I want to lose every debate

by Tomte • 3 years ago

478 357 3 years ago

I wish debating skills were taught better in schools. A lot of people see debates as a personal attack on themselves and are set to win, no matter the cost. Then comes every dirty manipulation, trick and foul play. This is infuriating.

nicbou4• 3 years ago

Great perspective.

This is why I love browsing HN. Despite its relatively homogeneous userbase, people manage to stay civil when they disagree

Elsewhere it's harder, but it still happens.

Cthulhu_8• 3 years ago

To a point; I have seen some greyed-out comments that just devolved into trolling. Thankfully, HN is self-regulating and has good moderators that help filter out these things.

nicbou4• 3 years ago

The quality of the moderation can't be overstated. Dang holds this place together.

heleninboodler• 3 years ago

Derek's right here. Being willing to be wrong is one of the best ways to grow. I have a lot of strong opinions and a lot of knowledge, and I used to think that meant I had to be an absolute warrior defending my side of an argument. Turns out you're stronger if you're willing to consider that you don't know everything.

Yet another Derek Sivers post that makes me think he's a freaking genius.

beebmam• 3 years ago

Even better yet: don't presume (virtually) any of your beliefs are 100% right in the first place.

paulpauper4• 3 years ago

Usually losing the debate means losing to the pig who has better experience. I prefer to just avoid debates. they tend to never be productive except maybe in academia. A common criticism you see online is people avoiding debate and blocking, but consider that usually this is from being tired of bad faith, obtuseness, etc. At some point, patience runs thin. You don't have time for the one or two good, productive debate out of dozens bad, pointless ones, so blocking or ignoring is easier. And no one changes their mind anyway.

nicbou4• 3 years ago

It's not a debate but a conversation. Treat it like an exchange of information, not something you can win or lose. If the other person doesn't follow, then you can stop replying.

croes3• 3 years ago

So the articles title is misleading

aflag3• 3 years ago

That's missing the point. The author is not taking about a heated exchange, but mostly just listening so closely to the point you actually get convinced you agree with someone else, at least from their perspective.

paulpauper4• 3 years ago

hmm...but just listening is not a debate though. it's part of a debate, but the debate is the back and forth process. I have found the 1-10 ratio to hold up and this is as being as polite as possible.

paganel2• 3 years ago

The sex worker explains why she loves her job.

I'm not going to comment on the other stuff, but we should stop with the sociopathic neo-liberal glorification of "sex work", which in the majority of cases is just human trafficking.

I come from a town in Eastern Europe where one of the local mob guys has been caught with trafficking hundreds of (I guess mostly local) girls in Spain. I'm pretty sure many of those girls, if asked, would have told a nice story of "I earn good money out of this! It's liberating!" to any Westerner techie client who would have bothered to ask, what else could have they said? They were still the victims of human trafficking.

aflag3• 3 years ago

The fact that some prodtitutes are victims of human trafficking doesn't mean that all are. In fact, there are countries where sex work is legal but not human trafficking. So it's possible to even have a legal distinction there.

I don't know how things are in Spain, but in the US there's a huge stigma associated with being a sex worker besides it being illegal and actively enforced. In these conditions it would be very difficult to have sex workers who are not somehow a product of sex trafficking. However, in societies where it's not really a taboo, some people will pick that profession, at least for a while.

glogla• 3 years ago

I'd like to believe that the people who are against sex work are actually thinking of the good of the sex workers and because of human trafficking.

Yet there is a lot of human trafficking in other areas, like farmwork or maids in the Western world, and the non-Western world is filled with sweatshops and literal slaves. And you never hear them mention it.

Which makes me convinced these people are just anti-sex work for religious or moral reasons (because they have internalized that sex is sinful or bad), reasons they then lie about.

acatnamedjoe• 3 years ago

Perhaps we should credit OP with enough intelligence to assume that their debate with the sex worker didn't happen in a context where OP was their client.

Also the fact that sex work can be linked with human trafficking doesn't necessarily mean that sex work is bad. Working on a construction site can be a meaningful and rewarding career, but could also be utterly miserable if you've been trafficked there and are working in conditions of modern slavery. But that means human trafficking is bad, not that construction work is bad.

If anything, I think the human trafficking thing is an argument for NOT demonizing / criminalizing sex work, so that it becomes part of the visible, regulated economy, which would it turn make it harder for traffickers to exploit and control people.

quickthrower22• 3 years ago

I totally assumed it was a friend of his, for some reason. Having read his stuff I get the impression he spent a portion of his life being highly social and trying to meet a lot of people. In an intentional way. His life is a bit like a lab!

mnsc• 3 years ago

Sex work is a very good example of a topic where you can change your mind completely from one debate/conversation to another depending on examples and framing and the ulterior motive of the conversation partner.

I think it has to do with morality of course and the problem of defining "sex work" but mostly I think it's the fact that we humans are sexual beings and that our sexuality often is a "dark" place. In the sense that we don't shine a light there ourselves out of fear what we could discover (eg. why did I get a tingly sensation when two people of the same sex kissed in the latest mega hyped tv show everyone is talking about).

Edit: and due to this our reasoning abilities are kinda off and we are more subject of swaying to different sides based on subconsious feelings. Eg. "so you are saying prostitution should be legal and protected by laws and unions, YES, that seem like better for the sex workers (then I could hire a male sex escort and finally find out...)"

BasedGroyper992• 3 years ago

You're opening a can of worms, but that's basically what every debate does. The idea of "sex work" has other, larger implications. For example, in my country, if you are unemployed, the government gives you some money, but less money if you don't try to find work. If "sex work" is a legitimate form of work, can the government suggest you seek such a job, if you can't find work otherwise? Will your friends and your family pressure you? It may seem far-fetched at first, but if I think back to all the other things that were liberating alternatives and now have become mandatory. Cars gave us the freedom to quickly get from A to B, but now a commute of 1 hour is acceptable. Phones gave us the freedom to reach everyone almost instantly, but now you have to be available 24/7 for everyone else. You can get the latest news at any time, but you also have to stay up-to-date. It is no coincidence that most women put on make-up every single day.

What I'm trying to say is that everything that is "liberating" only shackles you to a new framework eventually.

DoctorOW• 3 years ago

Do you oppose agriculture as an industry? Do you oppose factory work? Globally a lot of forced labor ends up being used to cut costs for international companies.

majikaja2• 3 years ago

What about just young women making stupid life choices? Like putting off meaningful relationships or long-term careers for easy short-term cash to fund their vices. Would they count as liberated individuals that middle aged men should feel no qualms about availing themselves of?

Even if it's normalized, women will just be tossed aside when they get old (pass 30) in such environments...

midasz2• 3 years ago

If you value freedom and equality you cannot be against sex-work. Being against sex-work means that police someone elses bodily autonomy. Human trafficking is a framework issue, not specific to sex-work.

vlowrian• 3 years ago

Ah, the good old cognitive dissonance between striving to be right and the higher goal of learning and progressing as humanity. For those interested, I recommend this article from Psychology Today: https://www.psychologytoday.com/intl/blog/maybe-its-just-me/...

college_physics• 3 years ago

It requires energy to pay attention to others and walk in their shoes. Attaching a stereotypical label and switching off / ending the debate is the low cost option

Ergo, we must reclaim quality time for engaging with others if we want to live in quality societies

kuu• 3 years ago

I would say that more importantly than winning or losing a debate is to know which debate you should participate.

nibbleshifter4• 3 years ago

About 99% of the time IRL, debating is pointless and just annoying to everyone present.

whstl• 3 years ago

Yeah, couldn't agree more. They also can be annoying online, so people just ignore. On Reddit you often see very long, deep, threads with 1-karma posts that nobody even bothers to vote for. On HN those long debates not only take a lot of space, and you often see moderators telling people to stop.

Sometimes you gotta preemptively "lose" a debate, by not answering at all. At most a "Alright, I get your point but I disagree" which also doesn't really add much to the discussion.

Cthulhu_8• 3 years ago

Great point. A lot of people debate for debate's sake, because their opinion is out there. That's probably what I do on HN, I post and never look back or respond to any replies. Not a good trait, but anyway.

Best thing to do, if you detect you're about to enter a debate, is to ask "What would it take for you to change your opinion?". If they reply with "nothing" or a vague answer or whatever, exit the debate. Likewise though, ask yourself the same question.

highland5862• 3 years ago

Listening and taking someone's point of view has nothing to do with debating. When you're actually listening, you're not debating anymore. It's a life skill.

groestl• 3 years ago

That might be your preferred way of learning. As for myself, I can't take someone's POV without understanding. And I can't understand without exposing my current model to be shaped by someone's counterarguments. For me there's no better way to learn (apart from explaining and being met with unexpected questions, which I enjoy even more).

zmxz• 3 years ago

Why post this comment? Asking out of curiosity, trying to listen to view your point.

highland5862• 3 years ago

Some comments higher up conveyed it better than I did myself.

I feel like losing a debate and understanding someone else's point of view/learning from them are separate things. In my own experience a debate is not the ideal means of communication if I want to empathize or understand someone better. But as groestl points out, this is a personal matter.

SilasX• 3 years ago

Clickbaity way to say it, but yes, I like to "lose debates" in the way Sivers describes here. For the same reason, I'm very tolerant of rudeness and disrespect if and when it comes with an insight that makes my understanding of something click.

Also for the same reason I like to say, "Don't tell me I'm wrong; instead, improve my worldmodel to the point that you no longer have to, because the wrongness will be obvious."

But I'm not sure that what Sivers describes here is coterminous with "losing a debate". Rather, it's just one way you might "lose a debate". In practice, losing a debate more often looks something more like:

1) The other side stubbornly refuses to engage with your point while effectively signaling you're a bad person despite endorsing the same tradeoffs you do. [B]

2) The other side points being so muddled that you can't untangle what they're disagreeing with or what makes your point wrong, but they speak with that confidence that everyone wants to agree with them. [A]

I don't like losing a debate those ways.

[A] Example of this kind of misdirection from Thank You For Smoking: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xuaHRN7UhRo

[B] Recent example from HN: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=33900804

AstixAndBelix• 3 years ago

The article's title is about debates, but all he gives are examples of conversations (except maybe one). I don't think you can really compare debates with discussions, thus drawing this conclusion from unrelated lived experiences does not make much sense to me

somenameforme• 3 years ago

I believe I feel this way. I think many, if not the vast majority of us do. Now for a little test. When was the last time you lost a debate on a topic you felt strongly about? And not a debate that further reaffirmed your own biases (I used to believe X was bad, but wow I was wrong - it's WAY worse than bad) but actually a meaningful swap from (X is bad) to (X is not bad).

In my case, the answer is never. Now I'd like to imagine this is obviously because I'm the most intelligent, objective, and insightful individual to have ever lived. Of course I suspect the actual reason is because anything worth debating will always have reasonable arguments for both sides. And so long as your arguments are reasonably factually based, it's never really possible to lose a debate, unless you choose to. You can learn new things, expand your worldview, but losing will only happen if you want it to. Hence the reason I added that qualifier about swapping worldviews as opposed to enhancing a prior held one.

Of course this doesn't preclude major worldview shifting change from happening, but it happens over long periods of times for reasons that I don't think any of us can really pin down. It's going to be a butterfly effect of a million little factors.

The_Colonel2• 3 years ago

but actually a meaningful swap from (X is bad) to (X is not bad). In my case, the answer is never.

I think you did, otherwise you would never change your opinions, which I doubt.

But I think it works more subtly. I've noticed that when I lose a debate, my immediate emotional response is rejection - the person is wrong, my opinion is right, even though I couldn't effectively justify it.

But once the emotional hurt of loss wears off, it will sometimes (not always) move my position, sometimes a little bit, sometimes completely. It can take days, months, sometimes years.

