13 ms·

How to have better arguments online

108 points by samizdis 6y ago

PicassoCTs 6y ago
What is needed is a discussion system, that works like a Shipyard, with the preordained goal that consent must be found. The various threads/sub-threads of the discussion which hold substance form the ribs of the ship, meanwhile elements that are valued as "relevant" to all, are auto-marked as a floor-contribution and back listed. The set of a society topic, that interests all and all can contribute - is not a topic by definition. I felt a great disturbance in the Add-Force. As if millions of voices cried out in terror, and were suddenly silenced. I fear something terrible has happened.
- jcelerier 6y ago
  I think you could kinda get there with Arguman, maybe with some small UI modifications ? e.g. see how https://en.arguman.org/following-a-rule-is-a-practice-grounded-in-the-mastery-of-techniques https://en.arguman.org/following-a-rule-is-a-practice-ground... works
  - AussieWog93 6y ago
    The problem with following a system bound by the logical rules of modern philosophy is that modern philosophy itself is an ineffective tool for making real-world, moral decisions. It's no accident that the most respected public intellectuals are all economists, linguists, (former) politicians, activists, authors, Canadian clinical psychologists, or even gay, bipolar quiz show hosts...
- qznc 6y ago
  I agree with you about the "preordained goal that consent must be found" but I'm not convinced that a technical aspects, like Arguman, can help here. You need the humans in board.
mellosouls 6y ago
This (good article) from The Guardian, who in their ludicrously-titled "Comment is Free" section and others ban discussions on any articles and opinion pieces they fear dissent on. In keeping with that - I note there is no comment section on this piece...
- jbullock35 6y ago
  > I note there is no comment section on this piece... The absence of a comment section may be consistent with one of the author's pieces of advice: "have the disagreement away from an audience."
- implements 6y ago
  The Guardian used to have a fantastic set of talkboards which they closed almost ten years ago to the day: “We didn't have any other viable option on Friday other than shutting the boards down without warning. None of us think that is good community management, and the reason we have been in this thread is because we regret that we had to do it this way.” I guess the name of the game is “comments supporting our journalism and from which we can extract value from without incurring liability or bad publicity”.
- JimDabell 6y ago
  > their ludicrously-titled "Comment is Free" section and others ban discussions It’s a reference to a landmark essay by a previous editor, CP Scott, and it’s more about sticking to the truth than publishing other people’s opinions: > A newspaper is of necessity something of a monopoly, and its first duty is to shun the temptations of monopoly. Its primary office is the gathering of news. At the peril of its soul it must see that the supply is not tainted. Neither in what it gives, nor in what it does not give, nor in the mode of presentation must the unclouded face of truth suffer wrong. Comment is free, but facts are sacred. [0] https://www.theguardian.com/sustainability/cp-scott-centenary-essay https://www.theguardian.com/sustainability/cp-scott-centenar...
- switch007 6y ago
  Titbit: the section name comes from the quote "Comment is free, but facts are sacred" by C. P. Scott, past editor of the Manchester Guardian. > In a 1921 essay marking the Manchester Guardian's centenary (at which time he had served nearly fifty years as editor), Scott put down his opinions on the role of the newspaper. He argued that the "primary office" of a newspaper is accurate news reporting, saying "comment is free, but facts are sacred". Even editorial comment has its responsibilities: "It is well to be frank; it is even better to be fair".
superbcarrot 6y ago
One rule that I have is that if I need to repeat or rephrase a previous comment without adding anything new, I need to stop the conversation. 1. Comment by me. 2. Response by someone else. If my reaction to 2 is to reiterate 1, that's a sign that the conversation isn't going anywhere and it's better if I don't participate further. Also, if you're on twitter, facebook or reddit, you need to heavily restrict your input and output and not take part in arguments altogether. Or just not be on those platforms in their current form.
- prox 6y ago
  I sometimes comment to show a bit of effort, when I agree with someone, like yours superbcarrot, something more than an easy upvote. Not everything has to be a discussion.
  - FartyMcFarter 6y ago
    There's a fine line between appreciative agreement and something that just decreases the signal to noise ratio though.
    - prox 6y ago
      Absolutely, I don’t do this with everything, but it’s more like an appreciation of effort to the commenter.
      - Hacker_IAM 6y ago
        Can you tell me how to earn karma points on Hacker news please reply me help.
        SuoDuanDao 6y ago
        Say something that smart people find edifying.
    - i_am_the_ai 6y ago
baxtr 6y ago
One thing that works in my experience is to find common ground first, meaning find things that both agree on and then take it from there. It sometimes create a joint problem solving mode.
- rapnie 6y ago
  Yes. I see that very often with tech-minded people when they take the kind of pointed logical reasoning that works best when discussing a technical solution in an issue tracker, to other media. With responses that start like "I strongly disagree..", bringing the other immediately in a position of defense.
- bitshiftfaced 6y ago
