6 ms·

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. Esp

by _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 Someone who had withdrawn from the life in the polis, the political community.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)
- _qulr 6y ago
  > the author is right that conflict is also productive Could you explain why? > The actual Greek meaning of the word idiot is 'private person'. Someone who had withdrawn from the life in the polis, the political community. The Greeks put Socrates to death, so call me skeptical.
  - SuoDuanDao 6y ago
    Regarding conflict, I think it's certainly true that some ideas are so poorly understood that it can be useful to have someone else approach the same idea from a different perspective, so as to 'pin it down' as it were. Martin's 'The Opposable Mind' is a great discussion of this dynamic, the book describes a single person changing their mind on a topic deliberately so as to 'grasp' it but a similar dynamic can work with two people. Of course, disagreement doesn't necessarily mean conflict if the rules of civil discussion are agreed upon. I wish we had a way to filter our bubbles by what we find acceptable behaviour when disagreeing as opposed to what we agree with.
  - thazework 6y ago
    This is a common misconception, idiote was often used interchangeably with citizen and should be understood as a citizen operating in his capacity as a citizen (and not say in a formal poltical or emissary function) but by no means one who wishes to disengage from the polis. As for Socrates, as he is at pains to emphasize in the Apology, he was no 'idiote'.
- natmaka 6y ago
  There is a middle ground: alone is not enough, and too much is too much. IMHO every really useful-and-not-harming work happens thanks to a small group of workers (where a little bit of 'conflict', let's say disagreement about a given subject, is often useful because it creates emulation). A major promise of the Internet may be to alleviate the need for such a group members to be in the same place at the same time.
bengale 6y ago
Agreed. As for the reason I’m on the comments here, it’s because this place selects for slightly more intelligent than average commenters and a community that does a good job and maintaining a reasonable tone. Everywhere else I run a plug-in that removes all comment sections from the web and I don’t use social media.
- bulleyashah 6y ago
  Could you share the plugin?
  - disabled 6y ago
    Not the OP, but I did a search for Firefox extensions and I found this: Hide Comments Everywhere-An anti-social social extension to hide commenting systems like Disqus, Livefyre, Facebook, Twitter, WordPress, YouTube, etc. https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/hide-comments-everywhere/?utm_source=addons.mozilla.org&utm_medium=referral&utm_content=search https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/hide-comments... Obviously uBlock Origin is a necessity, too. Another tip: Prior to going to a shopping website (such as Amazon), I go to my Firefox browser settings, and I disable all images. This keeps me from buying useless junk via addicting recommendation algorithms, and removes the temptation very well. I also never go to one of these websites, unless I know exactly what I am planning on buying. In other words, I make a paper list of things I need to buy before I get onto one of these sites.
    - bulleyashah 6y ago
      That plugin is for desktop browser. My biggest distraction is the phone actually. And firefox for phone doesn't support it yet. Somebody should really port it. Grease monkey also doesn't work on mobile browsers. What a great idea. I have myself disabled colors on the screen to avoid those addictive contrasts. I also try to do a phone fast every Sunday, where I give my phone to my wife and just live without it for a day. It's amazingly rewarding. You should give it a try :)
      - 6y ago
darkerside 6y ago
> Do they ever get resolved? Not in my experience. I've found this to be less true than perhaps it used to be, particularly in places like HN. I don't think you'll change anyone's minds overnight on a big issue like climate change or racism, but I regularly see people share insights and perspectives in a reasonable way. Over time, these add up into real change, even if you don't see it happening in the course of a single thread.
- _qulr 6y ago
  > Over time, these add up into real change, even if you don't see it happening in the course of a single thread. Without evidence, this is a difficult claim to accept.
  - darkerside 6y ago
    Live long enough and you get it. It's just how people work. Seeing it happen is the evidence. You don't need a study to prove gravity or magnetism.
  - leetcrew 6y ago
    I have certainly changed my own positions as a result of civil discussions. it never happens after a single exchange, but over time people can be convinced.
garbagetime 6y ago
