10 ms·

Kids, Would You Please Start Fighting

171 points by _dps 9y ago

_dps 9y ago
The article quotes studies claiming that people who grow up with conflict in their personal lives are more likely to be comfortable with differing opinions and certain forms of creative debate. Since there's seemingly some benefit of exposure to these kinds of negative experiences, they mention advice on how to mitigate the negative aspect of conflict. But I think it's actually great advice to teach children/students these civil, but pseudo-adversarial skills as general purpose cooperative reasoning tools completely independent of conflict-management. From the article: • Frame it as a debate, rather than a conflict. • Argue as if you’re right but listen as if you’re wrong. • Make the most respectful interpretation of the other person’s perspective. • Acknowledge where you agree with your critics and what you’ve learned from them. These behaviors correlate very strongly with the people I personally have found most intelligent and productive in group settings.
- iovrthoughtthis 9y ago
  This is fantastic advise for effective debate. I would add: * agree on the meaning of the words you use. * be upfront about how willing you are to be wrong / change your mind (I phrase this as "what would have to be true for you to accept I am right" and vice versa for my beliefs).
  - _dps 9y ago
    I really like the part about agreeing on words, and I'd riff on a bit more with two sub-patterns i've found useful 1) "I see when you say X you mean [specific definition]. Given that definition I agree with you, but I disagree with the definition" 2) "When I say X it seems it means [specific definition] to you. Rather than fight over the definition I will avoid saying X and use different terms so we can keep moving"
    - thomastjeffery 9y ago
      This is a really problem with some specific topics like copyright, where the terms were invented for propaganda. We really need a better word than "piracy".
  - mistermann 9y ago
    > be upfront about how willing you are to be wrong / change your mind (I phrase this as "what would have to be true for you to accept I am right" and vice versa for my beliefs). This would often be a highly productive way to start the discussion, because very often the situation is that one side or the other is vehemently not willing to have their mind changed, which I'd argue is the case with most arguments you'll see on Facebook or Reddit.
  - woodandsteel 9y ago
    * agree on the meaning of the words you use. Agreed, this is very important. One way to handle it when the two of you have different meanings for a word is to keep using the word, but add a different qualifier in front for each meaning, i.e. logical proof versus empirical proof.
- Mithaldu 9y ago
  > debate The last time i had a conversation with an american trained in "debate", it was quickly obvious that reality and truth were the last thing on his mind, but scoring rethoric points was the first. The rest of your points are good, but i think if you start it out with the word debate, many americans are going to mentally short-circuit to that style of conflict, instead of "respectful conversation".
  - _dps 9y ago
    I haven't found any nationality to have exclusive rights to turning civil debate into a partisan shouting match. But I agree that some people do have that tendency. Still, such people seem even less likely to be productive if they approach the situation as open conflict — hence the advice to reframe conflict as debate, not to insert debate where it is otherwise unnecessary.
    - Mithaldu 9y ago
      > nationality I mention it specifically because, in all the nationalities i have talked to, i.e. in my personal experience, the USA is the only one to have a high school debate club culture that's widely spread.
      - _dps 9y ago
        At a minimum, I personally know of active school/university debate societies in the United Kingdom and Australia. And while it sounds like you've had some bad experiences, my personal sense is that the majority of people with formal debate experience are actually better, on average, at staying within the bounds of civil discourse. Having said that, there is indeed an overly aggressive subset of the population that is, as I think you're suggesting, attracted to debate for all the wrong reasons. But based on the literally hundreds I've met, I'd say as a population they are on average more civil and more likely to follow norms of "fair argument". They are much more likely to aspire to be erudite policy wonks than to be angry talk show pundits. YMMV obviously.
        9y ago
- fallous 9y ago
  Note that being comfortable with differing opinions and being comfortable with certain forms of creative debate are two different things. A debate should be a voluntary contest between parties and is only possible if they both share and agree upon a base set of principles as the foundation for the debate. If an atheist and a theist "debate" the existence of God(s) it isn't a resolvable argument since their divergence of principles is at a fundamental level and the only thing they share are certain derived points that accidentally coincide. In this case the parties must either be comfortable with the fact that they differ in opinions or they are not. This does beg the question as to when one should be comfortable with a differing opinion. I suspect that those who have encountered real conflict having a larger comfort area for differences due to their understanding that conflict invites real costs. In the case where legitimate debate can occur, the rules I usually try and follow/enforce are: 1. Establish the goal all parties wish to achieve (i.e., define success). 2. Establish the point at where our agreement on methods diverged. 3. All ideas should be orphans in that they have no privileges purely due to parentage. 4. Never ascribe to malice that which can adequately be explained by incompetence or ignorance. 5. Be ruthlessly honest about your own position, to include disclosing the weaknesses you know or suspect as well as disclosing the strengths of the opposing position (especially if the parties holding that position do not know it or present it themselves). Personally I become uncomfortable when there is unanimous agreement on positions I know to be legitimately debatable, even if I hold that position. In those instances I will promptly switch sides and argue against my own position to insure it has been properly vetted. In my experience the point that most reliably invites emotional response is failure of #3 since it's hard to move from "my idea" to "the idea." The most insidious failure is at #1 due to either misunderstanding or dishonesty since it corrupts the entire effort but can be very difficult to discover.
