3 ms·
This answer you've written is one of the reasons why I keep coming back to HN. I think I expect most online conversations to devolve into ad hominem attacks, wh
by jimkleiber 6y ago
This answer you've written is one of the reasons why I keep coming back to HN. I think I expect most online conversations to devolve into ad hominem attacks, whether towards me or the third party to whom we refer, and yet this didn't. I worried it may become antagonistic, but on the contrary, I feel grateful for what you've said and how you've given me more to think about.
I often prefer dialogue to debate—a conversation of cooperative learning instead of competitive proving.
- jimkleiber 6y agoOh, and the LessWrong article confused me lol. I'll take another look when I'm in a more calm, less rushed, state of being :-D
- fossuser 6y agoYeah it's a little unnecessarily complicated with the many worlds bit. The main idea is a clever arguer can start with any conclusion and then retroactively select the points that support their conclusion while ignoring any evidence or points that contradict it. If you do this then the points you bring up don't inform much because you've already decided the conclusion based on something else (in the example it's whoever paid the most for their arguments). It's better to start with trying to understand things and then using what you learn to inform a conclusion.