Cthulhu_8• 3 years ago

But once the emotional hurt of loss wears off, it will sometimes (not always) move my position, sometimes a little bit, sometimes completely. It can take days, months, sometimes years.

That's exactly it; I'm convinced people's opinions can and will change over time, but they take time.

This is used in subtle ways too with modern-day internet and social media (and before that, newspaper headlines); people will scan the internet's headlines and depending on what they see, form an opinion. If all you see is headlines about police brutality, you will be convinced that the police is corrupt and violent and shit. If all you see is headlines about a demographic being involved in crime, you'll form prejudices about them.

vidarh4• 3 years ago

I tend to see this as down to how heated the debates are. For combative debates, I tend to be far more likely to move my position if I'm audience than participating. For less heated discussions, I may well move my position during the discussion itself. Keeping the temperature down matters if you want to convince the other person(s); letting the temperature rise sometimes works if your goal is to convince an audience.

concordDance3• 3 years ago

I've definitely had debates where I became a lot less sure of things I was reasonably informed on. A discussion that ends with "I'll have to go away and think about that" is a good one.

mypastself• 3 years ago

At a younger and more formative age, I’d engage in online discussions with people who had completely opposite views from mine. And I’ve had my mind changed plenty of times.

It’s happening less in the past decade or so, because I’ve already had many of the same discussions, and I’m sure partly because I’m becoming more rigid as I age.

But many online forums also reduce visibility of unpopular comments, and it’s harder to engage in some of those discussions. This is the reason I never downvote, even the most awful takes.

NoboruWataya• 3 years ago

I've probably never changed a deeply held belief after a single conversation, but my beliefs have changed over time and those changes have been aided by discussions I've had along the way. I think it takes me a long time to form a strong view on something and, once formed, it also takes a long time to change or abandon that view. Even if I participate in a conversation where relevant new information is imparted to me or my reasoning is shown to be flawed, I'm likely to take that away and chew it over (and do my own research) before changing my position.

prettyStandard• 3 years ago

Comments from strangers on the internet have changed my opinions.

peteradio• 3 years ago

but it happens over long periods of times for reasons that I don't think any of us can really pin down

Well having kids can change how you view things quite abruptly.

astrobe_• 3 years ago

And so long as your arguments are reasonably factually based, it's never really possible to lose a debate, unless you choose to

That's the trouble with the expression "losing a debate". There is the notion that you've been defeated. So what actually happened is not a debate, but a fight. A debate is something you can learn from, a gain.

randomdata• 3 years ago

When was the last time you lost a debate on a topic you felt strongly about?

Why would you talk about something you feel strongly about in the first place? If you are sure you have got it all figured out, there is nothing left to talk about. Discussion is only useful when you recognize gaps in your understanding and are able to learn more about it.

it's never really possible to lose a debate

It is. If you cannot compel the other party to offer you information that you can successfully learn from, you've lost. A debate is only won if you've learned something from it. Which, again, is why it would be rather illogical to debate something you feel strongly about. What can you learn if you already have it figured out? If you truly know it all you are guaranteed to lose every time, and at that point why waste your time?

anthonypasq• 3 years ago

Debates are for the audience, not for you.

No one changes their mind in real time. Even if they know they are wrong their ego digs in in the moment.

Truly consequential shifts in your thinking happen gradually over time.

tsuujin• 3 years ago

I’d like to offer an alternative framing: don’t debate at all, just listen.

While high school debate did teach me many positive lessons and I am thankful that I spent four years of my life doing it, many years later I have come to understand that it also taught me something truly negative: that the point of a conversation is to win.

I have put a lot of time in my adult life unlearning that trait, and reflecting on the harm it did to my relationships with other people.

If you want to grow like OP here suggests—which I think is a valuable, worthwhile goal—you will do yourself a great service in learning to listen. I know we all think that we do this, but I don’t think many of us actually do.

When you talk to others, take note of how much of the time you spend formulating a response. I know that for me, I find that frequently I’m already generating my rebuttal before they finish speaking. I am effectively listening to respond, not to hear what they have to say. I’m much much better at listening to hear today than I was a decade ago, but I still have to correct myself on this routinely.

It’s important to note that you can listen to hear and still be free to respond; if you want to have an interesting conversation you will definitely need to put in some effort too. Just make sure that you’re internalizing what they’ve said before you form a response to it. It will almost certainly slow down the pace of a conversation but stands a decent chance of making each exchange a lot more interesting for both of you.

I really believe that the most profound realizations of my life have come when I shut up and put in the effort to internalize what other people around me were doing and saying.

sokoloff• 3 years ago

I recently read a similar point phrased in a way that really resonated: “if you’re right, you’ll still be right in five minutes” (so you might as well listen carefully in case you’re wrong).

atoav3• 3 years ago

While this is good advice, it is still in a debate-mindset where, ultimately, it is about "winning" a conversation. But if you argue with someone who holds factually wrong opinions is it truly winning "if you showed them" and they think "what an asshole" and move on? That type of person is practised at brushing off a debate loss. That means if you enjoy winning such a debate it tells more about you than about the person opposite.

The best conversations I had with the worst people stemmed from me not even telling them my opinion at all. I just asked them to explain theirs to me and asked the questions that occured to me in a respectful manner. Leaving them in healthy confusion and doubt afterwards (and learning a thing or two about them on the way) is more rewarding than winning a debate with them. Sometimes those people really surprise you as well, because they hold a combination of opinions that seem incompatible to you.

sublinear• 3 years ago

Very good advice. A classic debate tactic is to coerce the opponent to hastily misspeak and then force them to defend their poorly worded statements. Cooler heads usually prevail. The classic defense is to slow it down by asking them to clarify their position. You can take it from there if you want to debate or not.

Most people aren't debating you on purpose so there's no point as they continue to rubber duck (and maybe even thank you later). In case they really are in it for a debate, then by all means proceed.

steveBK1232• 3 years ago

These sorts of mindsets are predicated on the assumption that two people "talking it out" or possibly appealing to google will arrive on "the right answer".

While in reality for many things there are judgement calls, trade-offs, unknowns and basically "it depends". In software, POCs, trial&error, R&D, etc help you test out the options.

Many would do better to frame a discussion as surfacing the risks, trade-offs, potential pitfalls, and benefits of different answers such that the "bad answer" is avoided, more than "the one right answer" is somehow discovered.

paulpauper4• 3 years ago

I’d like to offer an alternative framing: don’t debate at all, just listen.

There are two wanys of looking at this. Doing nothing means you lose the opportunity to possibly correct an innocent mistake or to set the record. But it's also possible you may have no clue what you are talking about.

atoav3• 3 years ago

Listening doesn't mean you say nothing, otherwise the other side will (eventually) just stop. Listening means asking the right questions.

Imagine someone has an out-there idea. Listening means you go along with them and have them explain it to you. And you play the nice, slightly curious, but not too curious person that has an open mind and ask the doubting questions. You know more Judo, less boxing, instead of punching and dodging you just make sure when they come at you, their own energy carries them into positions they have to deal with.

I tell you, a big fraction of the people's strongly held opinions completely fall apart when you just make them explain it in detail. And if they realized it is bullshit themselves that is a much more valuable thing than any fact you could ever provide.

Especially naive people with wrong opinions have a strong reactance. That means if you tell them they are wrong (something they are used to being told), they will now treat this as a fight and you as the enemy and they will proudly lie to themselves (1+1=3) just to one-up you.

That means the best way to get into productive territory with those people is to not swallow the bait and slowly go from where they are into a direction that is completely new to them.

That also means leaving arguments like "I studied $X" or "scientific journal $Y says $Z" at the door. Those basically trigger them back into learned talking points

dredmorbius3• 3 years ago

ObXkcd: 386

"Debate" and "listen" are not the only two options.

Debate, specifically, comes from a mode of communication called rhetoric, or persuasive argument.

There are other forms of communicating, including simply narrating or relating an event or position, entertainment, and others, one of which is dialectic.

As I've commented a few times over the years here, confusing dilectic and rhetorical conversation is one of the oldest confounding points of conversations in the book --- it's what Socrates, Plato, and Aristotle wrote on at length (particularly Plato railing against the Sophists, that is, rhetoriticians, and Aristotle's Sophistical Refutations, a/k/a "bullshit arguments that must die" to put a contemporary spin on it.

Derek's entire premise strikes me as ... extraordinarily blinkered here. If you find you want to impart your own wisdom, it's possible to do so other than through raw debate. In particular, the mode of simple discussion or Socratic Method, in which you ask questions which (might) lead your interlocutor to reach the conclusion you're suggesting on their own seems especially valid.

"Had you considered X" or "How would you address Y" being possible entry points for that.

donkeyd3• 3 years ago

the point of a conversation is to win

I have a feeling that a lot of people think this. Coming to an 'agree to disagree' is really had for some people. Sometimes there's no other option though, because both people seem to know the same facts, they just have differing opinions on how to deal with those facts.

take note of how much of the time you spend formulating a response

I've been paying attention to this for years now after hearing or reading something similar. I haven't been able to change this, but sometimes it's helped me move back to listening and not missing important details because of it.

atoav3• 3 years ago

The point is you don't even have to agree to disagree — it is not mandatory to tell the other person your opinion. You can also just listen to theirs and ask questions etc.

A conversation can be much, much more than a clash of opinions. Going into a conversation with the idea of "the other guy is wrong" is a sure way of never understanding how they arrived at that wrong opinion to begin with. Yet sometimes precisely this is the most valuable thing you could learn from them.

rightbyte• 3 years ago

Coming to an 'agree to disagree' is really hard for some people

In many cases the person you talk to don't really disagree, but pretends to due to ideologic or some BS reason. Maybe they don't want to say the real reason they think X.

The "agree to disagree" is often used as an escape hatch for hypocrisy.

BlueTemplar4• 3 years ago

Yeah, even though "agree to disagree" is the admission of a stalemate anyway rather than anyone "winning" or "losing"...

noud• 3 years ago

When someone tries explaining something to me, I try to summarize what this person said when they are finished. E.g., "So you're saying that <summary here>" or "It seems like <summary here>". This forces me to actively listen and remember what the other person has said. Afterwards, I'm looking for a response in the lines of "That's correct!" or "That's right!", or a correction and explanation that I haven't heard it correctly. Even if I don't agree with the other persons believes, this seems to build good relationships.

nibbleshifter4• 3 years ago

That is what is called active listening, and is a good way to do it.

dayjaby• 3 years ago

Reminds me of the interview with Jordan Peterson, where the interviewer said "so you're saying that <some invented bullshit that J.P. never actually said>".

So I agree with you as long as you don't fall into that trap of putting false words in the other mouth.

TheSpiceIsLife2• 3 years ago

Verbal Aikido with Fred Kofman is right up that alley.

https://youtu.be/O6N9nvk8bvE

Cthulhu_8• 3 years ago

That sounds like the public debates which seem to be more of a thing in the US in general, but go back to e.g. the Greek and Roman traditions; two people debating with an audience taking in both sides.

The problem I have with modern-day debates (I mainly catch the political ones) is that they're not at all good or in good faith, there's a lot of "but YOU did this", a lot of dismissals, and no good structure; the moderator does not do their job very well in a lot of cases.

Mind you, that depends on the politician as well. Populists (e.g. Trump) are not good at all in debates.

dagw• 3 years ago

Populists (e.g. Trump) are not good at all in debates.

Depends what you think the point of the TV debate actually is. Trump, for all his flaws, instinctively understood the actual point of the televised debate, and crushed all his primary opponents. He knew that his target audience didn't care if he was right or wrong on any of the facts or detail, they want someone who looked strong and confident and commanding, so that's what he focused on.

nibbleshifter4• 3 years ago

There is nothing more tedious in adult life than some debate club weenie trying to turn every random fucking conversation into a debate.