  - andromeduck 9y ago
    Debate isn't always about changing the opinion of the person you're debating with. You can debate to win the audience.
    - DoreenMichele 9y ago
      The best debates aren't about winning at all. They are about getting at the truth and broadening your understanding of a topic by exposing yourself to different points of view which can cast light on personal blind spots or holes in your knowledge.
- bayonetz 9y ago
  Good points though the term debate has become a dirty word to me. I frame it as preferring "dialogue" over "debate" where dialogue refers the kind of exchange you laid out and debate is more of a conflict or competition where the aim is to win rather than advance truth. That's why it's so important to be transparent about your goals and values in an exchange. It's frustrating to let your guard down for a dialogue and find out via blindside that the asshole on the other side of the table only knows how to debate.
  - _dps 9y ago
    If you're just talking about how one word or another primes people's behavior I have no quibble; in fact I may even support such a substitution in some cases. But I think you are too harsh on the idea of winning as inherently bad. If you are a saint and your opponent is a nazi, you fundamentally disagree on what the truth is. The way you advance truth is by winning (i.e. persuading an audience, or perhaps even your opponent, that your views are correct). I agree that in general it's best to avoid zero-sum framing. But some ideas are simply incompatible with other ideas, and in those cases the pursuit of truth is inextricably tied to winning a contest.
    - bayonetz 9y ago
      In my experience, there isn't a whole lot of "winning" in scenarios of fundamental disagreement. Sides just dig in and entrench. Not much to be done there I think. My debate vs dialogue distinction is more about the priming of behavior, as you call it, in the more common scenarios that are well short of fundamental disagreement -- scenarios at risk of turning in to a contest instead of maintaining the spirit of a mutual truth expedition.
      - iovrthoughtthis 9y ago
        "Winning" is hardly ever productive.
  - nine_k 9y ago
    The problem is that a "debate" where winning is the aim and truth is not are pretty common. Certain exposure to them, understanding their basic mechanics, and the skill of telling them from a truth-seeking "dialog", would be valuable for kids. It's important for the same reason why understanding cognitive biases is important.
- davesque 9y ago
  "Argue as if you're right but listen as if you're wrong." How about arguing and listening as if you know exactly as much as you do and nothing more? It's not hard to imagine a case in which both arguing "as if you're right" and listening "as if you're wrong" would be inappropriate or down right foolish.
- woodandsteel 9y ago
  >• Argue as if you’re right but listen as if you’re wrong. On the listening side, something that often helps is what is often called active listening. This is where you say back to the person what you think they are saying, and they agree you got it right or correct it until you do. It is amazing how this can often lower the emotional level and make the disagreement more productive.
rainbowmverse 9y ago
I don't know if NYT's assessment of the study is accurate (the study is paywalled), but here's the key paragraph for people trying to decide if this or the study is worth reading: >> It turns out that highly creative adults often grow up in families full of tension. Not fistfights or personal insults, but real disagreements. When adults in their early 30s were asked to write imaginative stories, the most creative ones came from those whose parents had the most conflict a quarter-century earlier. Their parents had clashing views on how to raise children. They had different values and attitudes and interests. And when highly creative architects and scientists were compared with their technically skilled but less original peers, the innovators often had more friction in their families. As the psychologist Robert Albert put it, “the creative person-to-be comes from a family that is anything but harmonious, one with a ‘wobble.’ ” Referenced study: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0092656698922401 http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0092656698... There's another study linked, but the rest is anecdata built on famous people that, personally, wasn't too illuminating on a skim. It might be interesting to read for the narrative.
- sillysaurus3 9y ago
  Sci-hub has it. Non-paywalled: http://doi.org.https.sci-hub.hk/10.1006/jrpe.1998.2240 http://doi.org.https.sci-hub.hk/10.1006/jrpe.1998.2240
hmwhy 9y ago
I really don't want to say this in an uncivil way but can people please stop spamming Hacker News with these articles full of cherry-picked scientific studies from New York Times or can their posts be automatically weighted less if their goal is to promote articles from NYT? It's really frustrating having to spend a couple of minutes to read seemingly interesting articles only to find out a few minutes later it's probably someone writing for his own gain (well... popular media). The first scientific journal article that is linked to appears to use the word "parental" to refer to the relationship between a child and her/his parents instead of, and as suggested in the article, between parents (see "parental warmth" and "parental restrictiveness" in the abstract of the journal article). The second scientific journal article that is linked to is used to argue that "architects and scientists were compared with their technically skilled but less original peers"—but the article that is linked to only mentions architects (apologies, but not actually too sorry, if it's actually because of the pay wall and that the authors did not mention scientist in the abstract). This is probably considered an emotional, and potentially uncivil, response. But it's really, really frustrating. Just because some guy has a PhD doesn't mean what they write is credible when they quote scientific journals—I know plenty of people who have PhDs but what they say are far from credible. I mean, is it even at all surprising that people who are subjected to an environment with more conflicting views (both good and bad) of any kind are probably less likely to comply and think more? EDIT: expansion of why I think the interpretation of the first article I mentioned is wrong and cherry-picked. Added emotional sentiment at the end.
