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

551–560 of 599 posts

Re: Most arguments are about ego, not ideas

#551

Post by cm11 »

scoofy wrote: post #454

This article really resonates with me. During college and graduate school studying philosophy, picking apart someone's argument and pointing out the esoteric and nuanced ways which made it wrong was celebrated. The general attitude in my cohort was: "I want to be wrong, because when I realize I'm wrong, I've become smarter." This was probably the most intellectually fulfilling period of my life. (Note here: some of t…

This resonated with me. I'm a bit struck by a theme in the comments around whether it's worth one's time to argue their side. The logic is understandable, but just the vantage point I see from. I think if this means stating your view and then after that deciding how hard to push it, that's one thing and fine. But I think a lot of people just see a potential disagreement and then don't state their view, or not uncommonly even say the opposite and agree with the person (a la "The best way to get someone to shut up is to agree with them"). I think this is fairly bad all around, and disheartening as you've said. Not only because it's self-centering in the mindset and self-defined in value, but it's also just kind of dismissive.

Re: Most arguments are about ego, not ideas

#552

Post by genewitch »

goatlover wrote: post #447
genewitch wrote: post #391

Earlier quoted context omitted.

i disagree that it' warming, so where do you start with me? I'm not being coy, i 100% believe that all of the warming detected is strictly down to poor placement of sensors and incorrect assumptions thereof in the resultant data. So what we will end up arguing about, if we get past that particularity of my thoughts, is about models. And i hate arguing about models. edit: i think probably the cities are getting "warme…

Do you doubt that greenhouse gases being emitted into the atmosphere have gone up since humans started burning fossil fuels, and do you doubt the physics of how they trap solar radiation? Do you doubt that climate scientists know how to put sensors in the oceans, in rural areas and released in weather balloons along with satellites to measure temperatures across the planet year by year? Or that they can extract ice c…

> in rural areas

how many? how many with long records?

hint:

it's less than 10

hint 2:

there's less than 3 in the northern hemisphere in rural areas.

Re: Most arguments are about ego, not ideas

#553

Post by hahahaa »

jasonlotito wrote: post #40
hahahaa wrote: post #22

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If they are not (in a small team) you have real problems. Not everyone will be right or be happy, but their pov has value, and equally? More or less.

You aren't answering the question. You are reframing the question so you can give the answer you want, thereby avoiding giving the real answer to the question presented.

Ok my answer is yes (caveat: functional team)

Reference question: "Do you believe all points of view are equally valuable?"

Additional context: parent to question framed scenario as "discussing a topic"

Re: Most arguments are about ego, not ideas

#554

Post by pseudohadamard »

adverbly wrote: post #308
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…

> What if their position represents their values One of my best professors often asked me: "what are you trying to achieve here?" Every time they asked this, it always put me into a deep thinking mode. In some cases it did trigger defensive mindsets, but I think having to actually engage by taking a step back and think deeply is for the best if you want to have any hope of changing your mind on something.

In some cases it's worth arguing even if you know you can't win in order to provide pushback against really dumb ideas. This doesn't happen nearly enough in standardisation work, where a small number of professional meeting-goers can railroad through unbelievably bad, broken standards because no-one pushes back.

Anyone who's ever worked on a standards body will be getting flashbacks at this point.

Re: Most arguments are about ego, not ideas

#555

Post by [deleted] »

ricardobeat wrote: post #244
gobdovan wrote: post #214

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> isolating themselves & having their [...] views spread far and wide > most cancerous developments & the less contentious it becomes Your comment complains that people cannot articulate their reasons, while making a sweeping, emotionally loaded claim whose reasons are themselves barely articulated.

That doesn't read as a complaint, it's a realization, and the argument is articulated enough. Are you challenging the idea that echo chambers facilited by modern tech are harmful, or that people get better at expressing themselves as they get older? From here it looks like you're doing neither, just taking a stab at the comment's author.

[deleted]

Re: Most arguments are about ego, not ideas

#556

Post by gobdovan »

ricardobeat wrote: post #244
gobdovan wrote: post #214

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> isolating themselves & having their [...] views spread far and wide > most cancerous developments & the less contentious it becomes Your comment complains that people cannot articulate their reasons, while making a sweeping, emotionally loaded claim whose reasons are themselves barely articulated.

That doesn't read as a complaint, it's a realization, and the argument is articulated enough. Are you challenging the idea that echo chambers facilited by modern tech are harmful, or that people get better at expressing themselves as they get older? From here it looks like you're doing neither, just taking a stab at the comment's author.

Was discussing the content, not the author. Yes, I am challenging vague discourse about echo chambers, since the mechanism behind an echo chamber is selectively listening to some opinions, while dismissing other sources of authority or correction. To see why this is a problem, consider that parent comment is compatible with both:

"Flat Earth is a cancerous echo chamber"

"As I grew older and became better at arguing, I learned to explain why universities teaching that the Earth is spherical are cancerous ideological echo chambers."

Re: Most arguments are about ego, not ideas

#558

Post by jredwards »

One of the quotes that always sticks with me is:

"Most of our so-called reasoning consists of finding arguments to go on believing as we already do." -- James Harvey Robinson.

I've long since come to the conclusion that humans choose their positions based on gut reactions and almost all of their arguments for holding that position come after the fact.

Re: Most arguments are about ego, not ideas

#559

Post by partyficial »

most arguments are due to differing definition of words in the arguers' minds.

almost every heated argument that I've carelessly gotten myself into, I have gotten out of, by saying : "let's first start with what we agree upon - does word X mean the same to both of us?"

Re: Most arguments are about ego, not ideas

#560

Post by ycombinete »

mustaphah wrote: post #315

Haidt, in his great book "The Righteous Mind," has been arguing that reasoning evolved not to discover truth but to win arguments. There's a lot of scientific research backing his idea. Haidt's metaphor is the rider and the elephant: the elephant (intuition) leans, and the rider (reasoning) invents the justification afterward and then defends it like a lawyer, not a truth-seeker. Intelligence doesn't fix this - it ju…

If you enjoyed TRM, his other book The Happiness Hypothesis surprisingly covers this and other concepts in much better detail relative to the OP.
Post reply on HN