The online arguments I get involved in are resolved often. Because I try to have them resolve. Plenty of times it's totally easy to resolve an argument. It can go like this: you spend some time thinking, realise that the person you're arguing with is correct, then you say "Oh, I see your point now. I didn't realise x which is what lead me to think y. Thanks for helping me realise this mistake and gain a better understanding of the issue."
- _qulr 6y ago
  > Thanks for helping me realise this mistake and gain a better understanding of the issue. Are you on Twitter? I'd like to follow you. :-)
jancsika 6y ago
> Some people claim that you shouldn't live in an online "bubble", but I, uh, vehemently disagree. You've crossed the digital divide here and misused the word "bubble" in the process. It's not anything like a "self-selected" group of like-minded people in a room. It's more like a group of people snookered into working for a pyramid scheme. At worst-- as with Qanon-- it's like a cult. And even cult de-programmers-- people who know the "creation myth" of a cult, know its tactics, know its adherents, and are skilled and patient enough to "snap" cult members out of their stupor-- know not to physically put themselves in the midst of a cult for any extended length of time. Because given enough time (and you can't easily predict how long that is) anyone will fall prey to those tactics, and then it's near impossible to get out using will alone. There's something creepily similar about the people who helped build online bubbles outright banning their children from using the devices/social networks they helped to create. They do that because the systems they built are quite literally the opposite of self-selecting.
- _qulr 6y ago
  > You've crossed the digital divide here and misused the word "bubble" in the process. Yeah, well, you know, that's just like, uh, your opinion, man.
- jhardy54 6y ago
  > Because given enough time (and you can't easily predict how long that is) anyone will fall prey to those tactics, and then it's near impossible to get out using will alone. Where did you learn about this? I'd love to be better informed.
  - throwawayboise 6y ago
    I would guess it's an evolved survival strategy. You need to go along with the tribe you're in. It's just part of our nature to do this.
ouid 6y ago
I'm sorry, but where's your argument here? Virtually every stable system humanity has ever devised is stable precisely because that stability is adversarial. Your argument against people becoming hostage negotiators relies, as far as I can tell, on this being an extreme state for humans, and therefore totally unsustainable, but like... why? It's like arguing that bridges can't stand up because they are subject to extreme forces from all sides. The sanity to which you speak is actually just passivity, In the hostage negotiator analogy, it is what happens when the hostage negotiator hangs up before the negoatiation is over. In the bridge analogy, it is what happens when one of the forces acting on the bridge stops acting on the bridge. Sustained human existence is work, your proposed sanity preserving option is just nihilism, and it is unsustainable, or at least mutually unsustainable with existence.
- _qulr 6y ago
  > Virtually every stable system humanity has ever devised is stable precisely because that stability is adversarial. Where's your argument here? > Your argument against people becoming hostage negotiators relies, as far as I can tell, on this being an extreme state for humans, and therefore totally unsustainable, but like... why? No, my argument against people becoming hostage negotiators is that it sounds very stressful, unpleasant, and dangerous. I simply don't want to do it. Kudos to professional hostage negotiators, to be sure, but it's not a job most people want. At least professional negotiators get paid, I assume. > It's like arguing that bridges can't stand up because they are subject to extreme forces from all sides. Why are you comparing people to inanimate objects? I'd rather not be walked on, thank you. > Sustained human existence is work, your proposed sanity preserving option is just nihilism, and it is unsustainable This is a weird attitude. Humans have existed for thousands, hundreds of thousands, maybe millions of years. All without online social networks. We could ditch them all and be fine. Arguably better than now.
hooande 6y ago
Nothing gets resolved in offline arguments either. That isn't the point. The idea of a non-factual disagreement is that both sides get to make a case and state their perspective, and everyone learns from it. You self-selected to be here on hn, just like the rest of us did. In a sense, this is a bubble of a certain kind of thought and perspective. But it's a really big bubble that has some diversity. I think the key is to avoid situations where you're constantly exposed to vehement disagreement. On hn we mostly respond to posts individually and get into various disagreements along the way. I think this is far preferable to something like a political discussion site, where both sides end up arguing the same philosophical issues over and over again.