- _dps 9y ago
  I'm not sure I should engage here, but since I submitted the article and you seem to have a big problem with it and consider it "spam" I'll just say: 1) I have no agenda to promote the NYT (feel free to check my submission history) 2) I personally have never seen anything like a "spamming" effort with respect to NYT articles here. If you have, perhaps consider it was a transient cluster of articles (which can happen from time to time for entirely benign reasons) I'm sorry the article frustrated you, and I think it's fine to point out possible problems with cited studies.
  - hmwhy 9y ago
deleted 9y ago
[deleted]
spodek 9y ago
Sam Harris impresses me in his podcasts when he has guests he disagrees with that the disagreements can become intense, but when they reach the end, he's back to friendly and cordial. It's often hard to disagree on content without anger or other personal emotions, but his doing it inspires me to improve my skill at it.
- TimJYoung 9y ago
  Good example - I was also going to mention Sam Harris. Another thing he does is state his guest's position in his own words, and then ask the guest if he got the position correct. It's a good way to start a discussion and avoids the occurrence of two people arguing about a caricature of each person's position, instead of their actual position.
cornyNetHandle 9y ago
I showed 'Crockers Rules', after Lee Daniel Crocker, to my mum and my sister over Christmas, as I thought it might help all of us indicate the level of acerbic comment we are currently able to process. "Declaring yourself to be operating by "Crocker's Rules" means that other people are allowed to optimize their messages for information, not for being nice to you. Crocker's Rules means that you have accepted full responsibility for the operation of your own mind - if you're offended, it's your fault. Anyone is allowed to call you a moron and claim to be doing you a favor. (Which, in point of fact, they would be. One of the big problems with this culture is that everyone's afraid to tell you you're wrong, or they think they have to dance around it.) Two people using Crocker's Rules should be able to communicate all relevant information in the minimum amount of time, without paraphrasing or social formatting. Obviously, don't declare yourself to be operating by Crocker's Rules unless you have that kind of mental discipline. Note that Crocker's Rules does not mean you can insult people; it means that other people don't have to worry about whether they are insulting you. Crocker's Rules are a discipline, not a privilege. Furthermore, taking advantage of Crocker's Rules does not imply reciprocity. How could it? Crocker's Rules are something you do for yourself, to maximize information received - not something you grit your teeth over and do as a favor."
- platz 9y ago
  How silicon valley.. maximize efficiency at the expense of all culture and social norms! No need for complex social relations, I will process information, more than ever before (because there is so much of it now!), like the great logical-positivist that I am! Moreover, I certainly do not have any political positions embedded in my norms-steamrolling worldview, because all there is, in fact, is information.
  - _dps 9y ago
    This seems like an uncharitable read. The whole point of Crocker Rules is that you opt in. No one forces you to accept Crocker Rules (that would indeed be steamrolling). You declare "feel free to say things that might insult me", not "I'm going to assume you don't mind being insulted". Personally, I've found this to be a very useful tool with people who are conflict-avoidant. I tell them "if you're afraid of offending me, please don't hesitate, I promise I won't get mad". Sometimes I go as far as to suggest something they might be thinking that might be offensive in order to get the ball rolling and show them there won't be negative consequences. For example: "Hey I wonder if you're concerned I'll be offended if you propose throwing out my work and replacing it. Don't worry, it's fine. I just want what's best for the project, so if you're holding back because you're concerned I'll be upset, you can relax."
muzani 9y ago
This is sort of why me and my wife pick fights with our kids where we can. We stress them to the point of snapping, then cool them down. It feels a little like bullying, but we cut back and emphasize that we still love them. My 5 year old daughter in particular inherits the stubbornness of both her parents. She often she says something she regrets immediately (e.g "I hate you!"), cries on realizing it, but refuses to take it back. We teach them that disagreements are perfectly normal. Differences in opinion should be embraced. And while you disagree with someone, you don't take it personally and dislike the person. Shows like My Little Pony are excellent at this. While these shows have a villain and plot, the drama and conflict in most of the episodes revolve around growing up and dealing with stark personality differences. Friends will argue a lot, but the shows highlight that this doesn't end a friendship. And even someone who was 'evil' can turn over a new leaf. She had a rough first week of school. Was picked on by a classmate, admitted she spent much of the day crying. But she goes home, opens up My Little Pony for inspiration. Then she's excited to go to school again. A couple of weeks later, she has solved the conflict with her classmate.
- hmwhy 9y ago
  This is from someone on the receiving end and is probably slightly older than your kids—I think it's great that you are teaching your kids how to deal with conflicts and making them think, but I'm not sure that stressing them to the point of snapping is a good thing. My dad did that to me and he still does it occasionally even when I'm "in the right"; I think he probably means well (he claims that he does when I confront him about it), but it's still an awful feeling that doesn't make me thankful of what he does or like him more. If you really do make your kids feel like that you are bullying them, maybe you should consider cutting it back a little.