  Yes definitely. I try to find some more generalized, non-controversial statement that we both agree on. It's easier from that point to figure out what exactly we disagree on and why. It also serves as a litmus test. If the other person isn't even willing to take an agreeable tone to something that's not controversial, then I know I'd be spending my time more wisely by doing something else.
slx26 6y ago
Let's imagine we have a group of 100 people and we want them to reach consensus on a controverted topic. Let's apply a divide and conquer approach: pair people 1 on 1, and if they can agree (even if the agreement involves different resolutions depending on personal preferences), you join them with another group of 2 and repeat the process. Now, why doesn't this work? Well, this could work if people's opinions were static and perfectly stated on the first try. But in practice, and even under an ideal setup, people will be changing opinions too fast to ever be able to reach an equilibrium. They might realize that what they previously stated doesn't really match what they believe, or they didn't consider certain things that, when revealed, will now be considered important. And even more, this is if they were actively trying to reach a consensus while being patient, listening carefully, properly considering other people thoughts, expressing their own in a very precise and faithful way and being able to keep all that information in their heads and prioritize without bias. Which is not realistic. At this point, we might as well say that the problem is that the more people and points of view you introduce in a discussion, the more precise the consensus needs to be, and precise consensus is unachievable in a continually changing scenario. So, when we believe there's consensus on something, then it must be because either the problem is simple or vague enough, or the consensus itself is vague and imprecise. Which is fine too: vague consensus is not useless, nor it does make sense to reach perfect consensus for everything each time, but that's what we would be lead towards if we all tried to have "better arguments online"... which is never reached anyway at a big enough scale due to the issues previously described. (yeah, we don't need arguments to reach consensus, you can learn from what others say without agreeing with them, but... I don't even agree with myself, I'm gonna delete th-
- austincheney 6y ago
  If it’s 100 random people off the street serving as a fair representation of the larger population there are some fair assumptions you can make. 1. Half that population, 50, represent people who abhor originality in any form. This could be due to low intelligence, poor focus, loneliness, or a variety of other reasons. This group will accept any opinion that binds people together, such as knowingly false appeals to popularity. 2. About 12 of the people left over are narcissistic. They do not have a personal opinion on any argument. Instead they will identify that former 50 and do what they can to influence them, which often means fighting with other narcissistic people to build tribal factions of echo chambers. 3. About another 12 people are outsiders. They don’t care about any of the arguments presented. They will sit in a corner and do whatever the fuck they want. These are the hermits and are social as necessary for resources. 4. About 8 of the people are super objective. Weighted distribution of evidence and data matter most. These are your scientist. Nobody listens to them. These people are a pain in the ass to the sheep and wolves. 5. About another 8 are influencers. They spread ideas around and keep people informed. Sometimes they might even offer an original contribution, but it’s rare. 6. The final 10 people are comedians. Really though, the actual subject of any argument provided to that population is irrelevant. The motives of the various participants dictate the acceptance, validity, and attention of any subject.
_qulr 6y ago
If you state your opinion in a room with 3 other people, the chance that at least 1 of those people vehemently disagrees with your opinion are probably low. Especially since people self-select who to congregate with in rooms. If you state your opinion in a virtual "room" with 300 million other people, the chance that at least 1 of those people vehemently disagrees with your opinion is a certainty. Conflict is almost unavoidable on mass "social networks". Some people claim that you shouldn't live in an online "bubble", but I, uh, vehemently disagree. The only way to keep your sanity online is to live in a bubble, just as you do in real life, self-selecting which people to congregate with in rooms. You may ask, having said that, why am I here in the HN comments? That's a good question, and the answer is obviously that I'm insane. Does anyone find it weird that the author of the article claims that we actually need online arguments to "hone our thinking" or some such nonsense, but then immediately goes into an extended analogy about hostage negotiations? I don't know why we all need to become online hostage negotiators. If you want to learn something useful from a different perspective, go offline and read a good book. The author says, "Taking a disagreement offline can work, but it should only ever be seen as a second-best option." Why???? Everything else the author said suggests it's actually the best option. I really don't see the point in online arguments. Do they ever get resolved? Not in my experience. In fact I fully expect the same (non-)outcome in any replies to my comment.
- Barrin92 6y ago
  to a degree being able to associate with like-minded peers is good for peace of mind, but the author is right that conflict is also productive. This also applies in the real world. The actual Greek meaning of the word idiot is 'private person'. Someone who had withdrawn from the life in the polis, the political community. Over the last few decades we've seen a trend of this privatisation and segmentation or what Michael Sandel called 'skyboxification'. Everyone sorts into their own group, often commercially, rather than having shared experiences with people from different walks of life. The promise of the internet was that it would be easier for different people to have these interactions. It's sad that in reality it has devolved into a shouting match (it should be noted very often between people who are actually alike and engage in some Girardian terror of small differences, rather than between genuine strangers)