- _qulr 6y ago
  > and everyone learns from it Do they? > where both sides end up arguing the same philosophical issues over and over again Funny, I would describe HN as the same. I'm on HN because the topics interest me as a computer programmer. But I don't share the common HN conceit that commenters on HN are better than elsewhere. IMO there's no evidence of that. Some of those within the HN bubble think very highly of themselves, but they may not be aware of the utter contempt that many outside the HN bubble have for "the orange site". (By the way, I could share a little CSS to add dark mode support and a few other tweaks to HN, if anyone is interested.)
  - MaxBarraclough 6y ago
    > Do they? If the participants are doing a good job of explaining where they're coming from, then yes. If they're just talking past each other, or worse, angrily insulting each other, then of course the answer is no. At that point it's no longer really a discussion at all, it's the online equivalent of monkeys throwing filth at each other, and it debases all involved. > > where both sides end up arguing the same philosophical issues over and over again > Funny, I would describe HN as the same. Sure, some hot topics will keep coming up until the end of time. Copyleft vs permissive licences, for instance. I think that's fine though, and the ongoing discussion isn't pure retreading, it will evolve over time as the surrounding circumstances change. A discussion forum like HackerNews shouldn't aim to be the equivalent of StackOverflow where there's a single authoritative page for each question, and duplicates are rebuked and shut down. That approach makes sense if you're trying to build a question/answer repository, but a discussion forum is something different. > I don't share the common HN conceit that commenters on HN are better than elsewhere. IMO there's no evidence of that My opinion is no more well grounded than yours, but I disagree. HN discussions very often have input from experts. Anecdotally I think this happens less often on other forums. HN also has uniquely good moderation.
kc0bfv 6y ago
I've resolved several online arguments that started in response to opinions I've shared. The methods the article mentions are methods I've used, usually because they seemed like natural ways to chill the situation. I'm not sure I've ever changed anybody's mind online, but I try to always keep in mind that that is not my goal. When others disagree I try to make sure my opinion is understood, and I try to understand their opinion too. One benefit to online argument over in-person is that it's easier to take time to reflect on my own reactions to others. I can take time to decide how to react. In-person it's often impossible to do that. I agree with most of what you wrote - I like being able to choose when to be "in the bubble" and when to not be in. I think we'll really benefit over time as people learn how to use these different forums better.
shawnz 6y ago
> Do they ever get resolved? Not in my experience. In fact I fully expect the same (non-)outcome in any replies to my comment. Consider that it might be to the benefit of the reader to hear all the different possible ways of expressing the different arguments and counter-arguments, even when the participants themselves don't budge. Also, I often find that while I don't usually change my opinion in the middle of an argument, it still helps me to have the weakest areas of my opinions highlighted so that I know not to invest too strongly in those aspects as time goes on. After reading a compelling counter-argument online and then seeing first-hand evidence of the strength of that counter-argument later on, I think I'm much more likely to change my opinion. During an argument I think it actually benefits all participants to stick to a consistent viewpoint and defend it as strongly as possible to make sure that its strengths and weaknesses are fairly represented.
- _qulr 6y ago
  > During an argument I think it actually benefits all participants to stick to a consistent viewpoint and defend it as strongly as possible to make sure that its strengths and weaknesses are fairly represented. My feeling is that a "debate" format — under which we can include online comments and replies — is actually one of the worst ways of informing people, and vastly inferior to other educational methods. I was serious when I said "go offline and read a good book". Debates almost invariably become a show. It's about entertainment, about "scoring points", winning and losing. But the biggest loser is always the truth, which becomes lost in the back and forth. Debates encourage taking sides. They encourage the mistaken view that there are only 2 sides to every subject. You can try very hard to avoid these pitfalls, but it's important to note that they come with the territory. Debates inevitably fall into these pits without very hard work. It's just not a great format for information and education. But a lot of people enjoy them immensely, which is why they happen, regardless of value.