I strongly suspect debate club has a net negative impact on peoples social skills. It teaches a bunch of anti patterns to successful social interactions.

Like, you will be shooting the shit with the lads down pub the once or twice you see them per year when this dickhead (and every group has one) picks up on something and decides it's time to flex his master debater skills yet again.

Related absolutely cringe inducing behaviour includes the following:

- the "I am very smart" contrarian (so half of this website) - the "gonna then everything into politics" (liberal) one - the "gonna turn everything into politics" (conservative) one - that guy who says "let's not get political" (proceeds to get extremely political) - "uhm ackshually" overcorrecting guy - guy who doesn't know dick about a topic but will pontificate on it

Its entirely possible to unlearn these behaviours. The first thing is to realize you don't always have to respond.

Someone says something wrong in passing? Ignore it, move on.

Someone says something you disagree with? Evaluate if the inevitable unresolved and probably heated argument that will happen when you make it an issue is worth the time, effort, and awkwardness for everyone else present.

Someone says something exceptionally disagreeable? Just fucking leave it be and disengage as soon as possible. The fight isn't worth the time.

taneq• 3 years ago

- the one that compulsively comments on formatting without discussing the actual topic ;)

- agreed, though, that these are all flavours of trying to ‘win’ rather than actually contributing meaningfully

jojobas3• 3 years ago

Debate clubs have you argue points that you don't necessarily agree with, they compete in rhetorics, not proving they are right.

A wise man argues not to prove he's right, he's arguing to become right.

Assuming (or at least allowing) your "opponent" knows something you don't is about all it takes to take a casual debate from a nuisance to learning experience.

coldtea• 3 years ago

And another favorite sign of the debating idiocy: the "this-is-a-fallacy" corrector, using fallacy lists to point "logical errors" in discussions...

hgomersall2• 3 years ago

What do you talk about if not these issues? What is a conversation to you? It feels like you've successfully eliminated any disagreement from your conversations. Or is that just relevant to "shooting the shit with the lads down the pub once or twice a year"? When can we have discussions that might show disagreement?

dsego• 3 years ago

I don't hate debaters, but there is a particular dismissive type that doesn't want to give you an inch or agree to disagree and theirs has to be the last word.

scns• 3 years ago

It might originate from brain physiology. Daniel Amen had done 5000 brain scans 20 years ago, no idea how many until now. From one of his books i learned that contrarian behaviour can come from a disfunction in the Cingulate cortex.

Whatever i say, the first thing my mother says 95% of the time is "No" or another dismissal. It was astounding to see my son acting the same way, answering "No, thats wrong" to things he doesn't even know!

I have been really contrarian for most part of my life. But i realized how annoying that behaviour is and made an active effort to change it. Through repetition it became a habit to respond positively or neutral.

Acutulus2• 3 years ago

I enjoy watching the occasional political twitch/youtube streamer or speaker. I couldn't tell you why; I don't feel that most of them leave me feeling any wiser after the conversations end. But the times I come across positions that I haven't traditionally considered or agreed with being well-stated and expounded upon is really enjoyable and usually makes it worth the minutes or hours burned having it playing lightly in the background. Very much in the spirit of this post, like the author I too enjoy being "wrong" or losing debates. The rush of new insight is thrilling. Vaush and Douglas Murray come to mind as some of the recent ones that have said things I find very compelling.

Not long ago as I was exploring those circles I kept hearing this name repeated. A streamer named Destiny. So I started consuming some of his material. And it was absolutely insufferable. This person treated every single statement as a drawn battle line that is to be defended by every last ounce of mustered anger and blood. No matter how infinitesmal or semantical the focal point of discussion was it was torn apart to shreds. There was no intent to learn, no hoping for new perspectives. It was solely a sport about feeling correct. It was awful to listen to.

I was shocked to see how popular this person is (given their streams and subscribers). Not only because I felt that overall they were a garbage person to have a parasocial relationship with but because if I found him as awful to listen to as I did, surely a large amount of others would feel the same. And while no doubt others feel like me about him, on the other hand I must be neglecting something. There must be a cadre of people that find (arguably) well defended positions thrilling and almost narcotic. I do not associate with many of those types of people in meatspace and I suppose I had slowly forgotten that there's a significant number of them out there.

But yeah, I'm right there with you. I'm here to learn, and there's others that aren't and will knowingly or otherwise prey upon that willingness by digging their heels in on the most miniscule of points. Makes no sense to me. If the only purpose served by me opening my mouth was to convince the world of my correctness, I would just assume everyone else was as obsinate as myself and wouldn't bother to open my mouth in the first place. Save the calories.

matwood• 3 years ago

Its entirely possible to unlearn these behaviours. The first thing is to realize you don't always have to respond.
Someone says something wrong in passing? Ignore it, move on.

This is a skill I've worked on for years. Not every conversation needs to be a teaching moment or life or death. Most are just people bullshitting around with each other. Constantly correcting or arguing doesn't help anyone.

jvm___• 3 years ago

This is a whole chapter in "How to win friends and influence people."

Someone says something wrong in passing? Ignore it, move on.

Someone says something exceptionally disagreeable? Just fucking leave it be and disengage as soon as possible. The fight isn't worth the time.

actionablefiber3• 3 years ago

As someone who did high school debate competitively for four years and still judges competitions nearly every weekend... I really don't think this tracks in reality. It really sounds like you're describing a caricature, and maybe it's based on someone you know, but I don't think it's really the normal outcome for people who debate.

There are surely former debaters who still feel the need to prove themselves to their friends and colleagues and will go out of their way to seek an argument. It is a competitive activity and so it attracts competitive types. But part of the process of becoming a well-adjusted adult, and yes, debaters all go through that process too in time, is recognizing where and when their skills are welcome.

red-iron-pine• 3 years ago

Awful lot of projection goin on here, mate.

You're not wrong but I think you're overstating things. Honestly if you're that miffed about these conversations maybe it's you.

faeriechangling• 3 years ago

This describes passivity not social skills. I can't really say that doing nothing or walking away in the face of an unpleasant situation while privately declaring the other people involved "cringe" and "dickheads" and "weenies" really demonstrates great social skills honestly.

vidarh4• 3 years ago

I think the important thing is to be aware that there are several different types of debates or discussions with different purpose. School debate teams focus on combative debates - debates where the goal is to convince an audience, not the other side. The type politicians tends to engage in during campaigns.

But it'd be good if people got better training in "cooperative" debates, where the purpose is to learn and listen. I can't recall many instances where that was encouraged in school, but there were a few. All of them were focused on a subject, though, rather than actually teaching the skill of listening and debating constructively.

There's a space for both - sometimes you need to be combative -, but people switch to combative mode way too readily.

To your point on the time formulating a response: Online I find a good measure of whether I'm "listening" or gearing up to being combative is whether I end up significantly re-writing my reply while writing it as I process the comment I'm replying to, or if have it "ready and loaded" to fire back at someone by the time I hit the reply button.

eequah9L• 3 years ago

All the team projects have that as an implicit element, don't they? In order to arrive at a solution, the team has to talk, divide labor, etc.

JAlexoid10• 3 years ago

What we understand as debate today, is exactly the school adversarial debates that you're referring to.

The "cooperative" debate is what we call a conversation.

Throwing the word constructive in front of debate, does not change the adversarial nature of it.

roenxi2• 3 years ago

There is a gradient of Advanced Conversational Techniques that nobody seems to ever discuss. If someone hasn't got a real grasp on the basics then just listening is certainly a great start and gets people about half way there. Life gets easier. Most people are so desperately instinctual at social tactics that anything which involves thinking about what other people think will yield great dividends.

But if the goal is self improvement, it can't be done with just listening. Like learning can't be done by just reading. It is far to slow finding the gaps in your own understanding; arguing is orders of magnitude quicker. People will explain an argument's flaws right quick, and often helpfully repeat themselves a few times.

Although what you're leading towards here might be persuasion, because it is a great tool for learning and people often don't realise the subtle way a persuasive argument pushes back. Those aren't as much fun as the hot flush of a robust debate but they are a lot more powerful (especially since many people may not realise that there is an argument going on).

legends2k2• 3 years ago

Where can I learn about _Advanced Conversational Techniques_?

bambax• 3 years ago

don’t debate at all, just listen

This is what the OP says; while the title of the post is "I want to lose every debate" that's what he says in the end:

I never want to debate, but if I had to, I would hope to lose.

And I get it, I think; but there is something to be said in favor of debating, not as a competition, but as a method of refining each other's ideas.

Someone exposing a theory of theirs that's apparently well polished is less interesting than people discussing, exchanging ideas and poking and exposing possible holes.

That's what debating should be: not a sport with "winners" and "losers" (what does that even mean in the realm of ideas??) but as a joint effort and journey in search of the truth.

TheSpiceIsLife2• 3 years ago

Discussion:

an act or instance of discussing; consideration or examination by argument, comment, etc., especially to explore solutions; informal debate.

Discuss is first recorded in 1300–50; Middle English, either from Anglo-French discusser or directly from Latin discussus “struck asunder, shaken, scattered,” past participle of discutere, equivalent to dis- dis-1 + -cutere (combining form of quatere “to shake, strike”).

etothepii3• 3 years ago

I think this is what I dislike most about Jordan Peterson. He appears to behave as if it's your fault if when you paraphrase what you think he's said back to him is not something he wants to agree with. IMHO, you haven't understood someone if you can't repeat it back to them in your own language, and there's a good probability that this is the fault of the explainer not the explainee.

jojobas3• 3 years ago

If you remain silent you potentially deny your parties the opportunity to have a profound realization.

underdeserver• 3 years ago

If it's a lecture and not a conversation, I will usually end up thinking of counterpoints to what they said. And I believe that they have a good response to any counterpoint I have, and I want to hear it.

Otherwise I'm left with my counterpoints and I'm less engaged and less convinced.

hummingn3rd• 3 years ago

That makes me think of The Scout Mindset: Why Some People See Things Clearly and Others Don't https://g.co/kgs/2eXND7

noduerme7• 3 years ago

Derek Sivers never listened to anything, he's a narcissistic maniac who floods the email boxes of everyone on every list he's ever had with self-help advice that's never more than the most thinly disguised self-promotion.

Please stop talking as if his writing is profound.

cmilton2• 3 years ago

What do you think about losing every debate?

BlueTemplar4• 3 years ago

Even a broken clock is right once in a while. I can understand your reaction if that is your experience with him (first time I hear of the guy), but it at least seems to have created some constructive discussion here.

the_af9• 3 years ago

Thanks for your comment. I thought I was going crazy with all the responses to what reads essentially like a self-help quality article.

Also, some of the examples are infuriating. So someone thinks poverty is not upsetting? Well, screw them. And the rest of those examples are so bland, how about "losing" every debate with these:

- Nazism is right.

- Rich people should become richer and poor people should become poorer.

- Women should not have equal rights or vote.

Go on, "listen and lose the debate", I'm sure it will be illuminating and productive.

tchalla• 3 years ago

"I never allow myself to hold an opinion on anything that I don't know the other side's argument better than they do" ― Charlie Munger

Winsaucerer• 3 years ago

While high school debate did teach me many positive lessons and I am thankful that I spent four years of my life doing it, many years later I have come to understand that it also taught me something truly negative: that the point of a conversation is to win.

I've always enjoyed arguing (in the sense of a polite dialogue between two who disagree). But for me, even though I enjoy arguing, being right is more important -- which includes trying to cultivate the discipline to recognise and acknowledge when my interlocutor makes a good point, and trying to understand why they think what they do.

