least you know why I proposed a change to your idea, and hopefully you were not offended by my proposal.

Personally, I hope someone here will take my post, find my faults, and politely respin an iteration with their proposed improvements. I'll gain something from their efforts. Even if I disagree with their results, I'll still learn a valuable new perspective that I've probably overlooked or unfairly discounted.

Additionally, stcredzero do you think I'm a "faker" for iterating your idea with a minor addition to address a small oversight? --Or was iterating actually what you were talking about when you said "interpreting" and running with it?

[1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Suppressed_correlative

EDIT: And no, I won't be offended by your opinion. I actually just like to know.

Re: How to Disagree

#43

Post by dstorrs »

stcredzero wrote: post #16

The truly intellectually honest way to disagree: Take the idea in question, and give it some genuine love. Make an earnest attempt to make some form of the idea work in the context of everything you know. This is my litmus test for first-class minds. I've been using this for the past 25 years and I've found that those who truly take this approach are 1) uncommon, 2) impressively smart, 3) genuinely curious, and 4) se…

Can you provide a demonstration of this? For example, I disagree with the idea of intelligent design. How would I "give it some genuine love", to use your words?

Re: How to Disagree

#44

Post by ehsanul »

stcredzero wrote: post #36
ehsanul wrote: post #25

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's an enlightening comment. How can I stop being a "faker", as you call it? I, and probably some other HNers, are often pretty critical or take things people say more literally than they meant often, rather than giving them the benefit of the doubt with a more liberal interpretation. I realize this is usually not conducive to "profound and productive interactions", but it is almost second nature for me, something…

How can I stop being a "faker", as you call it? I, and probably some other HNers, are often pretty critical or take things people say more literally than they meant often, rather than giving them the benefit of the doubt with a more liberal interpretation. 1) Find something fundamental to be secure in. 2) Just stop being a faker. 3) Get busy doing the real thing. The first is the most important. One of the professors…

I've read that book already and even have alerts on it for new chapters, but thanks for mentioning it. It's thoroughly entertaining!

Well, in my case, it's not that I make fallacious counter-arguments. My arguments are generally quite sound, and simple logic/rationality serves my need for something fundamental.

My issue is that, when something looks illogical on the face of it, rather than giving it the benefit of the doubt and try to imagine how it might work, I just shoot it down. And I shoot it down quite harshly usually, though almost always with a well-reasoned argument.

I have to be arrogant here and say that most of these arguments/ideas/statements I shoot down seem to really deserve it, which I know because I do sometimes restrain myself and just shut up and listen. However, sometimes my response is really undeserved, and I'd do better if I tried to understand where others may be coming from. Even if it's deserved, I could be much less harsh and argumentative, so as to better foster a good discussion.

Re: How to Disagree

#45

Post by ehsanul »

telemachos wrote: post #26
ehsanul wrote: post #25

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's an enlightening comment. How can I stop being a "faker", as you call it? I, and probably some other HNers, are often pretty critical or take things people say more literally than they meant often, rather than giving them the benefit of the doubt with a more liberal interpretation. I realize this is usually not conducive to "profound and productive interactions", but it is almost second nature for me, something…

I think many of us here are the same way (or were at some point or sometimes still are). I love to argue. Often that comes from a good place, but often it comes from just that desire to win or to be difficult or whatever. I still have to push myself to really listen to the other view. Then my first step (when I'm in a better place) is to literally ask myself something like these questions, in roughly this order: + Wh…

Great set of questions!

Also like your last bit of advice - think about the person's point of view before evaluating what they've said. And by doing this, I see how one could also get to the root of a disagreement, rather than just the surface, and address that instead. Everything becomes philosophical from there I'm guessing.

Re: How to Disagree

#46

Post by ehsanul »

dstorrs wrote: post #43
stcredzero wrote: post #16

The truly intellectually honest way to disagree: Take the idea in question, and give it some genuine love. Make an earnest attempt to make some form of the idea work in the context of everything you know. This is my litmus test for first-class minds. I've been using this for the past 25 years and I've found that those who truly take this approach are 1) uncommon, 2) impressively smart, 3) genuinely curious, and 4) se…

Can you provide a demonstration of this? For example, I disagree with the idea of intelligent design. How would I "give it some genuine love", to use your words?

Can you think of any way in which intelligent design might not be mutually exclusive with evolution?

