Part of the challenging is the difference between trying to persuade people and trying to resonate with them. For changing minds and creating change, resonating with people is probably more effective.
Beginner's Guide to Arguing Constructively
41–50 of 109 posts
Re: Beginner's Guide to Arguing Constructively
#42> "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.
My son has mild Asperger syndrome. He has emotions, but I've never seen anyone better at keeping a debate grounded in reason.
To an emotional person, he could seem vexingly detached and flat. To my way of thinking, he's just masterful at keeping the discussion on track.
Re: Beginner's Guide to Arguing Constructively
#43> True collaboration requires that both parties open an investigation into why they may be wrong and consider changing their beliefs. > Debates about personal identity, like race, gender, religion, or sexual orientation, can easily become inflammatory. When people feel that something so close to them is in question, they often lose sight of reason and argue instead from an emotional perspective. I think this document…
"Once the stakes involve how you live your life, or how you view yourself, it's hard to keep wanting it to be a collaborative and open-minded exploration."
On the flip side this is why, for example, Neo-Nazis can say things that are absolutely vile so calmly; It's not about their lives. In which case the expectation that emotion won't be brought in by the other party becomes tone policing.
Re: Beginner's Guide to Arguing Constructively
#44Earlier 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’ve started to think of it more of attuning to my emotions rather than controlling them.
Re: Beginner's Guide to Arguing Constructively
#45Earlier 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…
>> 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 i…
>> 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.
The thing is, if you're talking about an average online debater, their emotional motivation is likely quite confused. The emotional distribution might be: 20% wanting to appear smart/reasonable, 30% wanting to insult their idea of bad people, 30% wanting to reinforce their lifestyle as valid, etc or whatever. With that, you could can could translate liamrosen's comment to say "if they're motivated 30% to appear smart, you can involve them in the framework" and once you involve the person, Cialdini's commitment and consistency can strong motivators to keep them there.
That said, I think this does raise the point that there are other good way to deal with the emotions behinds arguments that aren't mentioned in liamrosen's essay (the OP). One standard approach to determine the emotion behind a given irrational claim, acknowledge the emotion, sympathize with it and then go back and show that the original claim is unnecessary.
Re: Beginner's Guide to Arguing Constructively
#46> "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…
Getting angry in a debate is usually a public show where the person is betting on having a better position. If you are angry and wrong, you appear as a fool. If you are angry, but able to keep composure and your arguments are sound, you've demolished your counterparty. Not that you should, or that it comes with any merit to society, but it certainly is entertaining to watch.
Re: Beginner's Guide to Arguing Constructively
#47> The closer you can come to arguing in person, the better chance both partners have of empathizing with each other and seeing each other as human beings.
I've actually found myself having deeper debates in emails than in person. Having a debate in writing gives both parties time to consider and organize their thoughts, and provides records that can be later referenced. Granted, it only works if both parties are actually interested in putting in such an effort, but I've had deeper and more meaningful debates this way.
Re: Beginner's Guide to Arguing Constructively
#48I'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…
The problem for discussion is when people are dishonest about their emotional motivations. So, someone who feels bad about this or that will really go out of way to absurd arguments to make it sound like he is rational. Conversely, it makes you mis-interpret people. People can be dismissive because they think something with idea is wrong, or because they are tired and cranky.
Emotions are not just big things. It may be that weird feeling about someone you cant explain. And that weird feeling may be either unfair bias or you actually noticing a problem with that person.
The emotion-logic dichotomy where mention of emotions makes you sound irrational motivates people to hide those. And it creates discussions that happen in sort of alternative reality and emotional conflicts that mask as professional disagreements.
Re: Beginner's Guide to Arguing Constructively
#49> "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…
Getting angry in a debate is usually a public show where the person is betting on having a better position. If you are angry and wrong, you appear as a fool. If you are angry, but able to keep composure and your arguments are sound, you've demolished your counterparty. Not that you should, or that it comes with any merit to society, but it certainly is entertaining to watch.
That is just one way people irrationally evaluate people. Why should angry guy be more convincing that non angry person?
Re: Beginner's Guide to Arguing Constructively
#50> "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…
On one hand I agree with you. On the other, if you ever argued with autistic person, they are super emotional actually. They however cant recognize own emotions and dont interpret other people emotions.
But, they get super angry and are affected by own anger a lot. They also act irrationally due to own emotions. I mean, some can go into outrage over very minor things.