Bandwidth Limit Exceeded The server is temporarily unable to service your request due to the site owner reaching his/her bandwidth limit. Please try again later. :(
Meanwhile https://archive.is/JVnft
Beginner's Guide to Arguing Constructively
71–80 of 109 posts
Re: Beginner's Guide to Arguing Constructively
#72Earlier quoted context omitted.
>> 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…
Sometimes I use emotion in an argument to create ambiguity that the other party fills with some new point. So, for example, I'm arguing something, I run out of good argument. I dodge by making a vague, emotional point. Then the other party will construct a new argument based on my vague emotional point. This lets me reset and construct a new argument. It's a way to keep arguing when following a given point down the r…
Are you arguing to win or arguing to learn something/strengthen your argument? Because what you describe seems detrimental to the latter.
Re: Beginner's Guide to Arguing Constructively
#73> "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…
[deleted]
Re: Beginner's Guide to Arguing Constructively
#74> "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 wonder how these comparisons manage to take hold and spread.
Being balanced doesn't mean being somewhere in the middle between thinking the Earth is flat and thinking the Earth is spherical.
It's neither, but it's certainly closer to one of them.
What truths do you suggest these "identity-politics liberals" are ignoring?
I also can't help but notice the incredible irony in repudiating identity politics and post-modernism while simultaneously lumping them all into one group.
Re: Beginner's Guide to Arguing Constructively
#75Earlier quoted context omitted.
> 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 day…
> 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.
I think you might be underestimating how much of human instincts have evolved to deal with a complicated network of interpersonal relationships. To ensure fairness, avoid deceit, help our neighbour, and get a good mate. That wiring – which constitutes a large part of our brain – has essentially the same job today as it did back then.
Re: Beginner's Guide to Arguing Constructively
#76Earlier quoted context omitted.
> 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 day…
>This is the point. Instincts developed to keep you alive in a world where the classic laws of the jungle where true.
This is so very true. For example, the act of withdrawing from the TTP was an own-goal by the US against China. However this required relatively detailed understanding of the trading relationships and geopolitics of the region. It's much easier to appeal to base emotion - "strong man good for tribe, working with outsiders not good" - to gather support for what is essentially an act that furthers your opponents goals.
Re: Beginner's Guide to Arguing Constructively
#77I'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…
In my own attempts to understand my emotions better and give them proper attention, I've found that it's helpful to:
1) explicitly state what emotions I'm feeling (this is surprisingly difficult for me)
2) figure out why I'm feeling that way.
Logic and rigorous thinking becomes relevant for that second step - it's where the "both / and" union of the two modes happens.
This process forms the backbone of "Nonviolent Communication": https://www.nonviolentcommunication.com/
If you want to have effective, kind conflicts, that book is a must-read.
Re: Beginner's Guide to Arguing Constructively
#78Earlier quoted context omitted.
> 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.
I don’t know how to interpret that. If you didn’t care you wouldn’t have responded.
Re: Beginner's Guide to Arguing Constructively
#79If you’re arguing you have already lost.
Re: Beginner's Guide to Arguing Constructively
#80[deleted]