Re: How to Disagree

#47

Post by stcredzero »

jcr wrote: post #42
stcredzero wrote: post #16

The truly intellectually honest way to disagree: Take the idea in question, and give it some genuine love. Make an earnest attempt to make some form of the idea work in the context of everything you know. This is my litmus test for first-class minds. I've been using this for the past 25 years and I've found that those who truly take this approach are 1) uncommon, 2) impressively smart, 3) genuinely curious, and 4) se…

I really do like your litmus test, and in most situations it will work very well. None the less, please allow me to politely put on my "faker" hat for a moment to pick apart a straw-man corner case. I deal with feasibility assessment, or at least I used to, so when giving an idea some love, I'm not only expected to find various ways an idea can work (if possible), but I'm also expected to find the pit-falls to avoid…

There really is a difference between being critical and critical thinking

This is essentially the point I'm making.

You crafted a rhetorical statement where no one can disagree with you without being a "faker"

Uh, no. Where am I saying "everyone" or "all"? I'm saying that certain admirable people do X and other not-so admirable people do Y. Nowhere do I say that everyone falls into one camp or another. Points deducted for trying to put words into my mouth!

Additionally, stcredzero do you think I'm a "faker" for iterating your idea with a minor addition to address a small oversight? --Or was iterating actually what you were talking about when you said "interpreting" and running with it?

EDIT: And no, I won't be offended by your opinion. I actually just like to know.

I'm talking about an honest iteration. But since you just blatantly tried to put a false dichotomy into my mouth, either you just tried a slimy rhetorical trick yourself or your thinking/writing was a bit confused, or there's another explanation I missed. In the first instance, it looks a lot like "faking."

Re: How to Disagree

#48

Post by stcredzero »

ehsanul wrote: post #44
stcredzero wrote: post #36

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How can I stop being a "faker", as you call it? I, and probably some other HNers, are often pretty critical or take things people say more literally than they meant often, rather than giving them the benefit of the doubt with a more liberal interpretation. 1) Find something fundamental to be secure in. 2) Just stop being a faker. 3) Get busy doing the real thing. The first is the most important. One of the professors…

I've read that book already and even have alerts on it for new chapters, but thanks for mentioning it. It's thoroughly entertaining! Well, in my case, it's not that I make fallacious counter-arguments. My arguments are generally quite sound, and simple logic/rationality serves my need for something fundamental. My issue is that, when something looks illogical on the face of it, rather than giving it the benefit of th…

It's not even about preserving the feelings of others. I often find people interrupting me and shooting down a completely different idea than the one I actually had. Other times, I find that my seemingly ironclad argument doesn't apply in the intended context, or is fine theoretically but overlooks an important detail in a practical context.

Re: How to Disagree

#49

Post by jcr »

stcredzero wrote: post #47
jcr wrote: post #42

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I really do like your litmus test, and in most situations it will work very well. None the less, please allow me to politely put on my "faker" hat for a moment to pick apart a straw-man corner case. I deal with feasibility assessment, or at least I used to, so when giving an idea some love, I'm not only expected to find various ways an idea can work (if possible), but I'm also expected to find the pit-falls to avoid…

There really is a difference between being critical and critical thinking This is essentially the point I'm making. You crafted a rhetorical statement where no one can disagree with you without being a "faker" Uh, no. Where am I saying "everyone" or "all"? I'm saying that certain admirable people do X and other not-so admirable people do Y. Nowhere do I say that everyone falls into one camp or another. Points deducte…

I checked your profile and there's no contact info. If you have a moment, please contact me through email (address in my profile). Thanks.

Re: How to Disagree

#50

Post by po »

cracki wrote: post #8
po wrote: post #4

I was just imagining how different hacker news would be if there were tags on each comment/post indicating what levels of disagreement hierarchy are contained within. I can't imagine a practical way to implement it but imagine the effect it would have on discourse if people were constantly reminded what they were reading/writing.

It would make me feel constantly judged, arbitrarily even (because how would you ensure level-headed tagging?). It'd be as bad as downvoting, which is deliberately not possible on HN (with few exceptions).

You're right to some extent... which is why I said I can't think of any practical solution. I disagree in that I think the biggest bar is not the judgmental nature of it (we're all being judged anyway) but the fact that it would be a ton of work to categorize comments along those rules if it were not automated.

I just feel that part of the reason people descend to name-calling is because there's no feedback before they hit post. Nobody says "That's not a very good reply." Afterward, it takes someone motivated enough to call it out. In the meantime people see it and think "Lots of name calling on here." I think it's good that downvoted comments are still visible rather than removed so that people learn what is considered unacceptable.

Post reply on HN