  - twobyfour 9y ago
    Yeah, there's a very big difference between friendly debate and bullying. Having been exposed to both from my parents I can assert that one gave me life skills and the other gave me trauma and problems with interpersonal relationships that I'm still recovering from.
  - 9y ago
bjourne 9y ago
I agree with the message. I think that it is our civic duty to ensure that debates are possible. Because when a society transcends into Fascism, the first thing that is lost is the right to disagree. If it becomes impossible to question the prevailing dogma and everyone who attempts to do so is labelled a traitor or worse, then the path to totalitarianism is open. People should remember the Iraq war and especially the build-up to it. Debates were silenced by the rallying call to "Support our troops!" You couldn't claim that the war was a pointless hunt for oil engineered by the oil companies. Because that implied that the "war moms," those who let their sons enlist and fight the stupid war in Iraq, were doing something wrong. Telling it how it was, that whoever travels half-way cross the world to participate in a war against a people they should have no beef with, is committing state-sanctioned murder, was not allowed. I know that is polarizing, but polarizing is whatever a lot of people disagree with. It doesn't mean that it is factually incorrect. So the next time the US rallies the dogs of war, remember Iraq and what made that war possible. Because it will happen again. When Trump, or his successor, decides that "something has to be done" about North Korea, Iran or Syria, do break the decorum. Don't allow disagreement to become taboo because then history will repeat itself.
- true_religion 9y ago
  Traditionally, once the decision is made to go to war, all debate about the justifications for the war must end. Countries where the debate continues end up having a social split where part of the nation supports the war, and part does not. This kind of civil division is fatal during war time if your enemy isn't similarly hobbled. Any war, even the most worthy, is susceptible to having its justifications criticized but the consequences of not being unified during the conflict are so catastrophic that people prefer to criticise wars only after they have been won or lost.
  - arglebarnacle 9y ago
    That's certainly true about total war where the nation's survival is threatened by defeat, but it's not true about the kind of limited wars was have seen since world war 2. In fact, because these wars are limited wars for the world powers that start them, but total wars for the postcolonial states in the receiving end, I think it's very correct that the public e.g. in the US continue to aggressively question the rationale for war even after it's begun in e.g. Vietnam, Iraq, and so on. Henry Kissinger would certainly have been happier to see a US public united behind the Vietnam war effort because it would have made it easier to win in a geopolitical sense, but what about in a moral sense? The US wasn't threatened existentially by failure in Vietnam, and it's right that we didn't adopt the attitude expressed in your comment.
draw_down 9y ago
My experience in the workplace has mostly been that people either aren’t interested in considering counterpoints, or react to debate/argumentation as if it were an attack. So, I don’t do a whole lot of it these days, at work at least.
lifeformed 9y ago
A bit off-topic, but... How come when I click and drag on text on this article, instead of highlighting it, it goes to the next article?(!) What kind of UX is that?
danielam 9y ago
I would emphasize one background assumption, viz., the importance of the respect for and appreciation of truth. Otherwise, we slip into sophistry where we are less interested in truth and more interested in deploying words as weapons and instruments of power.
whatyoucantsay 9y ago
I wouldn't encourage children to fight but when children are accompanied by adults at all times and have all their conflicts mediated for them, it almost certainly stunts their social skills. Similarly, banning all physical contact in primary schools is a poor way to encourage emotional health... for any mammal. http://www.bbc.com/future/story/20131014-the-touching-moments-we-all-need http://www.bbc.com/future/story/20131014-the-touching-moment... https://stpauls.vxcommunity.com/Issue/Us-Experiment-On-Infants-Withholding-Affection/13213 https://stpauls.vxcommunity.com/Issue/Us-Experiment-On-Infan...
deleted 9y ago
[deleted]
joaomacp 9y ago
The media always focuses on the negative: if kids were really fighting more and being more aggressive, the titles wouldn't be "Kids are more corageous than their parents were". They would be more like "Did we create a violent world for our kids?" It's been proven that humans focus more on the negatives than the positives, so the media takes advantage of that with these type of headlines.
stretchwithme 9y ago
I wonder how technology could be used to enhance debate. What if each side of an argument had a fixed percentage of talk time, enforced by software? Would people ratchet down their arguments and stop interrupting each other? Would they conserve their time so they can get a lengthy last word? What if you actually LOST time when you interrupted the other side?
- flycaliguy 9y ago
  You might enjoy poking around some of the links here https://wiki.lesswrong.com/wiki/Debate_tools https://wiki.lesswrong.com/wiki/Debate_tools
pjkundert 9y ago
Or, perhaps restore training in the Scientific Method. A root of the growing divide between Left and Right is that neither party realizes how easily falsified their claims are. Scientists realize that they are wrong almost always, and that when they are right, their hypothesis is usually very narrowly defined. If people were trained to realize that they were almost always wrong by the time they reached 6th grade, you’d see a lot more openness to debate, and far fewer entrenched positions - and much more liberty allowed by/to everyone, I think. Presently, kids exit grade school pretty much believing that they are pretty much “right” in everything they believe. This is tragically false, and a foundation for a lifetime of deep disappointment.