SunlightEdge 6y ago
I think learning to ignore posts that are or will become toxic is a helpful skill to learn. I have similar feelings about certain newspapers & articles too. As for discussion, no one ever wins an argument in my opinion. So whenever a discussion looks like it's heading that way the best thing to do is to drop it. Discussion is at its best when it's two open minded people politely exploring ideas
- Viliam1234 6y ago
  People have this instict that "silence is consent". Which makes sense in some circumstances. Like, when the whole group is paying attention to the same speaker, the speaker says something, there is an opportunity to object, and no one objects... you could conclude that either everyone agrees, or perhaps the speaker has so much social power that no one dares to object. -- So the idea is backed by either consent or power. This doesn't work on internet, where millions of people keep saying millions of things, and there is simply no time to respond to all of that. So you see something that was said, publicly, and no one objected... but that doesn't imply consent nor power. On the other hand, you can have an idea that 99% of people agree with, and the 1% would think twice to oppose it under their real name, but with anonymity someone is going to write "lol, if you think this you are a moron", and it's their comment that will likely remain unopposed. And one such person can make such comments on thousand places each day, if they are sufficiently obsessed with the topic. Our instincts are built of some assumptions that no longer work on internet. One possible approach is to learn new skills. Another possibility would be to design online interaction so that it better matches our instincts. (For example, any comment would disappear after one day, or after it was seen by 50 people.) This could potentially be interesting, but there is little financial incentive to explore this, because companies optimise for advertisements and virality, not user experience.
  - specialist 6y ago
    > People have this instinct that "silence is consent". Absolutely. Part of my impulse to speak up IRL comes from the example of the activism to tackle HIV/AIDS. Literally, silence meant death. That left a huge imprint on me. There a few times in my life when I didn't speak up, didn't act. And it fills me with shame. Examples (of failure) help: At a music festival. Mid '90s. Two white guys were harassing two black couples. I thought one of the white guys was going to get physical. I was so flabbergasted. I had no idea what to do. I was also in no physical condition to get into or break up a fight. I saw a young parent assault her kids. Like punches, not spanking, Kids had signature abuse victims response. I should have called the cops. Young gay couple were being harassed in a movie theater. I didn't act. Old white dude at a public townhall talking about "those people" and advocating Jim Crow laws (in Washington State! in the early 2000s!). > Our instincts are built of some assumptions that no longer work on internet. One possible approach is to learn new skills. Absolutely. My IRL impulses are sabotage online. I've been on social media since the late 80s. (BBSs, CompuServe, BIX.) Trolling and smack talk have always been part of the medium. It was fun. But now it isn't. It just keeps getting worse. Next book on my reading list is Adam Grant's Think Again. Some of the recent book promotion interviews (eg Vox Pivot) have been great. Chris Voss' Never Split the Difference, how to use "radical empathy" in tough situations, is really really good. I'm now looking for workbooks, training, or something. Like role playing exercises to practice. Recommendations please.
peruvian 6y ago
Anyone who has spent a substantial amount of their free time on internet forums will laugh at this article with cynicism. It's not wrong per se but I've found most people come to online forums to blow off steam or waste time, not to have fair conversations or arguments. Also, you see the exact same debates over and over. It becomes tiring. My solution has been to just post less responses on forums, and to suppress the urge to argue with someone about the same topic I've argued about hundreds of times before. I still fail at it but I have gotten better.
- anaerobicover 6y ago
  Completely agree that willingness to walk away is crucial. I'd suggest, too, that two of your points combine: people rationalize to themselves that they're on forums to have fair, intellectual conversations, but actually unconsciously are looking for that opportunity to blow off steam.
baybal2 6y ago
Don't have arguments online. Trying to persuade anybody over the internet is next to impossible.
- pasquinelli 6y ago
  that, and, why are you going around trying to persuade people anyway? it's a weird way to be. online rhetoric is our generation's boob tube.
  - baybal2 6y ago
    Get to persuade people offline.
- notapenny 6y ago
  Don't try to persuade people. Most people don't want to be persuaded. Get people to think and think about your own views. You may find either of you are wrong, or both, or neither, but you may learn something.
rtlfe 6y ago
To me, the thing that really makes online arguments different than in person ones is that I'm usually not trying to persuade the person I'm directly replying to, I'm trying to present an alternate viewpoint to the other people who might see the comments. This happens all the time in FB groups for my neighborhood. Somebody will say a ridiculous NIMBY thing that sounds good on the surface, and I know I can't persuade them based on years of knowing their online persona, but I feel a need to reply in case somebody who doesn't have an entrenched opinion reads it.