by _qulr 6y ago

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)

_qulr 6y ago
> the author is right that conflict is also productive Could you explain why? > The actual Greek meaning of the word idiot is 'private person'. Someone who had withdrawn from the life in the polis, the political community. The Greeks put Socrates to death, so call me skeptical.
- SuoDuanDao 6y ago
  Regarding conflict, I think it's certainly true that some ideas are so poorly understood that it can be useful to have someone else approach the same idea from a different perspective, so as to 'pin it down' as it were. Martin's 'The Opposable Mind' is a great discussion of this dynamic, the book describes a single person changing their mind on a topic deliberately so as to 'grasp' it but a similar dynamic can work with two people. Of course, disagreement doesn't necessarily mean conflict if the rules of civil discussion are agreed upon. I wish we had a way to filter our bubbles by what we find acceptable behaviour when disagreeing as opposed to what we agree with.
- thazework 6y ago
  This is a common misconception, idiote was often used interchangeably with citizen and should be understood as a citizen operating in his capacity as a citizen (and not say in a formal poltical or emissary function) but by no means one who wishes to disengage from the polis. As for Socrates, as he is at pains to emphasize in the Apology, he was no 'idiote'.
natmaka 6y ago
There is a middle ground: alone is not enough, and too much is too much. IMHO every really useful-and-not-harming work happens thanks to a small group of workers (where a little bit of 'conflict', let's say disagreement about a given subject, is often useful because it creates emulation). A major promise of the Internet may be to alleviate the need for such a group members to be in the same place at the same time.

bengale 6y ago

Agreed. As for the reason I’m on the comments here, it’s because this place selects for slightly more intelligent than average commenters and a community that does a good job and maintaining a reasonable tone. Everywhere else I run a plug-in that removes all comment sections from the web and I don’t use social media.

bulleyashah 6y ago
Could you share the plugin?
- disabled 6y ago
  Not the OP, but I did a search for Firefox extensions and I found this: Hide Comments Everywhere-An anti-social social extension to hide commenting systems like Disqus, Livefyre, Facebook, Twitter, WordPress, YouTube, etc. https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/hide-comments-everywhere/?utm_source=addons.mozilla.org&utm_medium=referral&utm_content=search https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/hide-comments... Obviously uBlock Origin is a necessity, too. Another tip: Prior to going to a shopping website (such as Amazon), I go to my Firefox browser settings, and I disable all images. This keeps me from buying useless junk via addicting recommendation algorithms, and removes the temptation very well. I also never go to one of these websites, unless I know exactly what I am planning on buying. In other words, I make a paper list of things I need to buy before I get onto one of these sites.
  - bulleyashah 6y ago
    That plugin is for desktop browser. My biggest distraction is the phone actually. And firefox for phone doesn't support it yet. Somebody should really port it. Grease monkey also doesn't work on mobile browsers. What a great idea. I have myself disabled colors on the screen to avoid those addictive contrasts. I also try to do a phone fast every Sunday, where I give my phone to my wife and just live without it for a day. It's amazingly rewarding. You should give it a try :)
    - 6y ago

darkerside 6y ago

> Do they ever get resolved? Not in my experience. I've found this to be less true than perhaps it used to be, particularly in places like HN. I don't think you'll change anyone's minds overnight on a big issue like climate change or racism, but I regularly see people share insights and perspectives in a reasonable way. Over time, these add up into real change, even if you don't see it happening in the course of a single thread.

_qulr 6y ago
> Over time, these add up into real change, even if you don't see it happening in the course of a single thread. Without evidence, this is a difficult claim to accept.
- darkerside 6y ago
  Live long enough and you get it. It's just how people work. Seeing it happen is the evidence. You don't need a study to prove gravity or magnetism.
- leetcrew 6y ago
  I have certainly changed my own positions as a result of civil discussions. it never happens after a single exchange, but over time people can be convinced.

garbagetime 6y ago

The online arguments I get involved in are resolved often. Because I try to have them resolve. Plenty of times it's totally easy to resolve an argument. It can go like this: you spend some time thinking, realise that the person you're arguing with is correct, then you say "Oh, I see your point now. I didn't realise x which is what lead me to think y. Thanks for helping me realise this mistake and gain a better understanding of the issue."

