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

Most arguments are about ego, not ideas

wangcong.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

431–440 of 599 posts

Re: Most arguments are about ego, not ideas

#431

Post by w10-1 »

whack wrote: 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…

I like this distinction, but it reminds me to cherish the people who don't require such confidence games.

Feynman has a famous anecdote about sitting around the table with senior scientists in contentious argument where he was perplexed because it was obvious to him who was right. They argued all sides, and ultimately agreed, having proofed the idea and its alternatives.

That's who I want on my team: people who can shake things out without needing to be right or needing others to be humble, and without playing games. After viability, that's my primary criterion for a position.

Re: Most arguments are about ego, not ideas

#432

Post by catapart »

randusername wrote: post #140
catapart wrote: post #83

This feels like a very immature understanding of argument. The entire framing is wrong, even if it's both understandable and a very widely held viewpoint. I credit my mom for teaching me very early on that the POINT of argument is to come to a decision or understanding, not to determine right or wrong or assign any credit or blame. She was insatiable in running down every technicality. I learned to ask her, "okay, so…

> The entire framing is wrong, even if it's both understandable and a very widely held viewpoint. Setting aside a few levels of irony in arguing with arguers on arguing, I think there are multiple framings for arguments. Things go off the rails all the time when neither party is aligned on what kind of argument the current one is. Programmers and engineers tend to carry around this worldview that every conversation i…

Fair point, but I see that as kind of a simplification? It's a perspective, rather than a refutation, but I see any argument about how you made someone feel as either a mistake or an argument about something else.

No perfectly logical actor would ever argue with how someone is feeling. It's impossible for a second party to know or rationalize, and the person with the direct evidence is giving you their best representation of the feelings. To argue that someone doesn't feel what they say they feel is tantamount to ignoring direct evidence which negates any practical value of the argument. It's this not worth having.

On the other hand, if what you are actually trying to argue is whether they are being truthful, or reasonable about their feelings, those are arguments that do have a practical result of deciding something or understanding something better. The more you dig in to why people are feeling the way they are feeling, the more you can reckon with what that means for whatever the disagreement is. Of course, it cuts both ways; if someone telling you that they feel a certain way makes you feel a certain way, it's only reasonable to interrogate why you are feeling that way about it. But then, that gets further toward the most salient part: most of the time when it comes to feelings, an argument is the wrong tool for resolving disagreement. In my experience, open ended discussion that focuses on each individuals' feelings without consideration for correctness is more productive than any sort of confrontational method like an argument.

Re: Most arguments are about ego, not ideas

#433

Post by pbronez »

Supermancho wrote: post #106
a4isms wrote: post #60

Here's a simple idea: You can't reason someone out of a position they didn't reason themselves into. And three interpretations to consider: 0: The default: That person is irrationally attached to being wrong. Best to walk away, argumentation will be futile, and I have a life to lead. 1: Whoa! Sometimes that person is me. 2: If they didn't reason themselves into it, how did they get into it? What if their position rep…

My style of online participation has been shaped by 2 ideas: 1. I rarely fully understand my own positions on minutia 2. Writing is rewriting. I write forum posts to solidify my understanding of my own interests, beliefs, and reasoning. I often edit them multiple times before moving on and ignoring the responses thereafter. I can reference them and have to other people who ask my opinion. Sometimes I do respond back…

1000% this. I write to force myself to think deeply and crystallize my opinion on things.

Re: Most arguments are about ego, not ideas

#434

Post by mrguyorama »

jayd16 wrote: post #279
anthonypasq wrote: post #81

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> You can't reason someone out of a position they didn't reason themselves into. this is a pithy think to say but its really not true, and every person that has lost their religion and been convinced by rational argument is a counter example.

This is conflating all religious following with lack of reason. There are those that are fully unreasonable and those that find it reasonable from their current perspective.

It's also conflating holding a rational position as coming to hold that position by rational means

You can believe the right thing for the wrong reasons, and I would argue all humans are in that bucket nearly all the time.

Re: Most arguments are about ego, not ideas

#435

Post by toofy »

lazystar wrote: post #32
Dumblydorr wrote: post #4

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…

ironically, you wont get a reply from the author...

and honestly, i think we need more of this online. we shouldn’t feel this incessant need to constantly chirp back at someone if we think they’re wrong.

i’d personally like to see us get to a place where we say more often “huh. i disagree with that person and that’s ok” and move on with our day.

i do find it worrying how we get … twitchy … if we can’t respond to literally everything.