disabled 6y ago
This sort of stuff is why I refuse to participate in "traditional" social media, which is clearly unhealthy. I refuse to take my mind to bad places, where it could become unhappy. I simply cannot afford to be unhappy. If I want to want to watch YouTube videos, I search for such videos on a traditional search engine via video search and get the YouTube link. Then I do a sentiment analysis on the comments of the video. If the video has greater than or equal to 10% of the comments containing negative sentiment (whether it be mildly or strongly negative), then I don't watch the video. If I decide to watch a video, I use youtube-dl. Likewise, I use an Nvidia Jetson with a webcam to monitor my emotions when surfing the internet. I simply do not go to pages that take my emotions for a spin. I have found that social media always makes me unhappy, ultimately.
- MikeSchurman 6y ago
  This is a very interesting way to use a computer. I'm currently exploring other sorts of novel(?) ways of using computers, so this intrigues me. What tools do you use for sentiment analysis?
  - disabled 6y ago
    I hope this helps, with respect to ideas. While I can technically create my own scripts using AI, I tend to utilize others' scripts, as programming this stuff is not the best use of my time. This sort of stuff is almost always exclusively posted on GitHub. I do not use a ton of packages. I do have to keep this concise (check my profile for my email, which I will keep available for a couple of days). -Video: It should be noted that all video hosted in the cloud can usually be downloaded, one way or another, using scripts. I have an ongoing, organized, paper list of video types/genres that interest me and keep me happy, which I try to stick to. I frequently update it though. I know when to give myself neurochemical "hits", from the stuff I accumulate online, from reading books like "The Molecule of More" and "HØY PÅ DEG SJÆL: ENDORFIN SOM MEDISIN" (HIGH ON YOUR SOUL: ENDORPHINS AS MEDICINE) [I used a cloud service to translate it into English...I find out about various books in different languages via deep searches using foreign language keywords via DuckDuckGo.]. For video searches I use DuckDuckGo video search: https://duckduckgo.com/video?ia=web# https://duckduckgo.com/video?ia=web# (with "site:youtube.com" [without quotes] in the query box) Here are some scripts I use. I really do not use many scripts. YouTube: https://github.com/aksharbarchha/Only-for-Youtubers https://github.com/aksharbarchha/Only-for-Youtubers IMDB Movie Reviews: https://github.com/RubixML/Sentiment https://github.com/RubixML/Sentiment I have Plex (and other database/recommendation engines) on my computer, Synology NAS, and Nvidia Shield TV Pro. I transfer the videos typically to my NAS and stream them on the Shield via Plex. I can also access all of this via my NAS and stream on mobile data via Plex, for example, on my phone/tablet, as there is also a Plex app. -Nvidia Jetson: I use an NVIDIA Jetson AGX Xavier Developer Kit (32GB). Likewise, I do not use many scripts. I just started using it. I generally use an Intel Realsense camera as a webcam. However, sometimes I do use a standard Logitech webcam. AI pose and facial emotion analysis: https://github.com/raymondlo84/nvidia-jetson-ai-monitor https://github.com/raymondlo84/nvidia-jetson-ai-monitor Sentiment analysis for web browsing: https://github.com/nickbild/browzen https://github.com/nickbild/browzen [I have to VNC into the Jetson when using my laptop and have the webcam pointed at me: https://github.com/Aravindseenu/Nvidia-jetson-VNC-remote-access https://github.com/Aravindseenu/Nvidia-jetson-VNC-remote-acc... ] Intel Realsense Emotion Analysis: https://github.com/intel/ros_openvino_toolkit https://github.com/intel/ros_openvino_toolkit Driving-DBSE Monitor: Drowsiness, Blind Spot and Emotions monitor: https://github.com/altaga/DBSE-monitor/tree/master/Jetson https://github.com/altaga/DBSE-monitor/tree/master/Jetson
FriedrichN 6y ago
Sure you can try to have a proper discussion online, but too many people want to DESTROY people with FACTS and LOGIC. Or in practice ad hominems, false equivalencies, and just about every other fallacy in the book. If a topic is remotely controversial it's just about impossible to have a discussion that would make any sense at all. HN is really the only place I even bother to write a comment, on the whole people seem to be at least have a somewhat charitable interpretation of other people's comments.
- notapenny 6y ago
  That last sentence is what's critical to having decent conversation with people in general. You may think their opinion/point is wrong or they might just completely misunderstand a topic, but give them the benefit of the doubt. If you're just stating your opinion versus giving your point of view and asking other to give/clarify theirs, you're probably doing it wrong. Anytime I'm in an argument I just treat it as a way to get a different point of view, even if I don't subscribe to it. HN is great for this.
ravenstine 6y ago
One way to improve arguments both online and offline is to not assume the other person's intent.
EvilEy3 6y ago
You don't need to have arguments online. It is fool's errand to argue with idiots.
bserge 6y ago
How to have better arguments online: Don't. Not worth it. Waste of time. Useless. Do anything else. Just my experience of over 10 years having heated arguments about a lot of stuff. Nothing came out of anything.
ochronus 6y ago
Shameless plug: we should change why we argue. https://ochronus.online/how-to-stop-winning-arguments/ https://ochronus.online/how-to-stop-winning-arguments/

