How to have better arguments online • Hacker News Board

Re: How to have better arguments online

#41

Post by _qulr » Sat, Feb 20, 2021, 2:50 PM UTC

garbagetime wrote: post #38

_qulr wrote: post #20

If you state your opinion in a room with 3 other people, the chance that at least 1 of those people vehemently disagrees with your opinion are probably low. Especially since people self-select who to congregate with in rooms. If you state your opinion in a virtual "room" with 300 million other people, the chance that at least 1 of those people vehemently disagrees with your opinion is a certainty. Conflict is almost…

The online arguments I get involved in are resolved often. Because I try to have them resolve. Plenty of times it's totally easy to resolve an argument. It can go like this: you spend some time thinking, realise that the person you're arguing with is correct, then you say "Oh, I see your point now. I didn't realise x which is what lead me to think y . Thanks for helping me realise this mistake and gain a better under…

> Thanks for helping me realise this mistake and gain a better understanding of the issue.

Are you on Twitter? I'd like to follow you. :-)

Re: How to have better arguments online

#42

Post by jancsika » Sat, Feb 20, 2021, 2:56 PM UTC

_qulr wrote: post #20

If you state your opinion in a room with 3 other people, the chance that at least 1 of those people vehemently disagrees with your opinion are probably low. Especially since people self-select who to congregate with in rooms. If you state your opinion in a virtual "room" with 300 million other people, the chance that at least 1 of those people vehemently disagrees with your opinion is a certainty. Conflict is almost…

> Some people claim that you shouldn't live in an online "bubble", but I, uh, vehemently disagree.

You've crossed the digital divide here and misused the word "bubble" in the process. It's not anything like a "self-selected" group of like-minded people in a room. It's more like a group of people snookered into working for a pyramid scheme. At worst-- as with Qanon-- it's like a cult.

And even cult de-programmers-- people who know the "creation myth" of a cult, know its tactics, know its adherents, and are skilled and patient enough to "snap" cult members out of their stupor-- know not to physically put themselves in the midst of a cult for any extended length of time. Because given enough time (and you can't easily predict how long that is) anyone will fall prey to those tactics, and then it's near impossible to get out using will alone.

There's something creepily similar about the people who helped build online bubbles outright banning their children from using the devices/social networks they helped to create. They do that because the systems they built are quite literally the opposite of self-selecting.

Re: How to have better arguments online

#43

Post by _qulr » Sat, Feb 20, 2021, 3:02 PM UTC

jancsika wrote: post #42

_qulr wrote: post #20

If you state your opinion in a room with 3 other people, the chance that at least 1 of those people vehemently disagrees with your opinion are probably low. Especially since people self-select who to congregate with in rooms. If you state your opinion in a virtual "room" with 300 million other people, the chance that at least 1 of those people vehemently disagrees with your opinion is a certainty. Conflict is almost…

> Some people claim that you shouldn't live in an online "bubble", but I, uh, vehemently disagree. You've crossed the digital divide here and misused the word "bubble" in the process. It's not anything like a "self-selected" group of like-minded people in a room. It's more like a group of people snookered into working for a pyramid scheme. At worst-- as with Qanon-- it's like a cult. And even cult de-programmers-- pe…

> You've crossed the digital divide here and misused the word "bubble" in the process.

Yeah, well, you know, that's just like, uh, your opinion, man.

Re: How to have better arguments online

#44

Post by pasquinelli » Sat, Feb 20, 2021, 3:03 PM UTC

baybal2 wrote: post #39

Don't have arguments online. Trying to persuade anybody over the internet is next to impossible.

that, and, why are you going around trying to persuade people anyway? it's a weird way to be. online rhetoric is our generation's boob tube.

Re: How to have better arguments online

#45

Post by rtlfe » Sat, Feb 20, 2021, 3:14 PM UTC

To me, the thing that really makes online arguments different than in person ones is that I'm usually not trying to persuade the person I'm directly replying to, I'm trying to present an alternate viewpoint to the other people who might see the comments. This happens all the time in FB groups for my neighborhood. Somebody will say a ridiculous NIMBY thing that sounds good on the surface, and I know I can't persuade them based on years of knowing their online persona, but I feel a need to reply in case somebody who doesn't have an entrenched opinion reads it.