171 points by _dps 9y ago

_dps 9y ago

The article quotes studies claiming that people who grow up with conflict in their personal lives are more likely to be comfortable with differing opinions and certain forms of creative debate. Since there's seemingly some benefit of exposure to these kinds of negative experiences, they mention advice on how to mitigate the negative aspect of conflict. But I think it's actually great advice to teach children/students these civil, but pseudo-adversarial skills as general purpose cooperative reasoning tools completely independent of conflict-management. From the article: • Frame it as a debate, rather than a conflict. • Argue as if you’re right but listen as if you’re wrong. • Make the most respectful interpretation of the other person’s perspective. • Acknowledge where you agree with your critics and what you’ve learned from them. These behaviors correlate very strongly with the people I personally have found most intelligent and productive in group settings.

iovrthoughtthis 9y ago
This is fantastic advise for effective debate. I would add: * agree on the meaning of the words you use. * be upfront about how willing you are to be wrong / change your mind (I phrase this as "what would have to be true for you to accept I am right" and vice versa for my beliefs).
- _dps 9y ago
  I really like the part about agreeing on words, and I'd riff on a bit more with two sub-patterns i've found useful 1) "I see when you say X you mean [specific definition]. Given that definition I agree with you, but I disagree with the definition" 2) "When I say X it seems it means [specific definition] to you. Rather than fight over the definition I will avoid saying X and use different terms so we can keep moving"
  - thomastjeffery 9y ago
    This is a really problem with some specific topics like copyright, where the terms were invented for propaganda. We really need a better word than "piracy".
- mistermann 9y ago
  > be upfront about how willing you are to be wrong / change your mind (I phrase this as "what would have to be true for you to accept I am right" and vice versa for my beliefs). This would often be a highly productive way to start the discussion, because very often the situation is that one side or the other is vehemently not willing to have their mind changed, which I'd argue is the case with most arguments you'll see on Facebook or Reddit.
- woodandsteel 9y ago
  * agree on the meaning of the words you use. Agreed, this is very important. One way to handle it when the two of you have different meanings for a word is to keep using the word, but add a different qualifier in front for each meaning, i.e. logical proof versus empirical proof.
Mithaldu 9y ago
> debate The last time i had a conversation with an american trained in "debate", it was quickly obvious that reality and truth were the last thing on his mind, but scoring rethoric points was the first. The rest of your points are good, but i think if you start it out with the word debate, many americans are going to mentally short-circuit to that style of conflict, instead of "respectful conversation".
- _dps 9y ago
  I haven't found any nationality to have exclusive rights to turning civil debate into a partisan shouting match. But I agree that some people do have that tendency. Still, such people seem even less likely to be productive if they approach the situation as open conflict — hence the advice to reframe conflict as debate, not to insert debate where it is otherwise unnecessary.
  - Mithaldu 9y ago
    > nationality I mention it specifically because, in all the nationalities i have talked to, i.e. in my personal experience, the USA is the only one to have a high school debate club culture that's widely spread.
    - _dps 9y ago
      At a minimum, I personally know of active school/university debate societies in the United Kingdom and Australia. And while it sounds like you've had some bad experiences, my personal sense is that the majority of people with formal debate experience are actually better, on average, at staying within the bounds of civil discourse. Having said that, there is indeed an overly aggressive subset of the population that is, as I think you're suggesting, attracted to debate for all the wrong reasons. But based on the literally hundreds I've met, I'd say as a population they are on average more civil and more likely to follow norms of "fair argument". They are much more likely to aspire to be erudite policy wonks than to be angry talk show pundits. YMMV obviously.
      - 9y ago
fallous 9y ago
Note that being comfortable with differing opinions and being comfortable with certain forms of creative debate are two different things. A debate should be a voluntary contest between parties and is only possible if they both share and agree upon a base set of principles as the foundation for the debate. If an atheist and a theist "debate" the existence of God(s) it isn't a resolvable argument since their divergence of principles is at a fundamental level and the only thing they share are certain derived points that accidentally coincide. In this case the parties must either be comfortable with the fact that they differ in opinions or they are not. This does beg the question as to when one should be comfortable with a differing opinion. I suspect that those who have encountered real conflict having a larger comfort area for differences due to their understanding that conflict invites real costs. In the case where legitimate debate can occur, the rules I usually try and follow/enforce are: 1. Establish the goal all parties wish to achieve (i.e., define success). 2. Establish the point at where our agreement on methods diverged. 3. All ideas should be orphans in that they have no privileges purely due to parentage. 4. Never ascribe to malice that which can adequately be explained by incompetence or ignorance. 5. Be ruthlessly honest about your own position, to include disclosing the weaknesses you know or suspect as well as disclosing the strengths of the opposing position (especially if the parties holding that position do not know it or present it themselves). Personally I become uncomfortable when there is unanimous agreement on positions I know to be legitimately debatable, even if I hold that position. In those instances I will promptly switch sides and argue against my own position to insure it has been properly vetted. In my experience the point that most reliably invites emotional response is failure of #3 since it's hard to move from "my idea" to "the idea." The most insidious failure is at #1 due to either misunderstanding or dishonesty since it corrupts the entire effort but can be very difficult to discover.
- andromeduck 9y ago
  Debate isn't always about changing the opinion of the person you're debating with. You can debate to win the audience.
  - DoreenMichele 9y ago
    The best debates aren't about winning at all. They are about getting at the truth and broadening your understanding of a topic by exposing yourself to different points of view which can cast light on personal blind spots or holes in your knowledge.
bayonetz 9y ago
Good points though the term debate has become a dirty word to me. I frame it as preferring "dialogue" over "debate" where dialogue refers the kind of exchange you laid out and debate is more of a conflict or competition where the aim is to win rather than advance truth. That's why it's so important to be transparent about your goals and values in an exchange. It's frustrating to let your guard down for a dialogue and find out via blindside that the asshole on the other side of the table only knows how to debate.
- _dps 9y ago
  If you're just talking about how one word or another primes people's behavior I have no quibble; in fact I may even support such a substitution in some cases. But I think you are too harsh on the idea of winning as inherently bad. If you are a saint and your opponent is a nazi, you fundamentally disagree on what the truth is. The way you advance truth is by winning (i.e. persuading an audience, or perhaps even your opponent, that your views are correct). I agree that in general it's best to avoid zero-sum framing. But some ideas are simply incompatible with other ideas, and in those cases the pursuit of truth is inextricably tied to winning a contest.
  - bayonetz 9y ago
    In my experience, there isn't a whole lot of "winning" in scenarios of fundamental disagreement. Sides just dig in and entrench. Not much to be done there I think. My debate vs dialogue distinction is more about the priming of behavior, as you call it, in the more common scenarios that are well short of fundamental disagreement -- scenarios at risk of turning in to a contest instead of maintaining the spirit of a mutual truth expedition.
    - iovrthoughtthis 9y ago
      "Winning" is hardly ever productive.
- nine_k 9y ago
  The problem is that a "debate" where winning is the aim and truth is not are pretty common. Certain exposure to them, understanding their basic mechanics, and the skill of telling them from a truth-seeking "dialog", would be valuable for kids. It's important for the same reason why understanding cognitive biases is important.
davesque 9y ago
"Argue as if you're right but listen as if you're wrong." How about arguing and listening as if you know exactly as much as you do and nothing more? It's not hard to imagine a case in which both arguing "as if you're right" and listening "as if you're wrong" would be inappropriate or down right foolish.
woodandsteel 9y ago
>• Argue as if you’re right but listen as if you’re wrong. On the listening side, something that often helps is what is often called active listening. This is where you say back to the person what you think they are saying, and they agree you got it right or correct it until you do. It is amazing how this can often lower the emotional level and make the disagreement more productive.