108 points by samizdis 6y ago

What is needed is a discussion system, that works like a Shipyard, with the preordained goal that consent must be found. The various threads/sub-threads of the discussion which hold substance form the ribs of the ship, meanwhile elements that are valued as "relevant" to all, are auto-marked as a floor-contribution and back listed. The set of a society topic, that interests all and all can contribute - is not a topic by definition. I felt a great disturbance in the Add-Force. As if millions of voices cried out in terror, and were suddenly silenced. I fear something terrible has happened.

jcelerier 6y ago
I think you could kinda get there with Arguman, maybe with some small UI modifications ? e.g. see how https://en.arguman.org/following-a-rule-is-a-practice-grounded-in-the-mastery-of-techniques https://en.arguman.org/following-a-rule-is-a-practice-ground... works
- AussieWog93 6y ago
  The problem with following a system bound by the logical rules of modern philosophy is that modern philosophy itself is an ineffective tool for making real-world, moral decisions. It's no accident that the most respected public intellectuals are all economists, linguists, (former) politicians, activists, authors, Canadian clinical psychologists, or even gay, bipolar quiz show hosts...
qznc 6y ago
I agree with you about the "preordained goal that consent must be found" but I'm not convinced that a technical aspects, like Arguman, can help here. You need the humans in board.

mellosouls 6y ago

This (good article) from The Guardian, who in their ludicrously-titled "Comment is Free" section and others ban discussions on any articles and opinion pieces they fear dissent on. In keeping with that - I note there is no comment section on this piece...

jbullock35 6y ago
> I note there is no comment section on this piece... The absence of a comment section may be consistent with one of the author's pieces of advice: "have the disagreement away from an audience."
implements 6y ago
The Guardian used to have a fantastic set of talkboards which they closed almost ten years ago to the day: “We didn't have any other viable option on Friday other than shutting the boards down without warning. None of us think that is good community management, and the reason we have been in this thread is because we regret that we had to do it this way.” I guess the name of the game is “comments supporting our journalism and from which we can extract value from without incurring liability or bad publicity”.
JimDabell 6y ago
> their ludicrously-titled "Comment is Free" section and others ban discussions It’s a reference to a landmark essay by a previous editor, CP Scott, and it’s more about sticking to the truth than publishing other people’s opinions: > A newspaper is of necessity something of a monopoly, and its first duty is to shun the temptations of monopoly. Its primary office is the gathering of news. At the peril of its soul it must see that the supply is not tainted. Neither in what it gives, nor in what it does not give, nor in the mode of presentation must the unclouded face of truth suffer wrong. Comment is free, but facts are sacred. [0] https://www.theguardian.com/sustainability/cp-scott-centenary-essay https://www.theguardian.com/sustainability/cp-scott-centenar...
switch007 6y ago
Titbit: the section name comes from the quote "Comment is free, but facts are sacred" by C. P. Scott, past editor of the Manchester Guardian. > In a 1921 essay marking the Manchester Guardian's centenary (at which time he had served nearly fifty years as editor), Scott put down his opinions on the role of the newspaper. He argued that the "primary office" of a newspaper is accurate news reporting, saying "comment is free, but facts are sacred". Even editorial comment has its responsibilities: "It is well to be frank; it is even better to be fair".

superbcarrot 6y ago

One rule that I have is that if I need to repeat or rephrase a previous comment without adding anything new, I need to stop the conversation. 1. Comment by me. 2. Response by someone else. If my reaction to 2 is to reiterate 1, that's a sign that the conversation isn't going anywhere and it's better if I don't participate further. Also, if you're on twitter, facebook or reddit, you need to heavily restrict your input and output and not take part in arguments altogether. Or just not be on those platforms in their current form.

prox 6y ago
I sometimes comment to show a bit of effort, when I agree with someone, like yours superbcarrot, something more than an easy upvote. Not everything has to be a discussion.
- FartyMcFarter 6y ago
  There's a fine line between appreciative agreement and something that just decreases the signal to noise ratio though.
  - prox 6y ago
    Absolutely, I don’t do this with everything, but it’s more like an appreciation of effort to the commenter.
    - Hacker_IAM 6y ago
      Can you tell me how to earn karma points on Hacker news please reply me help.
      - SuoDuanDao 6y ago
        Say something that smart people find edifying.
  - i_am_the_ai 6y ago

baxtr 6y ago

One thing that works in my experience is to find common ground first, meaning find things that both agree on and then take it from there. It sometimes create a joint problem solving mode.

rapnie 6y ago
Yes. I see that very often with tech-minded people when they take the kind of pointed logical reasoning that works best when discussing a technical solution in an issue tracker, to other media. With responses that start like "I strongly disagree..", bringing the other immediately in a position of defense.
bitshiftfaced 6y ago
Yes definitely. I try to find some more generalized, non-controversial statement that we both agree on. It's easier from that point to figure out what exactly we disagree on and why. It also serves as a litmus test. If the other person isn't even willing to take an agreeable tone to something that's not controversial, then I know I'd be spending my time more wisely by doing something else.