Re: How to have better arguments online

#46

Post by uniqueid » Sat, Feb 20, 2021, 3:16 PM UTC

mynameishere wrote: post #36

uniqueid wrote: post #25

Earlier quoted context omitted.

they fear dissent There are other explanations than that 'they fear dissent'. There's what you say , and there's how you say it . It reflects poorly on a serious publication if their comments section is full of insults and slurs, regardless of whether the comments support leftwing or rightwing causes.

It reflects even more poorly on a serious publication when the top comment points out all the errors and bias in the main article. They understandably don't like that.

  They understandably don't like that.

They're fine with it. If you run a newspaper, the humiliating thing is to have a competitor point out your errors.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Correction_(newspaper)

Re: How to have better arguments online

#47

Post by darkerside » Sat, Feb 20, 2021, 3:19 PM UTC

_qulr wrote: post #40

darkerside wrote: post #34

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Do they ever get resolved? Not in my experience. I've found this to be less true than perhaps it used to be, particularly in places like HN. I don't think you'll change anyone's minds overnight on a big issue like climate change or racism, but I regularly see people share insights and perspectives in a reasonable way. Over time, these add up into real change, even if you don't see it happening in the course of a si…

> Over time, these add up into real change, even if you don't see it happening in the course of a single thread. Without evidence, this is a difficult claim to accept.

Live long enough and you get it. It's just how people work. Seeing it happen is the evidence.

You don't need a study to prove gravity or magnetism.

Re: How to have better arguments online

#48

Post by hooande » Sat, Feb 20, 2021, 3:25 PM UTC

_qulr wrote: post #20

If you state your opinion in a room with 3 other people, the chance that at least 1 of those people vehemently disagrees with your opinion are probably low. Especially since people self-select who to congregate with in rooms. If you state your opinion in a virtual "room" with 300 million other people, the chance that at least 1 of those people vehemently disagrees with your opinion is a certainty. Conflict is almost…

Nothing gets resolved in offline arguments either. That isn't the point. The idea of a non-factual disagreement is that both sides get to make a case and state their perspective, and everyone learns from it.

You self-selected to be here on hn, just like the rest of us did. In a sense, this is a bubble of a certain kind of thought and perspective. But it's a really big bubble that has some diversity.

I think the key is to avoid situations where you're constantly exposed to vehement disagreement. On hn we mostly respond to posts individually and get into various disagreements along the way. I think this is far preferable to something like a political discussion site, where both sides end up arguing the same philosophical issues over and over again.

Re: How to have better arguments online

#49

Post by baybal2 » Sat, Feb 20, 2021, 3:29 PM UTC

pasquinelli wrote: post #44

baybal2 wrote: post #39

Don't have arguments online. Trying to persuade anybody over the internet is next to impossible.

that, and, why are you going around trying to persuade people anyway? it's a weird way to be. online rhetoric is our generation's boob tube.

Get to persuade people offline.

Re: How to have better arguments online

#50

Post by kc0bfv » Sat, Feb 20, 2021, 3:32 PM UTC

_qulr wrote: post #20

If you state your opinion in a room with 3 other people, the chance that at least 1 of those people vehemently disagrees with your opinion are probably low. Especially since people self-select who to congregate with in rooms. If you state your opinion in a virtual "room" with 300 million other people, the chance that at least 1 of those people vehemently disagrees with your opinion is a certainty. Conflict is almost…

I've resolved several online arguments that started in response to opinions I've shared. The methods the article mentions are methods I've used, usually because they seemed like natural ways to chill the situation.

I'm not sure I've ever changed anybody's mind online, but I try to always keep in mind that that is not my goal. When others disagree I try to make sure my opinion is understood, and I try to understand their opinion too.

One benefit to online argument over in-person is that it's easier to take time to reflect on my own reactions to others. I can take time to decide how to react. In-person it's often impossible to do that.

I agree with most of what you wrote - I like being able to choose when to be "in the bubble" and when to not be in. I think we'll really benefit over time as people learn how to use these different forums better.