rainbowmverse 9y ago

I don't know if NYT's assessment of the study is accurate (the study is paywalled), but here's the key paragraph for people trying to decide if this or the study is worth reading: >> It turns out that highly creative adults often grow up in families full of tension. Not fistfights or personal insults, but real disagreements. When adults in their early 30s were asked to write imaginative stories, the most creative ones came from those whose parents had the most conflict a quarter-century earlier. Their parents had clashing views on how to raise children. They had different values and attitudes and interests. And when highly creative architects and scientists were compared with their technically skilled but less original peers, the innovators often had more friction in their families. As the psychologist Robert Albert put it, “the creative person-to-be comes from a family that is anything but harmonious, one with a ‘wobble.’ ” Referenced study: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0092656698922401 http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0092656698... There's another study linked, but the rest is anecdata built on famous people that, personally, wasn't too illuminating on a skim. It might be interesting to read for the narrative.

sillysaurus3 9y ago
Sci-hub has it. Non-paywalled: http://doi.org.https.sci-hub.hk/10.1006/jrpe.1998.2240 http://doi.org.https.sci-hub.hk/10.1006/jrpe.1998.2240

hmwhy 9y ago

I really don't want to say this in an uncivil way but can people please stop spamming Hacker News with these articles full of cherry-picked scientific studies from New York Times or can their posts be automatically weighted less if their goal is to promote articles from NYT? It's really frustrating having to spend a couple of minutes to read seemingly interesting articles only to find out a few minutes later it's probably someone writing for his own gain (well... popular media). The first scientific journal article that is linked to appears to use the word "parental" to refer to the relationship between a child and her/his parents instead of, and as suggested in the article, between parents (see "parental warmth" and "parental restrictiveness" in the abstract of the journal article). The second scientific journal article that is linked to is used to argue that "architects and scientists were compared with their technically skilled but less original peers"—but the article that is linked to only mentions architects (apologies, but not actually too sorry, if it's actually because of the pay wall and that the authors did not mention scientist in the abstract). This is probably considered an emotional, and potentially uncivil, response. But it's really, really frustrating. Just because some guy has a PhD doesn't mean what they write is credible when they quote scientific journals—I know plenty of people who have PhDs but what they say are far from credible. I mean, is it even at all surprising that people who are subjected to an environment with more conflicting views (both good and bad) of any kind are probably less likely to comply and think more? EDIT: expansion of why I think the interpretation of the first article I mentioned is wrong and cherry-picked. Added emotional sentiment at the end.