Re: Most arguments are about ego, not ideas

#436

Post by NateEag »

xXSLAYERXx wrote: post #177
rob74 wrote: post #85

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm 52, and over my lifetime I felt that there is actually an ever-increasing number of things that used to have an absolute right (scientifically proven) answer that become controversial. Climate change. Vaccines. Whether the earth is round - that kind of stuff. And, while I agree with the author's approach to let people learn from the consequences of their mistakes, what if the consequences of their mistakes (or th…

[flagged]

> I think our (assuming ur American) is the strongest its ever been and I didn't even vote for the guy.

Um.

What?

As a conservative-leaning registered Republican, I think Trump has brought the US the closest it's been to self-destruction since the Civil War.

His administration has authorized heinous human rights violations repeatedly, and has prevented "law enforcement" agents who killed innocent civilians from being brought to trial multiple times:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Killing_of_Ren%C3%A9e_Good

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Killing_of_Alex_Pretti

The administration has violently pushed away most of its historical allies, and is going to enjoy the privilege of trying to stumble through the world on its own for quite a while.

The administration got the US embroiled in an utterly stupid, optional war that was guaranteed to have the harmful results it has: https://acoup.blog/2026/03/25/miscellanea-the-war-in-iran/

The economy looks good on paper, but that's almost entirely due to the current genAI bubble, not any intelligent economic choices by the president's office.

Most recently, the utterly idiotic ruination of the reflecting pool in DC, and subsequent insane claims that it was intentionally destroyed by the administration's critics is emblematic of the stupidity and self-destruction inflicted on the nation by President Trump. It's a small thing, compared to many of the issues, but it illustrates the harmful behavioral patterns in a crystal-clear manner:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lincoln_Memorial_Reflecting_Po...

Re: Most arguments are about ego, not ideas

#437

Post by Aunche »

malfist wrote: post #45
MichaelApproved wrote: post #21

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The point being made is to pick your battles. The author’s point is that, even if you are correct 100% of the time, fighting every battle is toxic to yourself and everyone around you. They are saying to look past the fact that you might be right and consider that it’s not worth the effort anyway. Now, I will attempt to put down my phone and not respond to any replies I get to the contrary. Sweating intensifies…

I've been reading the writings of stoic philosophers each morning and journaling about what I read and I think this fits in well with that philosophy. We're all here on Earth to enrich ourselves (and I don't mean materially) and those around us. Arguing with strangers online is antithetical to that premise. You don't better yourself by engaging in pointless squabbling, and you don't enrich the other person or those a…

> What is the goal when you start arguing with someone online? Is that goal achievable?

I'm sure this is some sort of confirmation bias, I've noticed fewer stupid talking points for topics where I argue about online. I doubt it has any impact in people's political beliefs, but people end up being slightly less ideological and more hedgey. IMO, establishment figures are too dismissive about engaging with the public because they think they're above it, but this is how you end up with DOGE laying off departments only to beg for them back.

Also, honestly, I just enjoy the feeling of putting a dumb person in their place. Occasionally, I'm the dumb person, but I don't really mind that since I'm not really tied to any viewpoint. Being more informed also satisfies my mild superiority complex. Also, even if I don't learn from others, generally learn from the process of defining my arguments.

Re: Most arguments are about ego, not ideas

#438

Post by toofy »

b112 wrote: post #63
thrw045 wrote: post #50

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You should read the whole thing. At the end he switches the argument on to himself and says that one should always ask questions, put the ego away and try to get better. He already made the point you made.

And yet, a statement is a position, and this blog is stating his case, which is an argument for truth. So he's still arguing, yet not listening, as it's all one sided now. This isn't actually that unusual, books, newspapers, and more often do one way communication. But as soon as you state a position, you're arguing it.

sometimes a statement is just a statement. not everyone is taking a “position”.

sometimes a conversation is just a conversation and not a debate.

Re: Most arguments are about ego, not ideas

#440

Post by dllrr »

While I like the article there are way too many telltale signs of AI writing. I'm sure the author expresses his direction but I'm just so tired of reading articles where AI has done most of the work. I want to hear from humans, grammar and spelling and punctuation mistakes and all.
Post reply on HN