At university, I checked out the debating club, thinking it might be a good fit for me, but I was wrong. There, the goal seemed to be purely to win, correctness be damned. I found the arguments they marshaled towards their goal to be dishonest and contrary to the goals of increasing understanding and getting to the heart of a matter.

I can see how that could be seen as a sport or competition of sorts, but I worried about the kind of habits it might form. It is too similar to the kind of arguing I enjoy that it would be easy to slip from one mode to the other if those debate club type skills were developed and honed.

BlueTemplar4• 3 years ago

Yeah, it can work great one on one, sadly it's much harder to do as the number of interlocutors increases, as the time spent thinking things out instead of immediately answering is time that someone else can "hijack" the conversation (for bad or good reasons, nobody owes you a lot of time to formulate an answer), at which point it could be hard or sometimes even rude to come back to that point.

SuoDuanDao4• 3 years ago

thank you. If I'm ever in a position of choosing a co-founder again, I'll probably ask potential candidates their opinions on debate and treat any positive sentiment towards debate as a negative signal. Few things are more tiring in an already difficult slog than needing to go to war every time you'd like to introduce a change.

I know some people are energized by debate, but I'd rather work with someone who builds my confidence rather than constantly attacks my ideas and, if those don't have any weak corners, my character and judgement. Nothing wrong with either preference, but the two shouldn't work together in my experience.

PaulDavisThe1st• 3 years ago

Your position/preference seems to arise from your identification with your own ideas, which is one of the most fundamental differences in the realm of people's response to "debate". There's absolutely nothing wrong with identifying with your own ideas, and indeed, it will naturally lead to a negative experience if you have to interact with someone who attacks those ideas.

However, there are people who don't experience as much, if any, attachment or identification with "their own ideas", and instead view "debate" (or indeed, any sort of exploration of ideas, truth, and so forth) as a chance to be, to use an over-used phrase, "less wrong". It doesn't bother me if someone demonstrates to me that what I thought is wrong (as long as they do it in a way that respects me as a person), and in fact I welcome the correction (though sometimes it may be difficult to process if it is a long-held idea with wide consequences).

As usual, there's a spectrum (or two) here: a spectrum of identifying with your own ideas, and a spectrum of levels of personal respect when "debating". Certainly a very bad combination is one person with a high level of self-identification with their own ideas being debated/attack by someone who (a) has no concept that this self-identification experience is real (b) cannot engage with the ideas without criticizing the other person.

peoplefromibiza• 3 years ago

don’t debate at all, just listen.

debates, even though I prefer the term discussions, are held between at least two parties.

I might sometime be the part who listens, but we can't both be listening, there will be no discussion.

So if you have something to say, say it and don't let anyone interrupt you.

Listening to what other people are saying means donating your time and attention, not everybody deserve it, there's a reason why "professional listeners" such as psychologists charge a lot of money to do it.

Most of the time people don't want to discuss, they simply want to talk about themselves.

Like the author of this piece.

erenyeager• 3 years ago

Same experience with high school debate, there must be dozens of us.

foobarbecue• 3 years ago

The linked article did say: "I never want to debate"

dkarl• 3 years ago

don’t debate at all, just listen

I think that depends on how familiar they are with your perspective. You don't want to think of the interaction as unequal, with you taking the higher perspective of observing both their ideas and yours, appreciating and integrating them, while they only exist in their own point of view, the observed to your observer.

If they understand your perspective but you don't know theirs, it makes sense for them to do most of the talking. But if they don't understand where you're coming from, then a one-sided conversation is one-sided in a bad way. It's like looking at them through a telescope. You'll have your reactions to their ideas, but you won't have their reactions to yours, their reactions to your reactions.

alsetmusic• 3 years ago

I was told, by someone I was dating, many years ago, that they thought that when they were speaking, I was thinking about what I was going to say next. I didn't fully understand that comment for more than a decade.

This is a highly insightful take. Thanks. You nailed it.

Learning to listen may not come naturally for some of us. It's a skill that requires practice and reinforcement.

Udis• 3 years ago

I had the same experience with two exes and just now in my late 20s, after reading the comments, I feel Im understanding what they meant.

jffhn• 3 years ago

high school debate [...] taught me something truly negative: that the point of a conversation is to win.

The etymology of "debate" is "de-beat", i.e what you do to avoid beating each other, so in principle it's closer to negotiation than to mutual battering.

trgn• 3 years ago

Huizinga argues that debating is essentially a human expression of our animal play instinct. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homo_Ludens

This would also be the reason in settings where debate is formalized, e.g. a courtroom, there are elements of pageantry and pantomime. All playful exaggerations, nonetheless serious (because play can be serious business, look at any child absorbed in a game).

Debating as a means to avoid combat then follows quite naturally. It's sublimation of a primal instinct, channeling dangerous antagonistic behaviors into the realm of harmless play.

lo_zamoyski• 3 years ago

Charitably, I get what you and the author of the article are describing, but I would make at least this comment.

The point of listening is ultimately to know the truth. The fact that listening to others is ipso facto social means that we learn a great deal in community. But it's one thing to learn about what someone else believes. It's another to accept those beliefs as true. The person you are listening to could be in error. Listening is, therefore, a kind of data collection, and data need to be interpreted, after which some kind of verification generally ought to take place (of course, we cannot verify everything, hence for practical reasons, we often trust, e.g., the authority of tradition and its authoritative "keepers", at least until we have reason to doubt).

W.r.t. debating, there's a time and place for it. Classically, it is a formal and public affair reserved for certain circumstances. You don't debate during data collection.

I think Socratic dialogue is a better fit for exploration and discussion, though that, too, and trivially so, has a time and a place.

dredmorbius3• 3 years ago

We listen to a great many things that we objectively know aren't true. Or which have no specific bearing on truth.

Listening is critical to all communication (there's at least one speaker and one listener to any conversation involving one or more sentiences). I'd suggest that the goal of listening is to understand the other party, at least within the universe of their story or experience. You don't have to believe, agree, sympathise, or even empathise. You may have entirely selfish reasons for doing so (is this person a threat / kook / messiah / ...?). If we choose to listen, though, the principle goal is only occasionally seeking truth.

kishmat• 3 years ago

don’t debate at all, just listen

but if all people with this mindset, improvement never comes

mistermann• 3 years ago

It will almost certainly slow down the pace of a conversation but stands a decent chance of making each exchange a lot more interesting for both of you.

Deliberately slowing conversations down to one 100th of their normal pace might produce some interesting results. In a sense, this is one of the techniques that science uses, and it seems to reliably produce excellent outcomes in fairly complicated problem spaces.

TheRealPomax• 3 years ago

That's not an alternative, that's just "the final message in the post"?

I never want to debate, but if I had to, I would hope to lose.

starkd• 3 years ago

Another thing is realizing you really don't need to have an opinion on everything. Enormously freeing to realize this.

hbrn11• 3 years ago

don’t debate at all, just listen

I disagree (pun intended).

Debating allows you to understand your own position better, e.g. is it based on information, intuition, values, preference, experience, or bias?

And it forces another party to do the same, which allows you to better decide how to handle disagreements.

E.g. if their position is based on preference, we can agree to disagree and move on.

If it's based on a bias, I will value their opinion less.

If someone has a different knowledge, that's something we can (and should) resolve asap.

If our values are different we will never be able to resolve it and it's better to avoid conflict.

xpe2• 3 years ago

If you perceive there is sufficient trust and interest in engaging in some kind of debate, sure, consider it. Debate, in its many forms, can have many advantages, but it is not categorically preferable.

Also consider all your other options: pure listening, mutual bonding, offering emotional support, even walking away (from a no-win situation).

If / when debate falls apart, there are many options to reconnect.

JAlexoid10• 3 years ago

That's really not how debate typically works.

Someone states their position, while you're expected to undermine their position with a retort. It is one of the least productive ways of resolving differences.

dredmorbius3• 3 years ago

Very much this, I was going to comment similarly.

Every discussion is not a debate. Perhaps this is what Sivers was trying to communicate, in which case, he did so rather poorly.

The examples offered all revolve around lived experiences, lifestyle preference (taste), and articles of faith, for which there really isn't much of an objective truth, let alone one which can be demonstrated through evidence and reason.

There's something to be said for simply choosing to absorb a story, to bear witness, even to validate a person's view or choices (though that last isn't necessarily always appropriate).

From my experience, some years back I encountered a ... local character ... who was known for accosting strangers on the street and ranting about various topics, generally rather fantastical. I'd seen this happen several times over the years, and one day it was my turn. After the tirade slowed, and unsure how to respond, I simply said "thank you". The transformation was immediate and profound: they were immensely grateful and their entire demeanor changed.

I don't pretend that this is universally applicable. I do know that there was no point in rational argument with the person. The circumstances were such that there was no obvious danger to myself or those around me. But I've thought more than once over the years of how a simple acknowledgement might often be an excellent choice of response.

jez• 3 years ago

Every debate you lose is one where someone else won (and by the author’s logic, was deprived of the chance to lose).

Some debates I want to win, for the simple joy of teaching someone something new.

While it would be an optimal use of my time (from an information-theory point of view) for me to lose every debate I participate in, some debates are worth taking up for the chance to share.

paulpauper4• 3 years ago

I am wrong constantly. yet somehow I and others, who are also wrong, function and get by in life. It's kinda amazing how society works when so many people are wrong. If I had to guess it's the correcting mechanism from the exchange and discussion of ideas. Bad ideas tend to be weeded out or turn into better ones.

_cenw2• 3 years ago

Understanding perspectives is a useful skill. But it's not where having an educated opinion ends.

I understand the desire of US fossil fuel companies to do fracking. They're not stupid or comically evil. But they can be greedy, misguided, selfish and too focused on short term gains (if you want to be extra accustory, "within their lifetime"). If you then move over to how much astroturfing is involved in pushing through a viewpoint you may even call it evil. Though not comically, because everything here is still just following the forces and inventives of our economic system - profit at every non-monetary expense. If you want change, your solution needs to address systemic issues (not neccessarily abolishing capitalism, but focusing on different inventives and making other alternatives viable/profitable though taxes)

(I hope the point I picked is uncontroversial enough, but you can probably apply it to your least favorite policies of your least favorite flavor of political party, organization, movement or institution)

doctor_eval• 3 years ago

In Manufacturing Consent, Herman and Chomsky write that (I’m paraphrasing) “nobody wakes up and thinks, ‘how will I ruin the world today?’”.

Our world is full of perverse incentives which are embedded into society itself. It’s been one of the most important lessons I’ve ever learned.

Truly evil people are rare. Selfish people not so much. But selfish people nevertheless will generally follow the law and social convention.

Unfortunately it’s hard to change either of these things.

mandmandam• 3 years ago

Fracking is textbook comic evil.

Say there's a comic book where fossil fuel co's worked to permanently ruin the groundwater and increase earthquakes in a region - bribing lawmakers and fucking over the people who lived there, gagging scientists, etc - all just for a resource that is literally burning the planet... So they can upgrade their megayacht/private jet... I'd find it hard to believe that others could allow it to happen.

"Following the incentives of our economic system", so your actions are indistinguishable or worse than those of a comic book villain, *is* comically evil. Literally. The fact that so much of our economic system defends this behavior says a lot.

_cenw2• 3 years ago

"Comically evil" usually refers to a character that is evil for the sake of being evil, without external motivation. Like the stereotypical first D&D character some people make.

Such people are somewhere between rare and nonexitent. You could say the fossil fuel company executives are pretty high on the evil scale, but they are not evil for the sake of being evil. And I was careful calling them evil because HN is a politically diverse bunch and sometimes saying things diplomatically is the right choice over being technically or morally correct but getting downvoted into oblivion for invoking a certain kind of language.