slx26 6y ago

Let's imagine we have a group of 100 people and we want them to reach consensus on a controverted topic. Let's apply a divide and conquer approach: pair people 1 on 1, and if they can agree (even if the agreement involves different resolutions depending on personal preferences), you join them with another group of 2 and repeat the process. Now, why doesn't this work? Well, this could work if people's opinions were static and perfectly stated on the first try. But in practice, and even under an ideal setup, people will be changing opinions too fast to ever be able to reach an equilibrium. They might realize that what they previously stated doesn't really match what they believe, or they didn't consider certain things that, when revealed, will now be considered important. And even more, this is if they were actively trying to reach a consensus while being patient, listening carefully, properly considering other people thoughts, expressing their own in a very precise and faithful way and being able to keep all that information in their heads and prioritize without bias. Which is not realistic. At this point, we might as well say that the problem is that the more people and points of view you introduce in a discussion, the more precise the consensus needs to be, and precise consensus is unachievable in a continually changing scenario. So, when we believe there's consensus on something, then it must be because either the problem is simple or vague enough, or the consensus itself is vague and imprecise. Which is fine too: vague consensus is not useless, nor it does make sense to reach perfect consensus for everything each time, but that's what we would be lead towards if we all tried to have "better arguments online"... which is never reached anyway at a big enough scale due to the issues previously described. (yeah, we don't need arguments to reach consensus, you can learn from what others say without agreeing with them, but... I don't even agree with myself, I'm gonna delete th-

austincheney 6y ago
If it’s 100 random people off the street serving as a fair representation of the larger population there are some fair assumptions you can make. 1. Half that population, 50, represent people who abhor originality in any form. This could be due to low intelligence, poor focus, loneliness, or a variety of other reasons. This group will accept any opinion that binds people together, such as knowingly false appeals to popularity. 2. About 12 of the people left over are narcissistic. They do not have a personal opinion on any argument. Instead they will identify that former 50 and do what they can to influence them, which often means fighting with other narcissistic people to build tribal factions of echo chambers. 3. About another 12 people are outsiders. They don’t care about any of the arguments presented. They will sit in a corner and do whatever the fuck they want. These are the hermits and are social as necessary for resources. 4. About 8 of the people are super objective. Weighted distribution of evidence and data matter most. These are your scientist. Nobody listens to them. These people are a pain in the ass to the sheep and wolves. 5. About another 8 are influencers. They spread ideas around and keep people informed. Sometimes they might even offer an original contribution, but it’s rare. 6. The final 10 people are comedians. Really though, the actual subject of any argument provided to that population is irrelevant. The motives of the various participants dictate the acceptance, validity, and attention of any subject.

_qulr 6y ago

If you state your opinion in a room with 3 other people, the chance that at least 1 of those people vehemently disagrees with your opinion are probably low. Especially since people self-select who to congregate with in rooms. If you state your opinion in a virtual "room" with 300 million other people, the chance that at least 1 of those people vehemently disagrees with your opinion is a certainty. Conflict is almost unavoidable on mass "social networks". Some people claim that you shouldn't live in an online "bubble", but I, uh, vehemently disagree. The only way to keep your sanity online is to live in a bubble, just as you do in real life, self-selecting which people to congregate with in rooms. You may ask, having said that, why am I here in the HN comments? That's a good question, and the answer is obviously that I'm insane. Does anyone find it weird that the author of the article claims that we actually need online arguments to "hone our thinking" or some such nonsense, but then immediately goes into an extended analogy about hostage negotiations? I don't know why we all need to become online hostage negotiators. If you want to learn something useful from a different perspective, go offline and read a good book. The author says, "Taking a disagreement offline can work, but it should only ever be seen as a second-best option." Why???? Everything else the author said suggests it's actually the best option. I really don't see the point in online arguments. Do they ever get resolved? Not in my experience. In fact I fully expect the same (non-)outcome in any replies to my comment.