_dps 9y ago
I'm not sure I should engage here, but since I submitted the article and you seem to have a big problem with it and consider it "spam" I'll just say: 1) I have no agenda to promote the NYT (feel free to check my submission history) 2) I personally have never seen anything like a "spamming" effort with respect to NYT articles here. If you have, perhaps consider it was a transient cluster of articles (which can happen from time to time for entirely benign reasons) I'm sorry the article frustrated you, and I think it's fine to point out possible problems with cited studies.
- hmwhy 9y ago

deleted 9y ago

[deleted]

spodek 9y ago

Sam Harris impresses me in his podcasts when he has guests he disagrees with that the disagreements can become intense, but when they reach the end, he's back to friendly and cordial. It's often hard to disagree on content without anger or other personal emotions, but his doing it inspires me to improve my skill at it.

TimJYoung 9y ago
Good example - I was also going to mention Sam Harris. Another thing he does is state his guest's position in his own words, and then ask the guest if he got the position correct. It's a good way to start a discussion and avoids the occurrence of two people arguing about a caricature of each person's position, instead of their actual position.

cornyNetHandle 9y ago

I showed 'Crockers Rules', after Lee Daniel Crocker, to my mum and my sister over Christmas, as I thought it might help all of us indicate the level of acerbic comment we are currently able to process. "Declaring yourself to be operating by "Crocker's Rules" means that other people are allowed to optimize their messages for information, not for being nice to you. Crocker's Rules means that you have accepted full responsibility for the operation of your own mind - if you're offended, it's your fault. Anyone is allowed to call you a moron and claim to be doing you a favor. (Which, in point of fact, they would be. One of the big problems with this culture is that everyone's afraid to tell you you're wrong, or they think they have to dance around it.) Two people using Crocker's Rules should be able to communicate all relevant information in the minimum amount of time, without paraphrasing or social formatting. Obviously, don't declare yourself to be operating by Crocker's Rules unless you have that kind of mental discipline. Note that Crocker's Rules does not mean you can insult people; it means that other people don't have to worry about whether they are insulting you. Crocker's Rules are a discipline, not a privilege. Furthermore, taking advantage of Crocker's Rules does not imply reciprocity. How could it? Crocker's Rules are something you do for yourself, to maximize information received - not something you grit your teeth over and do as a favor."

platz 9y ago
How silicon valley.. maximize efficiency at the expense of all culture and social norms! No need for complex social relations, I will process information, more than ever before (because there is so much of it now!), like the great logical-positivist that I am! Moreover, I certainly do not have any political positions embedded in my norms-steamrolling worldview, because all there is, in fact, is information.
- _dps 9y ago
  This seems like an uncharitable read. The whole point of Crocker Rules is that you opt in. No one forces you to accept Crocker Rules (that would indeed be steamrolling). You declare "feel free to say things that might insult me", not "I'm going to assume you don't mind being insulted". Personally, I've found this to be a very useful tool with people who are conflict-avoidant. I tell them "if you're afraid of offending me, please don't hesitate, I promise I won't get mad". Sometimes I go as far as to suggest something they might be thinking that might be offensive in order to get the ball rolling and show them there won't be negative consequences. For example: "Hey I wonder if you're concerned I'll be offended if you propose throwing out my work and replacing it. Don't worry, it's fine. I just want what's best for the project, so if you're holding back because you're concerned I'll be upset, you can relax."

muzani 9y ago

This is sort of why me and my wife pick fights with our kids where we can. We stress them to the point of snapping, then cool them down. It feels a little like bullying, but we cut back and emphasize that we still love them. My 5 year old daughter in particular inherits the stubbornness of both her parents. She often she says something she regrets immediately (e.g "I hate you!"), cries on realizing it, but refuses to take it back. We teach them that disagreements are perfectly normal. Differences in opinion should be embraced. And while you disagree with someone, you don't take it personally and dislike the person. Shows like My Little Pony are excellent at this. While these shows have a villain and plot, the drama and conflict in most of the episodes revolve around growing up and dealing with stark personality differences. Friends will argue a lot, but the shows highlight that this doesn't end a friendship. And even someone who was 'evil' can turn over a new leaf. She had a rough first week of school. Was picked on by a classmate, admitted she spent much of the day crying. But she goes home, opens up My Little Pony for inspiration. Then she's excited to go to school again. A couple of weeks later, she has solved the conflict with her classmate.