If you need an example: I basically never say I'm trans or an anarchist in any top level comment to explain the origin of my perspective or my claim to knowing more context than others because these two words got me outright dismissed too much in the past.

zirgs• 3 years ago

Fracking happens, because we need energy not because fossil fuel CEOs are moustache twirling comic book villains.

inglor_cz• 3 years ago

Not-fracking gives an enormous leverage to the Saudis, who are textbook comic evil as well. A medieval theocracy slowly transforming itself into a modern authoritarian country, dissolving dissidents in acid on the way.

Or to another major producer, Putin's Russia stuck in the Stalinist imperial mindset.

Pick your poison.

jterrys2• 3 years ago

There's a method for deconstructing an opinion to eliminate bias and examine it through as objective of a lens as possible. This generally helps ground a lot of irrationality. Their conclusion might not necessarily be correct, but as you said, if you understand the perspective you can structurally address it.

o_m• 3 years ago

I agree with this, and I hate when people say "debating is pointless because no one ever change their mind".

Cthulhu_8• 3 years ago

One great advice I've heard is that, before even going into a debate, you ask someone "What would it take for you to change your mind on this subject?"

People won't change their mind if they don't have an open mind to begin with, or if they're not open to debate on a subject matter in the first place.

A lot of people - online and off - will engage in debate for debate's sake, even though all parties involved are not willing to change their opinion. They just want to be heard.

I mean who here would have an open mind about e.g. flat earth or whether the Holocaust actually happened (to invoke Poe's law)? I sure don't, and I don't feel guilty about it either; I don't need to consider anyone's point of view if I find their opinion morally reprehensible, and if they strongly hold those beliefs and are unwilling to accept alternatives, they're not worth the effort or time. They can go back to their echo chambers.

nordsieck• 3 years ago

There's a sort of hidden weakness to "losing": it's extremely difficult for people to correctly filter out BS at scale.

I'm not talking about on an individual encounter level - BS almost always loses to truth. But the percentage isn't so high that smart and/or successful people never fall for BS in their lifetime.

Especially since BS is under evolutionary pressure to be extremely believable.

That's a big part of the benefit of being part of the mainstream of knowledge. It's almost certain that large swaths of the mainstream are BS. But the mainstream is also exposed to the most criticism (at least the parts where criticism is acceptable), which means that BS tends to get filtered out more quickly as well.

In contrast, looking at "alternative" knowledge communities, they all generally have that whiff of being scammy. There's probably some truth in there, at least in some of those communities, but there's also a lot more BS.

So, I'm not saying to never lose. Losing is generally good. Just take care to make sure that you're actually losing.

The_Colonel2• 3 years ago

But the mainstream is also exposed to the most criticism (at least the parts where criticism is acceptable), which means that BS tends to get filtered out more quickly as well.

This is what I worry in relation to ChatGPT. Producing quality, believable BS is currently expensive, and the price of exposing it is relatively manageable. But with ChatGPT, it will be possible to produce huge amounts of BS which will be extremely believable and simply uneconomical to critique and expose.

BS can be tailored to the audience, imagine a Wikipedia written by ChatGPT specifically for your which takes into account your own biases. It doesn't even have to be factually wrong, it can just modify the writing style, a word here and there to evoke a different sentiment, play on your personal preconceptions to move slightly your political position in a certain direction. People will claim they are immune to such subtle manipulations, but I don't believe that.

concordDance3• 3 years ago

It's also worth noting that ChatGPT is a BS generator that's only allowed to generate BS for one side of a number of modern arguments.

concordDance3• 3 years ago

at least the parts where criticism is acceptable

This is an important effect to note. If criticism of an idea is not socially allowed then you cannot rely on mainstreamness as a proxy for truth.

There's also another effect worth noting: if an idea is relies on building blocks outside daily experience (e.g. anything about the large scale) and requires quantification as part of the argument then its going to struggle to propagate (both the guys with the megaphones and your average Joe are bad at thinking quantatively). Incorrect ideas about the dangers of nuclear power being the classic example.

pdpi2• 3 years ago

I don't like the position of "losing is good".

I want to win every debate, because I define winning a debate as coming out of it knowing more that I did going in. Debating isn't a zero-sum game, me winning doesn't make you the loser.

Cthulhu_8• 3 years ago

Yeah but what if you're wrong and you "won" by attrition? This is the problem with a lot of debates; they don't end with one party being convinced of the other party's point of view, they often end because one party just gives up.

I mean your point does apply if you actually acknowledge your lack of knowledge on a subject and do your research before bringing in an argument, but a lot of people don't, they have a standpoint and will stick to it.

Losing isn't good, but neither is winning if that was your goal going into a debate; the goal should be to learn and come to a consensus.

pdpi2• 3 years ago

I think you misunderstood me.

The point I'm making is that you should redefine "winning a debate". Learning (and hopefully coming to a consensus) is exactly what winning should mean in your head. Just altogether abandon the notion that you win by convincing the other party you're right.

personjerry• 3 years ago

Remember, if you're winning, if you're correct, if you're talking, then you're not learning. Only when you're wrong and you recognize you don't have the full picture can you grow. I think our education systems and parents often frame being wrong as bad, but it's precisely the opposite.

psychphysic3• 3 years ago

It bothers me that people argue so poorly.

That's why debate exists. And why some people excel at podcasts Joe Rogan being an examplar.

His best debates have very similar formats.

"Tell me about"/"why do you think"

"What about X"

"So you're saying Y?"

"Wouldn't that mean Z"

People are bothered because he rarely ever seems to shoot others down just gets them to lay out their points and fleshout reasoning.

The only time he shoots you down is if he thinks you don't have an explanation around some aspects of your point. But his job is done the audience can make up its own mind.

Cthulhu_8• 3 years ago

That's the mark of a good host (or debater), instead of arguing directly (confrontational), they encourage the other party to think.

You don't win a debate with arguments and counter-arguments, you win it by letting the other person come to and change their own conclusions.

badcppdev3• 3 years ago

You seem to be stating that Joe Rogan's 'best debates' aren't debates so much as interviews.

I'm bothered that you describe that as a debate.

psychphysic3• 3 years ago

You're nicely applying the JRE method here.

The problem is that the other definition of 'debate' is competitive and people have interests to appear correct more than to be correct.

entropyneur• 3 years ago

All of these "debates" are about how someone else's way of life makes sense for them. The world would be a better place if we assumed this is the case most of the time instead of having to be convinced of it.

wnkrshm• 3 years ago

You can understand people and where they come from, information about why they believe what they believe. But it's naive to think this can always foster common ground - some beliefs are entirely incompatible with the existence of the listener.

Cthulhu_8• 3 years ago

I've heard a good one about that; there's opinions and there's morals. You can debate about whether, idk, donuts are good or not; that's a personal opinion, the stakes are pretty low with that.

But other disagreements are on a moral level; things like racism, some people are morally bankrupt and have Strong Beliefs about what should happen with people not like them. I don't believe you can (or should) debate with people like that.

And I think that the anti-science 'debates' can also hit people on a moral level; how DARE you hold these strong beliefs that do hold up to scientific scruteny? (think flat earthers etc).

fluoridation4• 3 years ago

I completely disagree. Silence is implicit agreement in some (and I would argue most, at one time or another) people's minds. A fringe mentality that doesn't encounter any push-back will tend to exacerbate itself further and further. If an idea is not factually wrong anyone can be convinced of it. Anyone can be made racist or tolerant given the right argument.

eggie52• 3 years ago

Years later, still puzzling over Thomas Jefferson's passivity at Philadelphia, John Adams would claim that "during the whole time I sat with him in Congress, I never heard him utter three sentence together"

Jefferson, himself would one day advise a grandson, "when I hear another express an opinion which is not mine, I say to myself, he has a right to his opinion, as I to mine." And "Why should I question it. His error does me no injury, and shall I become a Don Quixote, to bring all men by force of argument to one opinion?... Be a listener only, keep within yourself, and endeavor to establish with yourself the habit of silence, especially in politics."

pjerem• 3 years ago

Why should I question it. His error does me no injury

Isn't that an incredibly dangerous behavior especially in political debates ? I mean, wrong political opinions do injure people. Maybe not the other people in the room but the people who elected them.

Do I miss something ?

eggie52• 3 years ago

As Adams agreed, it was quite the perplexing philosophy. However, who won in the end? The firebrand Adams or stoic Jefferson???

MisterBastahrd• 3 years ago

Thomas Jefferson was as privileged as they come. Of course he'd have that opinion. He was at the top of the pyramid. Opinions held by his fellow man would have no impact on him personally.

trynewideas• 3 years ago

Do I miss something ?

Yes, the part of governmental politics that involves creating and enforcing policy. Jefferson would listen to people's arguments in legislature but infrequently debated them because his strength (in his own estimation, at least) was in writing responses, especially as policy proposals.

Someone speaking a disagreement does him no harm, even if what's being described would be harmful. But someone implementing something he viewed harmful in enforced policy is different, and he treated it very differently.

Governmental politics tends to emphasize, even glamorize, the former, but the latter is what actually affects people and Jefferson often focused his attention on it.

One could strongly suggest that Jefferson's preference for written arguments and policy over political debate and lobbying is why Hamilton had more effective Federalist influence over early policies of the United States, and manifests even more strongly in Jefferson's prescriptions for the republic — the Declaration of Independence and Bill of Rights, wanting to rewrite the Constitution every 20 years, his opposition to slavery and promotion of universal free education, freedom both of and from religion in government, strongly held national liberties and local self-government — many of which were at the time, or have always been, ignored in practice.

brmgb• 3 years ago

I find this article amusing. I think it puts forward something interesting but frame it completely incorrectly.

The author doesn't actually want to lose debates even if it doesn't seem to realise it. He doesn't want to have debates at all. He just wants to have conversations with people and less preconceptions. That's something I'm completely in line with. I believe we suffer as a society from a collective excess of opinions.

The funny thing is that even when he tries to describe is prejudice in an unprejudiced way, he horribly fails at it.

noduerme7• 3 years ago

Astral Codex he ain't

chengiz• 3 years ago

I agree he frames it incorrectly, but he has not failed in terms of results. If he framed it as "I want to talk to people", it would not be posted on HN, and no one would be visiting his site or discussing his shower thought.

noduerme7• 3 years ago

It's not really healthy to view such a thing as success, unless your goal is to become good at bullshitting people (as opposed to creating lasting things of value that you can be proud of). Lots of great projects show up in HN and receive no views. On the other hand lots of self promoters who say nothing imortant get tons of views. Ideally you'd want to be in the middle, where you made something awesome and were good at promoting it.

jonathanstrange• 3 years ago

To each their own, but I prefer argumentative and opinionated people and have nothing against discussions even when they become heated. In my experience, there is much more to learn from others by discussing a topic than by "listening" to them. Good discussions take a certain emotional detachment from the topic, though, and when that is lost it can become unpleasant. But in my opinion "pleasant" isn't a major criterion for good conversations.

renewiltord• 3 years ago

I actually want to win every debate. Winning is hitting delta less than something small. The whole point is for each utterance to increase information gain. Aumann's Agreement Theorem always applies so if you get IG = 0 at any stage it is worth considering if the discussion is worth it.

Additionally, verbal and textual conversations lack the depth to transmit the full state of the probabilities in your model.

Consequently, it is often useful, as a participant, to break off a miniclone of oneself to perform the information interchange and then integrate it into the rest afterwards. You can't tabula rasa the miniclone easily because of the bootstrap time but you can't retain elasticity of your true mind. A more plastic form of yourself can work well.