_qulr 6y ago
> Thanks for helping me realise this mistake and gain a better understanding of the issue. Are you on Twitter? I'd like to follow you. :-)

jancsika 6y ago

> Some people claim that you shouldn't live in an online "bubble", but I, uh, vehemently disagree. You've crossed the digital divide here and misused the word "bubble" in the process. It's not anything like a "self-selected" group of like-minded people in a room. It's more like a group of people snookered into working for a pyramid scheme. At worst-- as with Qanon-- it's like a cult. And even cult de-programmers-- people who know the "creation myth" of a cult, know its tactics, know its adherents, and are skilled and patient enough to "snap" cult members out of their stupor-- know not to physically put themselves in the midst of a cult for any extended length of time. Because given enough time (and you can't easily predict how long that is) anyone will fall prey to those tactics, and then it's near impossible to get out using will alone. There's something creepily similar about the people who helped build online bubbles outright banning their children from using the devices/social networks they helped to create. They do that because the systems they built are quite literally the opposite of self-selecting.

_qulr 6y ago
> You've crossed the digital divide here and misused the word "bubble" in the process. Yeah, well, you know, that's just like, uh, your opinion, man.
jhardy54 6y ago
> Because given enough time (and you can't easily predict how long that is) anyone will fall prey to those tactics, and then it's near impossible to get out using will alone. Where did you learn about this? I'd love to be better informed.
- throwawayboise 6y ago
  I would guess it's an evolved survival strategy. You need to go along with the tribe you're in. It's just part of our nature to do this.

ouid 6y ago

I'm sorry, but where's your argument here? Virtually every stable system humanity has ever devised is stable precisely because that stability is adversarial. Your argument against people becoming hostage negotiators relies, as far as I can tell, on this being an extreme state for humans, and therefore totally unsustainable, but like... why? It's like arguing that bridges can't stand up because they are subject to extreme forces from all sides. The sanity to which you speak is actually just passivity, In the hostage negotiator analogy, it is what happens when the hostage negotiator hangs up before the negoatiation is over. In the bridge analogy, it is what happens when one of the forces acting on the bridge stops acting on the bridge. Sustained human existence is work, your proposed sanity preserving option is just nihilism, and it is unsustainable, or at least mutually unsustainable with existence.

_qulr 6y ago
> Virtually every stable system humanity has ever devised is stable precisely because that stability is adversarial. Where's your argument here? > Your argument against people becoming hostage negotiators relies, as far as I can tell, on this being an extreme state for humans, and therefore totally unsustainable, but like... why? No, my argument against people becoming hostage negotiators is that it sounds very stressful, unpleasant, and dangerous. I simply don't want to do it. Kudos to professional hostage negotiators, to be sure, but it's not a job most people want. At least professional negotiators get paid, I assume. > It's like arguing that bridges can't stand up because they are subject to extreme forces from all sides. Why are you comparing people to inanimate objects? I'd rather not be walked on, thank you. > Sustained human existence is work, your proposed sanity preserving option is just nihilism, and it is unsustainable This is a weird attitude. Humans have existed for thousands, hundreds of thousands, maybe millions of years. All without online social networks. We could ditch them all and be fine. Arguably better than now.

hooande 6y ago

Nothing gets resolved in offline arguments either. That isn't the point. The idea of a non-factual disagreement is that both sides get to make a case and state their perspective, and everyone learns from it. You self-selected to be here on hn, just like the rest of us did. In a sense, this is a bubble of a certain kind of thought and perspective. But it's a really big bubble that has some diversity. I think the key is to avoid situations where you're constantly exposed to vehement disagreement. On hn we mostly respond to posts individually and get into various disagreements along the way. I think this is far preferable to something like a political discussion site, where both sides end up arguing the same philosophical issues over and over again.

