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

Beginner's Guide to Arguing Constructively

liamrosen.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

51–60 of 109 posts

Re: Beginner's Guide to Arguing Constructively

#51

Post by bottled_poe »

Aeolun wrote: post #10
hn_throwaway_99 wrote: post #6

I'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…

> 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.

Objectively false. Proven by this comment alone.

Re: Beginner's Guide to Arguing Constructively

#53

Post by textgel »

Barrin92 wrote: post #13

> "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…

Because arguing points based on who can have the biggest temper tantrum and scream the most slurs is something most are proud to have grown out of around middle school.

This applies especially to important and complicated subjects that affect many people (the type often discussed on HN) which demand reasoned thought for coming up with good responses.

If you want to argue in bad faith, use logical fallacies and hysterically scream at opposing ideas rather than use rationality and reason then what's wrong with reddit or twitter?

Re: Beginner's Guide to Arguing Constructively

#54

Post by draugadrotten »

nevster wrote: post #52
JackFr wrote: post #17

“An argument is a connected series of statements intended to establish a proposition.” “No it isn’t”

That's not an argument. That's just contradiction!

For those young eggs not getting the reference: https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=youtu.be&v=ohDB5gbtaEQ...

Re: Beginner's Guide to Arguing Constructively

#55

Post by draugadrotten »

TrackerFF wrote: post #24

First you gotta find out if the other party is any interested in debating. Or at least in good faith. Too often, their mind is set in stone, and their agenda is to convince whoever is listening to you, that they're right - or that you're wrong. Point is - if they're not interested, there's not a single thing you can do about it. Waste of time and energy.

Political debates are not about arguing with the other party. It's a show to influence the audience.

Presidential debates are an obvious example. You don't believe your candidate thinks he can change the other's mind, do you. He thinks he can change the mind of someone in the audience. Or perhaps not even that, he just wants to boost morale by petting you, the passive follower of his, the right way.

The same dynamic is in play in any twitter or online forum debate, including here. Well-written posts gets lots of upvotes, likes and "engagement" which illustrates my point nicely. It's not the other guy thinks, it's what the audience votes.

Re: Beginner's Guide to Arguing Constructively

#56

Post by ElFitz »

hn_throwaway_99 wrote: post #6

I'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…

> The entire purpose of emotions is that they are they only place where human motivation comes from. Trying to separate "logic" vs. "emotion" when dealing with humans is a fools' game in my opinion.

Not only that. Another aspect is that emotions and "instinct" are much, much older, from an evolutionary perspective, than our very recent reasoning abilities, and way more widespread amongst the animal kingdom than reason.

So, while far from perfect, they work. Emotions and instinct kept most of our ancestors and most of the currently living animals both alive and thriving. Which means that, despite their limits, they have their place and shouldn't simply be discarded by a wave of the hand.

Took me some time to understand that. And I still have a hard time taking it into account in my everyday life and interactions.

Re: Beginner's Guide to Arguing Constructively

#57

Post by endominus »

olivermarks wrote: post #31

If you are part of a serious debating society you will be expected to be able to form an argument for or against a concept, viewpoint or position regardless of your personal beliefs. This is arguing constructively without the entrenched partisan foxholes people dig for themselves which makes it so hard to have civilized discussions and conversation with many people in our current febrile social climate.

My understanding was that that was becoming more rare in collegiate debate societies these days. Have things changed since the below article was published?

https://www.theatlantic.com/education/archive/2014/04/tradit...

Re: Beginner's Guide to Arguing Constructively

#58

Post by 3131s »

phobosanomaly wrote: post #27
da39a3ee wrote: post #8

> "An argument should be a collaboration between two people to find the truth." This makes me sad because I agree. And yet, in the USA, your right-wing uncle probably isn't that interested in the truth. And the new generation of identity-politics liberals are the generation who have grown up taught in an academic world infested with post-modernism; they are also less interested in truth, but to their credit, very int…

I'm a leftie, but to be honest I have a left-wing and a right-wing uncle and they're both completely disinterested in the truth. One thinks Trump is god, and the other feels the same way about Noam Chomsky. One thinks Hillary eats babies, and the other thinks the CIA did 9/11. Meanwhile, the landscaping guy at work seems to have a pretty balanced take on things and he doesn't vote because he's not a citizen. He's one…

> the other thinks the CIA did 9/11

You're right that it's not true, or at least that memo about a month prior makes a pretty persuasive case for them.

Currently it's only clear that a few prominent people in the executive branch of the US government had foreknowledge of the 9/11 attacks and then later covered up the participation of high level Saudi organizers like Prince Bandar.

Re: Beginner's Guide to Arguing Constructively

#59

Post by nurettin »

watwut wrote: post #49
nurettin wrote: post #46

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

That is exactly the opposite of what I said.

Re: Beginner's Guide to Arguing Constructively

#60

Post by the_cramer »

ElFitz wrote: post #56
hn_throwaway_99 wrote: post #6

I'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…

> The entire purpose of emotions is that they are they only place where human motivation comes from. Trying to separate "logic" vs. "emotion" when dealing with humans is a fools' game in my opinion. Not only that. Another aspect is that emotions and "instinct" are much, much older, from an evolutionary perspective, than our very recent reasoning abilities, and way more widespread amongst the animal kingdom than reaso…

> So, while far from perfect, they work. Emotions and instinct kept most of our ancestors and most of the currently living animals both alive and thriving.

This is the point. Instincts developed to keep you alive in a world where the classic laws of the jungle where true. Since the modern world, the definition of what is "strongest" and the threats you find yourselve exposed to differ vastly from that back in the days.

While instincts will generally give you a good direction to start with, problems are too complex today to just rely on instincts. Heck even I had my instincts tell me "this feels wrong" and upon reading and getting smart about that topic i completely changed my mind.

If you have time to prepare for a discussion, try not to rely on instinct but let it push you to gather facts to undermine it or to oppose it.

Post reply on HN