The problem is that this approach is susceptible to information contagion.

bjarneh• 3 years ago

Now I want to hear everything about how clothing is like the SMTP protocol

If email is from the wrong "brand" (i.e. server); it is instantly seen as garbage and discarded by most mail hosts. If clothes are from the wrong "brand" (i.e. manufacturer); they are instantly seen as garbage and discarded by most people.

devnullbrain• 3 years ago

This is very self-congratulatory and fails to account for the many times where winning a debate can have greater implications than navel gazing. If the author has never encountered these, he's either very lucky or has no meaningful views against the mainstream anyway.

mihaic2• 3 years ago

The first time I saw US-style collegiate debate, it seemed like a great mind-game. Over time I've come to consider it though as the sign of a bullshitting culture, where the truth is irrelevant, and winning the argument is all that matters.

Professional debating and the article both feel wrong since they're missing the key element to me: synthesis of opposing ideas into something more than each individual side. It might happen that at times this synthesis means that one side is completely discarded, but the goal of any debate to me should be to achieve the sum of all truths that are held by all parties.

Most places from from schools to success stories seem to fail in describing the purpose of debating to me because of that.

ImHereToVote• 3 years ago

It's the difference between being right and winning. Not the same thing. The best way to be right is to change your mind, since the odds that your model of reality matching with reality are stacked against you.

If you don't plan for failure, you plan to fail.

If you don't plan for being wrong, you plan to be wrong.

nhooyr• 3 years ago

What do you mean US-style? As far as I'm aware, such debate clubs exist all throughout the world. The most famous of which are probably the Cambridge Union and the Oxford Union both in the UK.

mihaic2• 3 years ago

It might be anglo-saxon style. I've never seen them in mainland Europe in this format.

sebzim4500• 3 years ago

I don't know about the Oxford Union, but the people arguing in the Cambridge Union generally believe the arguments they are making. This makes it quite different from debate clubs in school.

onos• 3 years ago

I agree. The fun thing for me in “debate” is understanding the arguments for and against something. Most often, arguments differ through either (1) the axioms used, or (2) there is a subjective preference at play. In these cases, there is no right side.

Of course, there are cases with an answer, often scientific type questions.

TrackerFF• 3 years ago

I’be learned to keep an open mind. Whenever I see something which I don’t understand, or something that screams “that’s just stupid” I try to wait with being the judge - because by experience, there’s usually some rationality behind that.

It might not make sense to me, but could make sense - even be very important to others.

Probably the people I enjoy the least to interact with, are the highly opinionated and cocksure people that simply refuse to expand their minds. Listen more, would be my best advice. Wait until you see a bigger picture, and don’t try to infer everything from the go.

depot5• 3 years ago

I remember an interview with a smart man at some medical device company. His most memorable thing started with the pretty boring, "what do you like least about work?" So, I replied, "arguing about plans for projects. Many co-workers get emotional there and resist bringing in facts." And his reply to that is what made me think he's pretty smart.

Arguing and debating about what to do is one of the biggest ways that managerial types can add value to a workplace. And it's even right to get a bit emotional, because the things decided in the meeting is probably going to decide stress, money, and life quality for everyone there. It's hard to change plans after deciding what to do in a big meeting. Bad managers will use debate tricks, but so will good ones. Everyone must be aware of these things, otherwise it's out of control. The expectation for senior employees is to be responsible and contribute important arguments in debate.

jagrsw• 3 years ago

There are debates which are illuminating (esp. when you first time hear some ideas), you get new POVs and see excitement in the speaker's eyes, and even numbers/data might add up to a point, but the overall ideas might be harmful/dangerous/impractical/too-nuanced/in-theory-sure-but

Examples:

  - People should believe in god(s) b/c people believing in god(s) are more stress-resistant and are overall happier -> improvement of life quality
  - Everyone should pay the same amount of taxes - since they get from the state on avg the same amount of services -> fairness
  - Everyone should be paid the same for any kind of job if they put the same amount of effort/time -> fairness
  - Geopolitics can be described in a few catchy phrases (esp. in hindsight) - zero-sum games, rimland/heartland etc.
  - Richer and more achieved should have more kids (by law or consensus) than poorer ones -> it'll improve human gene-pool wrt cognitive capabilities

People formulating and believing (and sometimes acting on) such and similar ideas are not rare. Having them as family, friends, colleagues, random interlocutors at a party and entertaining their train of thought, sure. But considering them as a partner in a company, advisor, someone you elect for public office... not so much.

avaika• 3 years ago

This is all fun until you talk to someone who is absolutely brainwashed or alien to a peaceful behavior.

Do you really want to lose the debate to flat earth advocate? Do you want to lose a debate to a war aggressor supporter? Do you want to lose a debate to a serial killer?

I bet you don't.

PS. Maybe I didn't get something right, but I suffered a lot in conversations with close relatives who are denying that killing other people is bad in the light of ongoing war in Ukraine :(

FlyingSnake• 3 years ago

Of course the will be outliers and edge cases for most of the advice you receive. This observation from Derek is more or less a guideline, not an iron rule. He's not advocating to forgo common sense when dealing with people.

jnsaff2• 3 years ago

I think that the fact that Derek found this interesting enough to write about and people find it controversial to discuss about here kinda proves that his wish is the outlier and the norm is arguing with bad faith actors or people who have made up their mind and want to convince you, not really learn anything.

Maybe this is an internet thing but genuine enlightening discussion is kinda hard to be found on internet.

iinnPP5• 3 years ago

close relatives who are denying that killing other people is bad

Nobody, except people with legitimate mental health issues, thinks killing is a "good" thing.

Your close relatives believe Russia is on defense. Kind of like how the US was on defense in Iraq. So, from their perspective, the way to save lives is to negotiate an end to the war where Russia takes that tiny bit of land, and Ukraine stops being considered for the UN.

Come to the discussion using human life as the topic. Figure out where solutions exist that save the most lives. Talk about how many die and what is gained or lost as a result.

Moving the conversation from nations to humans will not only help the argument make more sense, it will have you coming away with far superior respect for your incredibly important family unit.

xiphias22• 3 years ago

What's interesting in this is how many people still think that in politics there's a ,,good side'' and a ,,bad side''.

Europe would stay much stronger together with Russia, so it was worth for US to increase the conflicts between the two powers (destroying Nordstream wasn't the nicest move).

Putin was used to high gas prices making his power the highest, but he wasn't used to the power of LNG that US has, as it's the first time that LNG comes into geopolitics in Europe so strongly.

But as you wrote, nobody wants to kill people, it's a terrible consequence of geopolitics.

yakshaving_jgt4• 3 years ago

That bit of land isn’t tiny, and the russians aren’t going to stop at 20% of Ukraine.

The aim of fascist russia is the total erasure of Ukraine. That means genocide. Trying to make a “peace deal” means more dead civilians, not fewer.

Anyone who does not understand this is clueless, and it is quite frustrating how many Chomskys love to indulge themselves pontificating on such a serious issue with sweet fuck all real insight.

BasedGroyper992• 3 years ago

Nobody, except people with legitimate mental health issues, thinks killing is a "good" thing.

But what if a woman wants to kill her unborn child?

ameister14• 3 years ago

Nobody, except people with legitimate mental health issues, thinks killing is a "good" thing.

I know a lot of people that believe killing can be justified and in that sense a "good."

zepolen• 3 years ago

...who are denying that killing other people is bad in the light of ongoing war in Ukraine

I wonder what your point of view would be if your family was killed by people who have no intention of listening to another person's point of view.

amelius• 3 years ago

Given the current level of political polarization in the US, we can conclude that Americans are very bad at this.

dalanmiller• 3 years ago

Be curious, not judgemental.

zxcvbnm2• 3 years ago

Insu

zxcvbnm2• 3 years ago

Agree if no consequence. But imagine, what if there is. And the debate's winner gets to implement his BS.

tsylba• 3 years ago

Dialectic is where things happens, it's where people meet. Dialectic is the dancing space between two perspectives.

We all know the saying "It's not about the nails", where one person try to solve an appearing problem for another one who secretly just need an ear to be listen to. Yes, listening is important as a human skill to relate & connect, but ultimately living together is dancing between perspective. We hardly all be passive or let others strongly shape our shared narratives.

We know we're not right, how can we be ? we share a narrative about the world and try to make sense of it. Like the Tao symbol Yin & Yang interlacing, everything we do, we tell contains a part of truth and a part of wrong. The issue is when one identifies too strongly to one's perspective. We're always at least partly wrong but living is deciding which path to take at any moment, and accepting it's not right.

Politic is how we organize ourselves & Democracy aims to listen to everyone, the only way to do that is to share our perspective and enable true dialectic. Sure, sometimes positions are strongly held, but there is no true freedom without a bit of a fight isn't it ? how can we all relate all the time ? share the same taste, share the same vision ? it's boring and borderline dangerous. That what anarchism tell us, not as a dogma to political utopia but as a way to relate politically : we differ so we need to talk, we need to dance everytime to build a better shared perspective, with as many vision there is.

Anarchism is a dialectic of every moment, inhaling and exhaling, sharing and dancing, but we cannot dance alone, and we cannot just all listen (and say nothing), and we cannot all talk (and be deaf to others perspectives).

And this is what we are all doing just now, what the authors of the post did too. He speaks his truth and wait for people to dance with it.

(But as anything goes, what I just typed is neither completely true or false, and that's ok)

jojobas3• 3 years ago

The Muslim explains why Islamic law is a perfect recipe for peace.

Let me rephrase it for a second.

The Communist explains why global USSR is a perfect recipe for peace.
The Nazi explains why Reich is a perfect recipe for peace.

Sometimes you have to wish for an idea to die, too bad if some of its carriers have to go with it.

robalni2• 3 years ago

I feel like there are two different things that are often talked about as the same thing:

1. Wanting to understand and learn. Here you use the help of another person to figure out what the best solution or the right answer to something is, or just to understand how something works or in other ways improve your knowledge. There is no winner or loser; the only outcome is whether the discussion was successful or not.

2. Wanting to prove how much you already know or that your idea is the correct one. This is just about showing everyone that you (or your idea and therefore you) are better than the other person, not about what you learn from it. Here there is a winner and loser; you win if you appear to know the right answer from the start.

These are two very different things; you could even say that they are opposites. In number 1, the goal is to learn. In number 2, the goal is not to learn but to stay with your current idea. Why don't we have different words for these two things?

It seems like in this article, what he is talking about is doing number 1 but talking about it as if it were number 2.

Could the reason that we talk about these two things as the same thing be that people often do both at the same time? In that case maybe they want to appear as already knowing but secretly still trying to learn something. Or maybe they only try to learn but others are judging them as if they should already know everything from the start, and that way misunderstanding what they are doing.

fluoridation4• 3 years ago

Consider this: You have an idea about how things are and this other person has another idea in direct contradiction with yours, such that at most one of the two can be right. If you want to treat their idea as if it has merit then you have to argue with them to understand why they think what they think and how well their idea fits in with other facts you already know. If you care about the truth then you will need to subject their idea to the same harsh trials your own idea (presumably) passed, and if there's any possible flaws or inconsistencies you'll want to dig in to thoroughly understand everything. You might that in fact you were wrong all along and this idea is actually better than yours.

Do you see how and why one might want to learn something new while outwardly appearing to want to prove themselves right (or, more accurately, to prove the other person wrong)? An idea that one can't prove wrong is certainly worth considering seriously.

robalni2• 3 years ago

Do you see how and why one might want to learn something new while outwardly appearing to want to prove themselves right (or, more accurately, to prove the other person wrong)? An idea that one can't prove wrong is certainly worth considering seriously.

Yes, this is exactly what I meant by my last sentence. Two people may want to learn something and in order to do that they have to "attack" each other's ideas so it may look to other people like the goal is just to prove how correct they are, and that the one who does that is the winner, when the real goal is to learn the truth, and proving that you are correct is just a way to get closer to that goal.