_qulr 6y ago
> and everyone learns from it Do they? > where both sides end up arguing the same philosophical issues over and over again Funny, I would describe HN as the same. I'm on HN because the topics interest me as a computer programmer. But I don't share the common HN conceit that commenters on HN are better than elsewhere. IMO there's no evidence of that. Some of those within the HN bubble think very highly of themselves, but they may not be aware of the utter contempt that many outside the HN bubble have for "the orange site". (By the way, I could share a little CSS to add dark mode support and a few other tweaks to HN, if anyone is interested.)
- MaxBarraclough 6y ago
  > Do they? If the participants are doing a good job of explaining where they're coming from, then yes. If they're just talking past each other, or worse, angrily insulting each other, then of course the answer is no. At that point it's no longer really a discussion at all, it's the online equivalent of monkeys throwing filth at each other, and it debases all involved. > > where both sides end up arguing the same philosophical issues over and over again > Funny, I would describe HN as the same. Sure, some hot topics will keep coming up until the end of time. Copyleft vs permissive licences, for instance. I think that's fine though, and the ongoing discussion isn't pure retreading, it will evolve over time as the surrounding circumstances change. A discussion forum like HackerNews shouldn't aim to be the equivalent of StackOverflow where there's a single authoritative page for each question, and duplicates are rebuked and shut down. That approach makes sense if you're trying to build a question/answer repository, but a discussion forum is something different. > I don't share the common HN conceit that commenters on HN are better than elsewhere. IMO there's no evidence of that My opinion is no more well grounded than yours, but I disagree. HN discussions very often have input from experts. Anecdotally I think this happens less often on other forums. HN also has uniquely good moderation.

kc0bfv 6y ago

I've resolved several online arguments that started in response to opinions I've shared. The methods the article mentions are methods I've used, usually because they seemed like natural ways to chill the situation. I'm not sure I've ever changed anybody's mind online, but I try to always keep in mind that that is not my goal. When others disagree I try to make sure my opinion is understood, and I try to understand their opinion too. One benefit to online argument over in-person is that it's easier to take time to reflect on my own reactions to others. I can take time to decide how to react. In-person it's often impossible to do that. I agree with most of what you wrote - I like being able to choose when to be "in the bubble" and when to not be in. I think we'll really benefit over time as people learn how to use these different forums better.

shawnz 6y ago

> Do they ever get resolved? Not in my experience. In fact I fully expect the same (non-)outcome in any replies to my comment. Consider that it might be to the benefit of the reader to hear all the different possible ways of expressing the different arguments and counter-arguments, even when the participants themselves don't budge. Also, I often find that while I don't usually change my opinion in the middle of an argument, it still helps me to have the weakest areas of my opinions highlighted so that I know not to invest too strongly in those aspects as time goes on. After reading a compelling counter-argument online and then seeing first-hand evidence of the strength of that counter-argument later on, I think I'm much more likely to change my opinion. During an argument I think it actually benefits all participants to stick to a consistent viewpoint and defend it as strongly as possible to make sure that its strengths and weaknesses are fairly represented.

_qulr 6y ago
> During an argument I think it actually benefits all participants to stick to a consistent viewpoint and defend it as strongly as possible to make sure that its strengths and weaknesses are fairly represented. My feeling is that a "debate" format — under which we can include online comments and replies — is actually one of the worst ways of informing people, and vastly inferior to other educational methods. I was serious when I said "go offline and read a good book". Debates almost invariably become a show. It's about entertainment, about "scoring points", winning and losing. But the biggest loser is always the truth, which becomes lost in the back and forth. Debates encourage taking sides. They encourage the mistaken view that there are only 2 sides to every subject. You can try very hard to avoid these pitfalls, but it's important to note that they come with the territory. Debates inevitably fall into these pits without very hard work. It's just not a great format for information and education. But a lot of people enjoy them immensely, which is why they happen, regardless of value.