Barrin92 6y ago
to a degree being able to associate with like-minded peers is good for peace of mind, but the author is right that conflict is also productive. This also applies in the real world. The actual Greek meaning of the word idiot is 'private person'. Someone who had withdrawn from the life in the polis, the political community. Over the last few decades we've seen a trend of this privatisation and segmentation or what Michael Sandel called 'skyboxification'. Everyone sorts into their own group, often commercially, rather than having shared experiences with people from different walks of life. The promise of the internet was that it would be easier for different people to have these interactions. It's sad that in reality it has devolved into a shouting match (it should be noted very often between people who are actually alike and engage in some Girardian terror of small differences, rather than between genuine strangers)

SunlightEdge 6y ago

I think learning to ignore posts that are or will become toxic is a helpful skill to learn. I have similar feelings about certain newspapers & articles too. As for discussion, no one ever wins an argument in my opinion. So whenever a discussion looks like it's heading that way the best thing to do is to drop it. Discussion is at its best when it's two open minded people politely exploring ideas

Viliam1234 6y ago
People have this instict that "silence is consent". Which makes sense in some circumstances. Like, when the whole group is paying attention to the same speaker, the speaker says something, there is an opportunity to object, and no one objects... you could conclude that either everyone agrees, or perhaps the speaker has so much social power that no one dares to object. -- So the idea is backed by either consent or power. This doesn't work on internet, where millions of people keep saying millions of things, and there is simply no time to respond to all of that. So you see something that was said, publicly, and no one objected... but that doesn't imply consent nor power. On the other hand, you can have an idea that 99% of people agree with, and the 1% would think twice to oppose it under their real name, but with anonymity someone is going to write "lol, if you think this you are a moron", and it's their comment that will likely remain unopposed. And one such person can make such comments on thousand places each day, if they are sufficiently obsessed with the topic. Our instincts are built of some assumptions that no longer work on internet. One possible approach is to learn new skills. Another possibility would be to design online interaction so that it better matches our instincts. (For example, any comment would disappear after one day, or after it was seen by 50 people.) This could potentially be interesting, but there is little financial incentive to explore this, because companies optimise for advertisements and virality, not user experience.
- specialist 6y ago
  > People have this instinct that "silence is consent". Absolutely. Part of my impulse to speak up IRL comes from the example of the activism to tackle HIV/AIDS. Literally, silence meant death. That left a huge imprint on me. There a few times in my life when I didn't speak up, didn't act. And it fills me with shame. Examples (of failure) help: At a music festival. Mid '90s. Two white guys were harassing two black couples. I thought one of the white guys was going to get physical. I was so flabbergasted. I had no idea what to do. I was also in no physical condition to get into or break up a fight. I saw a young parent assault her kids. Like punches, not spanking, Kids had signature abuse victims response. I should have called the cops. Young gay couple were being harassed in a movie theater. I didn't act. Old white dude at a public townhall talking about "those people" and advocating Jim Crow laws (in Washington State! in the early 2000s!). > Our instincts are built of some assumptions that no longer work on internet. One possible approach is to learn new skills. Absolutely. My IRL impulses are sabotage online. I've been on social media since the late 80s. (BBSs, CompuServe, BIX.) Trolling and smack talk have always been part of the medium. It was fun. But now it isn't. It just keeps getting worse. Next book on my reading list is Adam Grant's Think Again. Some of the recent book promotion interviews (eg Vox Pivot) have been great. Chris Voss' Never Split the Difference, how to use "radical empathy" in tough situations, is really really good. I'm now looking for workbooks, training, or something. Like role playing exercises to practice. Recommendations please.

peruvian 6y ago

Anyone who has spent a substantial amount of their free time on internet forums will laugh at this article with cynicism. It's not wrong per se but I've found most people come to online forums to blow off steam or waste time, not to have fair conversations or arguments. Also, you see the exact same debates over and over. It becomes tiring. My solution has been to just post less responses on forums, and to suppress the urge to argue with someone about the same topic I've argued about hundreds of times before. I still fail at it but I have gotten better.

anaerobicover 6y ago
Completely agree that willingness to walk away is crucial. I'd suggest, too, that two of your points combine: people rationalize to themselves that they're on forums to have fair, intellectual conversations, but actually unconsciously are looking for that opportunity to blow off steam.

baybal2 6y ago

Don't have arguments online. Trying to persuade anybody over the internet is next to impossible.

pasquinelli 6y ago
that, and, why are you going around trying to persuade people anyway? it's a weird way to be. online rhetoric is our generation's boob tube.
- baybal2 6y ago
  Get to persuade people offline.
notapenny 6y ago
Don't try to persuade people. Most people don't want to be persuaded. Get people to think and think about your own views. You may find either of you are wrong, or both, or neither, but you may learn something.

rtlfe 6y ago

To me, the thing that really makes online arguments different than in person ones is that I'm usually not trying to persuade the person I'm directly replying to, I'm trying to present an alternate viewpoint to the other people who might see the comments. This happens all the time in FB groups for my neighborhood. Somebody will say a ridiculous NIMBY thing that sounds good on the surface, and I know I can't persuade them based on years of knowing their online persona, but I feel a need to reply in case somebody who doesn't have an entrenched opinion reads it.

disabled 6y ago

This sort of stuff is why I refuse to participate in "traditional" social media, which is clearly unhealthy. I refuse to take my mind to bad places, where it could become unhappy. I simply cannot afford to be unhappy. If I want to want to watch YouTube videos, I search for such videos on a traditional search engine via video search and get the YouTube link. Then I do a sentiment analysis on the comments of the video. If the video has greater than or equal to 10% of the comments containing negative sentiment (whether it be mildly or strongly negative), then I don't watch the video. If I decide to watch a video, I use youtube-dl. Likewise, I use an Nvidia Jetson with a webcam to monitor my emotions when surfing the internet. I simply do not go to pages that take my emotions for a spin. I have found that social media always makes me unhappy, ultimately.