So it seems like the difference is that in number 2, proving that you are correct is the goal, while in number 1 it is a tool you use to reach the other goal.

janjones• 3 years ago

A book on this topic: Think Again [1]

[1] https://adamgrant.net/book/think-again/

hp6• 3 years ago

IMO the author underestimates the positive effects of non combative debates between adults. For a long time before we could just google, debating was one of the main ways we used to check our ideas. Do you believe the sky is red? Try to debate someone and see if you can convince them. And while we now can just google most of the simpler things, that's not the case for complex ideas.

As the author notes by simply listening you will have a better view of the other persons arguments. But at the same time you deprive them from the opportunity of validating their ideas. Which is not a simple tradeoff.

Even worse most people will take silence as a form of agreement, which for a debate about C++ vs Rust is no big loss but is not true for a lot of other issues. And strangely enough the examples provided by the author are complex non trivial ideas no one should take for face value or agree by silence.

noduerme7• 3 years ago

I'm sorry, but I just can't read this.

Ever since I put out an album on CDBaby in like 2004, which was Mr Sivers project at the time, I have been subjected to an endless stream of daily self promotion from this man. Somehow he evades all spam blocks and all attempts to remove myself from his lists. I have never seen another human being so self absorbed who consistently just had to have their meandering thoughts manually junked from my inbox for so many years. Not even my father who forwards shit from fox news every morning. My pure level of irritation at seeing Sivers name must be a great credit to his ability to evade every spam block on earth; it's almost like every attempt to block him just makes him stronger.

romanovcode• 3 years ago

You don't have to read anything. One does not have to be a genius to guess EXACTLY what the blog post is about.

stingraycharles• 3 years ago

Can't you just block his emails?

noduerme7• 3 years ago

I've tried. I've even contacted him personally. I run my own mail server so you think it should be trivial. A year or two later, he's gotten past my filters again. We're talking about 20 years here. I don't understand it but he's got some form of email jujitsu.

qrng• 3 years ago

As a matter of fact, this logic is expedient for those who want to brainwash someone. Sure, you may have to listen to the weak people you think are "stupid," and that gives you a new perspective. But not in the case of some huge media. They just want to sensitize people with convenient political and commercial propaganda. Punch the strong and sympathize with the weak.

UhUhUhUh• 3 years ago

Let's not forget the Prime Directive.

kypro• 3 years ago

These days I try to actively confuse myself as to what positions I hold in the aim to be more objective with my reasoning. As best I can I try to block out thinking in terms of labels completely.

When I was younger I cared a lot about having very clear, well defined opinions. I adopted labels to describe my positions and would wear these labels with pride as I believed them to be correct and well-reasoned. Eg, I am a liberal. I am pro-choice. I am anti-war.

But truth was I wasn't 100% liberal, pro-choice, or anti-war. There were circumstances where I could hold more nuanced opinions depending on the context. But because I adopted these labels I was always really reluctant to acknowledge when nuances existed. This was especially true the more gray the right answer was. For example, a lot of people who are anti-war believe the US was right to join the fight against the Nazis. But what about the American civil war? What about supporting Ukraine against Russia. Are these justified positions too?

Suddenly it's difficult to claim to be anti-war while also be a supporter of many major conflicts. How can someone who claims to be anti-war be in favour of so many wars? You know rationally you can't be anti-war and also pro-war when it suites you so you might be tempted to try to rationalise why actually the American civil war shouldn't have been fought or why Ukraine should just let Russia win to preserve peace.

Equally assigning labels to others is also bad. What if you were arguing with someone you consider a racist and they make a good point? No matter how correct they are to acknowledge that point is difficult because suddenly that risks agreeing with a racist. I'm from the UK and I've seen this with the EDL here. While a lot of their opinions are awful, they also occasionally can make good points about issues like grooming gangs and Islamic extremism here in the UK. The problem as no one wanted to agree with them about anything so Islamic extremism and grooming gangs got labelled a far-right conspiracy. I suppose a more recent example of this was with Covid. In 2021 agree with any argument against mass government mandated vaccination programs was often considered being anti-vax.

My head is far more muddled these days. I believe I'm more objective and flexible in my thinking though. I'm saying this because while being happy to lose a debate and change your mind is great, no one goes into a debate to lose - especially not to someone you view as an ideological enemy in some form. As soon as you assign labels to yourself and think in terms of "winning" and "losing" it's very difficult to think rationally about anything.

varispeed• 3 years ago

When "debating" I often was presenting a point of view I disagree with as if it was mine and trying to defend it as best as I could based on the information I have to see what other people have against it, whether it makes sense and if it is similar to what I actually think about it. It was helpful to me, as often the point I disagreed with, was actually "the right way" and I was able to keep being out of my bubble. That being said, people often believed that what I say is what I actually believe in and so many won't even speak to me because they think I am a twt. I guess I was good at this.

thenerdhead• 3 years ago

The stoics would say two ears, one mouth and the Buddhists would say the ears have no lids but all else do. Everyone is right in their own perspective. That’s why it is called a point of view.

baxuz• 3 years ago

The Muslim explains why Islamic law is a perfect recipe for peace.

And I'm done with this article.

cutler• 3 years ago

s/peace/oppression/

hendry• 3 years ago

"The Singaporean in the three-piece-suit explains why clothing is like the SMTP protocol.", that must be Meng Wong of RFC4408

a_c• 3 years ago

I come to ask this. Why is it like SMTP?

noam_compsci• 3 years ago

How self congratulatory. So many people, most people hope and assume they are this way. We all think we are super progressive and smart and just want “growth”. It’s a bit redundant to spell it out. So what? Big clap. You have a growth mindset. You want to embrace “regret”. How intellectual of you.

t43562• 3 years ago

In my family we like arguing about things. Our way of doing so is quite animated and enthusiastic. We're trying to get our point heard of course but the real pleasure is perhaps that it is a fight in the sense of a water pistol fight or a game of rugby or something like that. It's mental exercise with excitement and humor.

It doesn't suit everyone and might seem alarming. Also we sort of play the game with the underlying attitude that it is all unimportant and that we admire and like each other.

The mind changing never happens then but sometimes it happens a few days later.

I HATE changing my mind but usually after I have I'm glad I did it. It's very uncomfortable but to say that nothing can change what I think would be to admit that I wasn't thinking anymore. It would be awful to be like that.

harel• 3 years ago

I chime well with the gist of this post. However, I think there is no win or lose in a debate. There is the sharing of perspective. The terminology of win/lose is a symptom of Side-ism which I believe humanity suffers from. People feel like they need to be on a side of something, which leads to people who feel like they belong to the "other side" feel left out and ignored, and then the wheel turns and then the other side feels the same. Each side tells themselves the other side is stupid/evil/ignorant/etc.

Instead they could have listened, compromised, come out of the assumption that neither side is wrong, and there should be a middle ground that works for all.

But instead we're stuck with side-ism and an everlasting shift from one extreme to the other, while the majority in the middle get car sick from all that violent movements.

log101• 3 years ago

They lend me their shoes and glasses, so I can walk a mile with their viewpoint and experience it for myself.

I love this qoute and completely agree with it, it's always enlightening to "really" try to understand other people, without evaluating whether they're right or wrong. But the problem arises when you both start acting and your ideas clash. And you need to decide which is the "best" way.

bluedino• 3 years ago

This is some Seth Godin, LinkedIn level stuff right here.

pattisapu3• 3 years ago

Vigorous debate is a good thing.

It's about learning to turn it off afterwards.

Debate at its best is where the issues are at stake -- not the relationship. Getting clear on that is an important communicative and emotional skill.

The problem with "wanting to lose" in this post is how fake and sentimental that attitude can become, against our best intentions.

If both sides can put their cards on the table, that's a more productive conversation, rather than one side shutting up and keeping theirs close to the vest.

Confrontation is not an evil to be avoided. Hurting others is the harm to be avoided. Those are two very different things. Sometimes avoiding confrontation hurts oneself and others the very most.

Furthermore, there is no logical reason why one should default to thinking that only others will bring value to the conversation, and that one's own experience and judgment are not as important to share. By sharing one's thoughts, the other side may hear, learn, or rethink something that could change their lives. To the extent that "wanting to lose" consciously or unconsciously results in one bringing less of a certain energy to a debate, that's an opportunity lost for everyone.

Discernment and diplomacy are the valuable skills here. Again, rather than check out (whether smugly or earnestly), instead, let's make efforts to figure out when, where, why, and with whom to turn on the heat, -- and then turn it off.

Sportsmanship among athletes and collegiality among lawyers are good examples of this in practice.

"And do as adversaries do in law,

Strive mightily, but eat and drink as friends."

--Shakespeare, The Taming of the Shrew, Act I, sc. 2.

the_af9• 3 years ago

The problem with "wanting to lose" in this post is how fake and sentimental that attitude can become, against our best intentions.

Yes. Plus it can seem condescending. I wouldn't want to debate anything with someone adopting some sort of "philosophical master" stance that "through losing" will achieve enlightening. I prefer the other person gets angry if need be, which at least is honest, rather than trying to play some Socratic bullshit on me.

It comes across as "I'm better than you, let me show you that to lose is actually to win".

pattisapu3• 3 years ago

Good point. People smell condescension, and then check out.

The whole thing cools. They'll say just enough to get to the next topic gracefully. The dispute is patched up with something like "we'll agree to disagree" or something like that, in the interest of polite conversation, rather than square-on debate.

In that scenario one does not receive the full force of an opponent's argument. It never got ventilated. An opponent only brings that energy to a debate between earnest people who see themselves -- not their arguments -- as equals.

francisofascii• 3 years ago

The problem with "wanting to lose" in this post is how fake and sentimental that attitude can become, against our best intentions.

A better way might be to say, "losing can be good" If you put your best forward, and still lose, then you learned something, and hopefully became stronger. In the same way tennis players always want to play people better than them, because they will get better playing a superior player even when they lose.

pattisapu3• 3 years ago

A good analogy. And that stance is so different from "wanting to lose" -- it is "wanting a challenge." To get bested by a worthy opponent. That feeling can only be had after bringing one's best and strongest game to the court.

Kukumber• 3 years ago

you only loose if you refuse to debate

OP got it wrong

Giorgi• 3 years ago

The Muslim explains why Islamic law is a perfect recipe for peace.

That would be so funny to listen to. Mental gymnastics would be trough roof.

pessimizer• 3 years ago

I feel the same way. I'm going to try to defend my position as well as I can (sans dishonesty and rhetorical tricks), but actually winning an argument means it was probably a waste of my time. My goal is to be right about everything, so I wish that in every argument I have I'm on the wrong side because when somebody who is right convinces me that I am wrong, I become smarter than I was before the argument.

I think it's pretty common to feel indebted to people who convinced you that you were wrong. Really what happened is that they put in the work before you got into it with them, and aggressively shared the benefits with you. Losing an argument is like someone beating the crap out of you, strolling into your home and ransacking it until they find your debts, then paying them off against your will.

I walk into every argument hoping to lose, and hoping I don't embarrass myself too badly on the way to that loss. The worst is when you figure out that you were confidently, smugly wrong. But if you laugh with your opponent about how cocky you were, it makes it all better.

edit: it's only worth my time to win in an argument if I'm trying to help someone I care about, or if I'm trying to argue against behavior that affects me or someone I care about negatively. Not an abstract effect, like when you pretend your tweets are social work, but concretely, like with a coworker that you depend on, or a neighbor.

foxbee• 3 years ago

I try to aim for education with empathy.

hungryforcodes• 3 years ago

Loose every debate. When you are on your deathbed you won't be reviewing these debates. You'll be either reliving those great experiences you had, or regretting the experiences you didn't have. Key word:

"Experiences"

Words don't count for anything. They're just sounds we make....

wesleywt• 3 years ago

Not every opinion is worth your time.

kitd• 3 years ago

This reminds of "Argue well by losing" [1]. The purpose of debate shouldn't be to win or lose, but to reach consensus.

