4 ms·

What's wrong with cross-examination?

by daffy 6y ago

divbzero 6y ago
I think the gist is to avoid aggressively picking apart minor details, and instead discuss the main points. This is in line with another section of the guidelines: “Please respond to the strongest plausible interpretation of what someone says, not a weaker one that's easier to criticize. Assume good faith.”
- zepto 6y ago
  It’s a good idea in principle, the problem is that the devil is often in the detail and people can say things that seem broadly like a decent argument while slipping in details (whether intentionally or not) that completely reverse the meaning or make the meaning quite different. This is why cross examination in needed in trials - of course everyone tries to make a plausible argument, so noticing the incongruities is important. Assuming good faith and cross examining are not mutually exclusive.
  - dang 6y ago
    Pointing out, or asking about, incongruities is fine. How one does it makes a difference, as does the intention with which one does it. If you want to call all of that cross-examination, that's fine, but in that case we're using the term differently. The main distinction the guidelines are trying to draw is the one between open exchange and destroying enemies.
    - zepto 6y ago
      That might actually be a better way of saying it then. I think it’s clearer and more direct and has less of an implication of being overly deferential to bad arguments.
technofiend 6y ago
Cross-examination can be perceived as hostile, particularly if conducted as you might see in a court of law.
dang 6y ago
airstrike answered this nicely: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23451214 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23451214. In curious conversation, people want to know what the other person really thinks and what their experience has been like. In cross-examination, the goal is to defeat an enemy, so people are aggressive, try to make the other person seem as dumb or awful as they can, and generally seek to back them into a corner. In one case the goal is to receive information from others' comments, in the other case it is to fire weapons into them. One can't do both at the same time. I think there are even physiological reasons for this: one is in a very different state when doing the one vs. doing the other. Moreover, since curiosity evokes more curiosity and aggression evokes more aggression, the effects are systemic, meaning they apply to the site as a whole. We must choose which one we want, and we choose curiosity. https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=true&query=by%3Adang%20curiosity%20optimiz&sort=byDate&type=comment https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=true&que...

What's wrong with cross-examination?

by daffy 6y ago

What's wrong with cross-examination?

I think the gist is to avoid aggressively picking apart minor details, and instead discuss the main points. This is in line with another section of the guidelines: “Please respond to the strongest plausible interpretation of what someone says, not a weaker one that's easier to criticize. Assume good faith.”

zepto 6y ago
It’s a good idea in principle, the problem is that the devil is often in the detail and people can say things that seem broadly like a decent argument while slipping in details (whether intentionally or not) that completely reverse the meaning or make the meaning quite different. This is why cross examination in needed in trials - of course everyone tries to make a plausible argument, so noticing the incongruities is important. Assuming good faith and cross examining are not mutually exclusive.
- dang 6y ago
  Pointing out, or asking about, incongruities is fine. How one does it makes a difference, as does the intention with which one does it. If you want to call all of that cross-examination, that's fine, but in that case we're using the term differently. The main distinction the guidelines are trying to draw is the one between open exchange and destroying enemies.
  - zepto 6y ago
    That might actually be a better way of saying it then. I think it’s clearer and more direct and has less of an implication of being overly deferential to bad arguments.

technofiend 6y ago

Cross-examination can be perceived as hostile, particularly if conducted as you might see in a court of law.

dang 6y ago

airstrike answered this nicely: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23451214 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23451214. In curious conversation, people want to know what the other person really thinks and what their experience has been like. In cross-examination, the goal is to defeat an enemy, so people are aggressive, try to make the other person seem as dumb or awful as they can, and generally seek to back them into a corner. In one case the goal is to receive information from others' comments, in the other case it is to fire weapons into them. One can't do both at the same time. I think there are even physiological reasons for this: one is in a very different state when doing the one vs. doing the other. Moreover, since curiosity evokes more curiosity and aggression evokes more aggression, the effects are systemic, meaning they apply to the site as a whole. We must choose which one we want, and we choose curiosity. https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=true&query=by%3Adang%20curiosity%20optimiz&sort=byDate&type=comment https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=true&que...