MikeSchurman 6y ago
This is a very interesting way to use a computer. I'm currently exploring other sorts of novel(?) ways of using computers, so this intrigues me. What tools do you use for sentiment analysis?
- disabled 6y ago
  I hope this helps, with respect to ideas. While I can technically create my own scripts using AI, I tend to utilize others' scripts, as programming this stuff is not the best use of my time. This sort of stuff is almost always exclusively posted on GitHub. I do not use a ton of packages. I do have to keep this concise (check my profile for my email, which I will keep available for a couple of days). -Video: It should be noted that all video hosted in the cloud can usually be downloaded, one way or another, using scripts. I have an ongoing, organized, paper list of video types/genres that interest me and keep me happy, which I try to stick to. I frequently update it though. I know when to give myself neurochemical "hits", from the stuff I accumulate online, from reading books like "The Molecule of More" and "HØY PÅ DEG SJÆL: ENDORFIN SOM MEDISIN" (HIGH ON YOUR SOUL: ENDORPHINS AS MEDICINE) [I used a cloud service to translate it into English...I find out about various books in different languages via deep searches using foreign language keywords via DuckDuckGo.]. For video searches I use DuckDuckGo video search: https://duckduckgo.com/video?ia=web# https://duckduckgo.com/video?ia=web# (with "site:youtube.com" [without quotes] in the query box) Here are some scripts I use. I really do not use many scripts. YouTube: https://github.com/aksharbarchha/Only-for-Youtubers https://github.com/aksharbarchha/Only-for-Youtubers IMDB Movie Reviews: https://github.com/RubixML/Sentiment https://github.com/RubixML/Sentiment I have Plex (and other database/recommendation engines) on my computer, Synology NAS, and Nvidia Shield TV Pro. I transfer the videos typically to my NAS and stream them on the Shield via Plex. I can also access all of this via my NAS and stream on mobile data via Plex, for example, on my phone/tablet, as there is also a Plex app. -Nvidia Jetson: I use an NVIDIA Jetson AGX Xavier Developer Kit (32GB). Likewise, I do not use many scripts. I just started using it. I generally use an Intel Realsense camera as a webcam. However, sometimes I do use a standard Logitech webcam. AI pose and facial emotion analysis: https://github.com/raymondlo84/nvidia-jetson-ai-monitor https://github.com/raymondlo84/nvidia-jetson-ai-monitor Sentiment analysis for web browsing: https://github.com/nickbild/browzen https://github.com/nickbild/browzen [I have to VNC into the Jetson when using my laptop and have the webcam pointed at me: https://github.com/Aravindseenu/Nvidia-jetson-VNC-remote-access https://github.com/Aravindseenu/Nvidia-jetson-VNC-remote-acc... ] Intel Realsense Emotion Analysis: https://github.com/intel/ros_openvino_toolkit https://github.com/intel/ros_openvino_toolkit Driving-DBSE Monitor: Drowsiness, Blind Spot and Emotions monitor: https://github.com/altaga/DBSE-monitor/tree/master/Jetson https://github.com/altaga/DBSE-monitor/tree/master/Jetson

FriedrichN 6y ago

Sure you can try to have a proper discussion online, but too many people want to DESTROY people with FACTS and LOGIC. Or in practice ad hominems, false equivalencies, and just about every other fallacy in the book. If a topic is remotely controversial it's just about impossible to have a discussion that would make any sense at all. HN is really the only place I even bother to write a comment, on the whole people seem to be at least have a somewhat charitable interpretation of other people's comments.

notapenny 6y ago
That last sentence is what's critical to having decent conversation with people in general. You may think their opinion/point is wrong or they might just completely misunderstand a topic, but give them the benefit of the doubt. If you're just stating your opinion versus giving your point of view and asking other to give/clarify theirs, you're probably doing it wrong. Anytime I'm in an argument I just treat it as a way to get a different point of view, even if I don't subscribe to it. HN is great for this.

ravenstine 6y ago

One way to improve arguments both online and offline is to not assume the other person's intent.

EvilEy3 6y ago

You don't need to have arguments online. It is fool's errand to argue with idiots.

bserge 6y ago

How to have better arguments online: Don't. Not worth it. Waste of time. Useless. Do anything else. Just my experience of over 10 years having heated arguments about a lot of stuff. Nothing came out of anything.

ochronus 6y ago

Shameless plug: we should change why we argue. https://ochronus.online/how-to-stop-winning-arguments/ https://ochronus.online/how-to-stop-winning-arguments/