In addition, the ancients of the classical world regarded "Rhetoric" (ie the ability to debate) as being the highest form of intelligence. It required not only a deep understanding of the reasoning behind your own opinion but also an equally deep understanding of that of your collocutors. Ie, you should be able to argue in favour of his/her point as well as your own, and as well as he/she can. That takes wisdom and humility that most today seem to lack.

[1] https://haacked.com/archive/2013/10/21/argue-well-by-losing....

semireg• 3 years ago

This TED talk “on being wrong” has stuck with me over the years.

https://www.ted.com/talks/kathryn_schulz_on_being_wrong

Especially the part about the coyote in loony tunes running off the edge and not falling until they realize they are wrong. That’s what feeling right feels like… until you realize you’re wrong.

bsuvc• 3 years ago

OP assumes everyone debating him is doing so in good faith.

These "learnings" he is taking to heart could very well be built on lies and ill intentions of those he is debating.

Sure, it is good to be open to new information, but it's not wrong to develop a worldview based on your own objective observations, experience, and research, that is firm and not open to sway by agenda-holding groups and individuals who seek to "enlighten you".

Malky• 3 years ago

don’t debate at all, just listen.

Just loved this.

baryphonic• 3 years ago

How peculiar that every "debate" this person has lost is in the same ideological direction. How would this person respond to:

- the Christian explaining that the resurrection of Jesus is a historical fact?

- the prosecutor describing the heinous crimes of the people she's put behind bars?

- the sibling of an addict denouncing opiates & opioids, meth, crack and the drug trade?

Where's the limit for this person when encountering:

- the pederast who describes his perversion as "love?"

- the practitioner of FGM who praises it as a "tradition?"

- the religious fanatic who believes God has told him to kill?

I hope the person would be at least open to the first set of people, and would be willing to "win" against the second set.

Overall, I think the framing is a bit wrong. Having an open mind doesn't mean you have to stick your finger in the wind, and having firmly held beliefs without experience, knowledge or wisdom doesn't mean you need to preach them vociferously. Certain things are true, and certain perspectives are not so valuable.

fleddr2• 3 years ago

Agree, in the same ideological direction and all of them inconsequential. It's very easy to have an "open mind" when no stakes are involved.

ben30• 3 years ago

Im reminded of the book “Getting to yes” by Roger Fisher.

“ In any negotiation, he wrote—even with terrorists—it was vital to separate the people from the problem; to focus on the underlying interests of both sides, rather than stake out unwavering positions; and to explore all possible options before making a decision.”

https://www.economist.com/obituary/2012/09/15/roger-fisher

mythrwy• 3 years ago

There's a time and a place for vigorous debate in support of your position, and a time and a place for listening non-judgmentally with an open mind. Most things don't matter all that much and aren't worth fighting about. Some things are.

Some people just like to fight at every opportunity, and others are too cowardly to fight when they should.

curiousllama• 3 years ago

I used to think this too, but found it was mostly a manifestation of my intellectual cowardice, not a coherent position itself.

An open-minded willingness to change one’s mind is admirable. But if you change your mind too often, you end up thinking less yourself - you’re outsourcing learning. It should get incrementally more difficult to change your mind the more you learn. Otherwise, you’re just collecting facts, not actually understanding anything.

Besides, you don’t really hope you’re wrong, and it’s a bit arrogant to say so. Have you ascended above these petty emotions of the flesh? Being wrong is A Bad Thing, and “I believe I’m wrong” is an oxymoron.

I think a better approach is “I’m always willing to change my mind, and hope I never have to.” I’m often wrong, about things of which I’m unaware, and I always pursue the opportunity to be less wrong.

But it’s a worse title.

JohnFen3• 3 years ago

But discovering that you're wrong is a great thing. It means you've become just a little bit less ignorant -- and we're all ignorant of more things than not.

JohnFen3• 3 years ago

This is a special case of one of my life mottos: I've never learned anything by being right.

qwertox5• 3 years ago

I don't get it.

There are many sex workers which are forced to do this job, some even under threat.

I also don't see an issue using analogies to explain things.

Was the Hindu person poor itself? If so, how has this person dealt with sickness in the family?

Any religion is a perfect recipe for peace, it just depends on the fairness and good will of those practicing it.

Why should partying not be a good thing as long as it is done in a good balance, and why would an ugly tattoo require an explanation, unless a good story can be told about it?

What does any of the above have to do with stupidity? I certainly wouldn't want to lose a debate about why murdering someone can be considered a good thing.

I just don't understand the spirit in which that article has been written. But then again, "TED speaker" kind of explains it a bit.

aeturnum• 3 years ago

This does have enormous TED energy.

I think the idea is to quickly touch on profiles of people whose world views (apparently?) contradict the authors and then to promote the idea of listening, with an open heart, to people who you believe at the outset are misguided. I think this is because it's common for us to find powerful new insights into how people see the world or feel about things when temporarily we set aside our judgements and understand the internal logic of people we disagree with? That people make more sense once you see things with their eyes, and then also the world makes more sense because those people want things in the world too?

I dunno, it's pretty fluffy.

BeetleB4• 3 years ago

I certainly wouldn't want to lose a debate about why murdering someone can be considered a good thing.

Serious question: What is the benefit of winning this debate?

dgfitz• 3 years ago

I sure wouldn’t be upset if someone murdered Putin, ideally 11 months ago.

qwertox5• 3 years ago

It would be someone presenting me this argument, like one can assume other people were presenting the author their arguments "pro sex work" which the author apparently never considered.

Someone presenting me an argument that "murdering someone can be considered a good thing" and them wanting me to lose this argument is something which I would not want to happen.

I think the issue in that sentence was the double negative in addition to the lack of definition of who is proposing that argument.

But assuming you did not get confused: I would prefer to live in a society where it's considered a good thing to not murder others and if this were up for debate, I sure hope I would not get convinced of the opposite, which would mean "losing the debate" in the way the author means it.

Existenceblinks• 3 years ago

In english this seems to be called "debate bro culture"? In my language it's called like "debate horny". The gist of this thing is oppose to loseless context, so there's always part of context that is lost. Debate is close to talking in analogy. It will leads you to something but not the thing as a whole.

rocknor• 3 years ago

The Hindu explains why poverty doesn’t upset her.

So according to the author me and my community are not upset by poverty and hence are not doing anything to fix it.

https://economictimes.indiatimes.com/news/india/india-lifted...

https://gdc.unicef.org/resource/report-india-lifted-271-mill...

Who is this author again and why are people listening to a charlatan like him?

russelldjimmy• 3 years ago

It seems to me that the author spoke about one particular Hindu they met who was not upset by their state of poverty. It’s not clear to me that they claimed that your community is not upset by it, and is not doing anything to fix it. Help me with clarity.

manquer3• 3 years ago

If it has nothing do with her being hindu or beliefs generated from religion then why is that fact she is hindu relevant ?.

It is like saying a short or bald person came to me and said poverty doesn't bother them.

If I was short or bald then I am going to be offended by that.

karaterobot2• 3 years ago

her

I think you're extrapolating. Author is very clearly just talking about an individual, not a group. No need to get outraged.

manquer3• 3 years ago

But he is, he characterized that person as a Hindu,he didn't say a friend or a neighbour or whatever else he could have described her by.

The implication in labelling her hindu is that this a common or known position amongst Hindus?.

fleddr2• 3 years ago

"So according to the author me and my community..."

No, not you and your community. He said no such thing. Don't put words into other people's mouth.

owenfi• 3 years ago

A corollary that helped me take criticism less personally: a friend once said “I ONLY like negative feedback”.

They went on to explain that positive feedback/compliments weren’t helpful to them because they couldn’t grow from it. The starkness of the statement was what I needed to recognize it.

diffxx• 3 years ago

Interesting perspective. This requires a level of inner strength that many of us do not always have. Increasingly though I realize that I don't need a lot of verbal feedback. You can tell a lot just by people's physical reactions to you. And the corollary is that I notice that there are some people that I try and shut down with body language to get them to leave me alone.

canada2us• 3 years ago

Now here is a new problem: The other side wins. The examples are that there are no consequences of the debate, which is great. But in reality, there are consequences (some of them are negative) if you lose the debate, e.g., job interview.

JAlexoid10• 3 years ago

I have read multiple times, that debates cannot be won or lost.

People don't change their minds as a result of debates, thus it's impossible to win or lose a debate.

What the author talks about isn't a debate, but rather learning.

Octokiddie• 3 years ago

... I don’t want to convince anyone of my existing perspective. I would rather be convinced of theirs. It’s more interesting to assume that they are right.

There's no need to assume anything. Ask good questions instead.

It might not seem like it, but asking questions is one of the most important skills there is. This skill is not taught in K-12. If anything, you're taught to assume that what you read/see is right. In many degree programs, you also won't be taught how to ask questions but rather repeat what you've read or heard, with some level of analysis.

The difference between good questions and bad questions often comes down to leading. The subtext of a leading question is that the asker is trying to push the askee in a particular direction. Those question tend to yield bad answers of the kind that won't convince you of much.

Better questions are interrogative-led. They start with words like "who", "where", "what" and "why", not words like "do" or "are". It takes practice to ask these kinds of questions and the follow-ups that are needed to actually be convinced by someone else's argument.

mikotodomo• 3 years ago

The way I always lose debates on social media is when a pedophile (or pedophile defender) argues with me. They have an answer for everything. I don't have that much time to be on screen to argue with them.

lazyeye• 3 years ago

I think the completely radical idea being rediscovered here is called humility.

pictur• 3 years ago

You can't understand people with empty arguments. on the contrary, you get prejudices or wrong impressions about them. I think it makes more sense to listen to people to understand. If you want to understand.

AlbertCory• 3 years ago

Great analysis. I'd extend it to "interview." I had a chance to do some interviews on a podcast (for a change, I'll dispense with the shameless self-promotion and not link to it), and I had a chance to practice this. I tried to remember, "the listener is not here to listen to ME; they're here to listen to the interviewee."

Also sometimes watching the old Dick Cavett show on OTA. It's a miracle that they ever let a guy like him on television. He actually talked to his guests, rather than reading off some cue cards his producers gave him.

zh3• 3 years ago

This reminds me Bertrand Russells's "The fundamental cause of the trouble is that in the modern world the stupid are cocksure while the intelligent are full of doubt".

Though in my experience a lot of very intelligent people are pretty cocksure [0] and could do with a dose of humility.

[0] Ref. the word 'cocksure', not that HN will ban me, but twitter might - cf. https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-norfolk-64451977

fedeb95• 3 years ago

Sadly sometimes our desires aren't met

saeranv• 3 years ago

But what about the person who argues that you should want to win every debate!?!?

collyw• 3 years ago

Get yourself over to reddit, the best debaters ion the world. Appeal to authority almost every time.

zestyping• 3 years ago

When your goal is simply to learn, then you can listen instead of debating.

Sometimes the outcome matters, though. Sometimes there is justice, well-being, or kindness at stake.

Connor_Creegan• 3 years ago

Obviously not every convo needs to be a duh-bate. but "works for me/them" is a pretty low bar for veracity or moral permissibility.

branko_d• 3 years ago

There are three kinds of debate:

- Debate where the goal is to learn.

- Debate where the goal is to persuade your opponent.

- Debate where the goal is to persuade the audience.

The first is good for your soul, the second for you ego and the third for your political career.

I want to lose every debate

Related Stories