hmwhy 9y ago
This is from someone on the receiving end and is probably slightly older than your kids—I think it's great that you are teaching your kids how to deal with conflicts and making them think, but I'm not sure that stressing them to the point of snapping is a good thing. My dad did that to me and he still does it occasionally even when I'm "in the right"; I think he probably means well (he claims that he does when I confront him about it), but it's still an awful feeling that doesn't make me thankful of what he does or like him more. If you really do make your kids feel like that you are bullying them, maybe you should consider cutting it back a little.
- twobyfour 9y ago
  Yeah, there's a very big difference between friendly debate and bullying. Having been exposed to both from my parents I can assert that one gave me life skills and the other gave me trauma and problems with interpersonal relationships that I'm still recovering from.
- 9y ago

bjourne 9y ago

I agree with the message. I think that it is our civic duty to ensure that debates are possible. Because when a society transcends into Fascism, the first thing that is lost is the right to disagree. If it becomes impossible to question the prevailing dogma and everyone who attempts to do so is labelled a traitor or worse, then the path to totalitarianism is open. People should remember the Iraq war and especially the build-up to it. Debates were silenced by the rallying call to "Support our troops!" You couldn't claim that the war was a pointless hunt for oil engineered by the oil companies. Because that implied that the "war moms," those who let their sons enlist and fight the stupid war in Iraq, were doing something wrong. Telling it how it was, that whoever travels half-way cross the world to participate in a war against a people they should have no beef with, is committing state-sanctioned murder, was not allowed. I know that is polarizing, but polarizing is whatever a lot of people disagree with. It doesn't mean that it is factually incorrect. So the next time the US rallies the dogs of war, remember Iraq and what made that war possible. Because it will happen again. When Trump, or his successor, decides that "something has to be done" about North Korea, Iran or Syria, do break the decorum. Don't allow disagreement to become taboo because then history will repeat itself.

true_religion 9y ago
Traditionally, once the decision is made to go to war, all debate about the justifications for the war must end. Countries where the debate continues end up having a social split where part of the nation supports the war, and part does not. This kind of civil division is fatal during war time if your enemy isn't similarly hobbled. Any war, even the most worthy, is susceptible to having its justifications criticized but the consequences of not being unified during the conflict are so catastrophic that people prefer to criticise wars only after they have been won or lost.
- arglebarnacle 9y ago
  That's certainly true about total war where the nation's survival is threatened by defeat, but it's not true about the kind of limited wars was have seen since world war 2. In fact, because these wars are limited wars for the world powers that start them, but total wars for the postcolonial states in the receiving end, I think it's very correct that the public e.g. in the US continue to aggressively question the rationale for war even after it's begun in e.g. Vietnam, Iraq, and so on. Henry Kissinger would certainly have been happier to see a US public united behind the Vietnam war effort because it would have made it easier to win in a geopolitical sense, but what about in a moral sense? The US wasn't threatened existentially by failure in Vietnam, and it's right that we didn't adopt the attitude expressed in your comment.

draw_down 9y ago

My experience in the workplace has mostly been that people either aren’t interested in considering counterpoints, or react to debate/argumentation as if it were an attack. So, I don’t do a whole lot of it these days, at work at least.

lifeformed 9y ago

A bit off-topic, but... How come when I click and drag on text on this article, instead of highlighting it, it goes to the next article?(!) What kind of UX is that?

danielam 9y ago

I would emphasize one background assumption, viz., the importance of the respect for and appreciation of truth. Otherwise, we slip into sophistry where we are less interested in truth and more interested in deploying words as weapons and instruments of power.

whatyoucantsay 9y ago

I wouldn't encourage children to fight but when children are accompanied by adults at all times and have all their conflicts mediated for them, it almost certainly stunts their social skills. Similarly, banning all physical contact in primary schools is a poor way to encourage emotional health... for any mammal. http://www.bbc.com/future/story/20131014-the-touching-moments-we-all-need http://www.bbc.com/future/story/20131014-the-touching-moment... https://stpauls.vxcommunity.com/Issue/Us-Experiment-On-Infants-Withholding-Affection/13213 https://stpauls.vxcommunity.com/Issue/Us-Experiment-On-Infan...

deleted 9y ago

[deleted]

joaomacp 9y ago

The media always focuses on the negative: if kids were really fighting more and being more aggressive, the titles wouldn't be "Kids are more corageous than their parents were". They would be more like "Did we create a violent world for our kids?" It's been proven that humans focus more on the negatives than the positives, so the media takes advantage of that with these type of headlines.

stretchwithme 9y ago

I wonder how technology could be used to enhance debate. What if each side of an argument had a fixed percentage of talk time, enforced by software? Would people ratchet down their arguments and stop interrupting each other? Would they conserve their time so they can get a lengthy last word? What if you actually LOST time when you interrupted the other side?

flycaliguy 9y ago
You might enjoy poking around some of the links here https://wiki.lesswrong.com/wiki/Debate_tools https://wiki.lesswrong.com/wiki/Debate_tools

pjkundert 9y ago

Or, perhaps restore training in the Scientific Method. A root of the growing divide between Left and Right is that neither party realizes how easily falsified their claims are. Scientists realize that they are wrong almost always, and that when they are right, their hypothesis is usually very narrowly defined. If people were trained to realize that they were almost always wrong by the time they reached 6th grade, you’d see a lot more openness to debate, and far fewer entrenched positions - and much more liberty allowed by/to everyone, I think. Presently, kids exit grade school pretty much believing that they are pretty much “right” in everything they believe. This is tragically false, and a foundation for a lifetime of deep disappointment.