4 ms·

I really agree with the "words you use to explain vs words that can be used against you" one. So often, both in person and online, I see people asking "can you

I really agree with the "words you use to explain vs words that can be used against you" one. So often, both in person and online, I see people asking "can you explain what you mean by..." or trying to break your concern down further. At face value it seems like a good question, but among political types, it almost certainly is a device to either try and reduce your concern to a bunch of little things so small they don't matter, or to tell you you don't understand or have defined something wrong. If you want to stand your ground, its usually better to give nothing, even if you feel like you haven't explained well, or in an online discussion, if you feel like your counterpart has "won" by getting the last comment in.

Wowfunhappy 5y ago
> So often, both in person and online, I see people asking "can you explain what you mean by..." or trying to break your concern down further. ...I mean, I do this all the time out of a genuine desire to understand the other person's thinking; it's not some ploy to "win" an argument or feel somehow superior.
- kurthr 5y ago
  Unfortunately, it has been weaponized (especially on-line) for a long enough period that many people will not give the benefit of doubt. And frankly, unless they really want your compassion or understanding they have no incentive or any obligation to. Except for very well moderated forums and positive company cultures, it seems like that's where we are. One on one things stil seem much better.
- version_five 5y ago
  Thus my caveat of "among political types". In a good faith conversation it doesn't matter (and presumably staying silent and staring down your conversation partner happens less often generally). But as the other reply mentioned, there are lots of people - not friends, I've encountered it at work and online- that are basically trying to get you to talk more so they can trap you. The real trick is to recognize when it's happening with minimal false positives so you don't just look like a defensive jerk (been there also)
  - Kye 5y ago
    Can you share your definition of "political type" to make sure everyone's on the same page?
    - Robin_Message 5y ago
      It's you. (Or maybe I missed the <satire> tags on your comment.)
      - Kye 5y ago
        In keeping with HN guidelines, I read their comment in the most fair way I could and assumed they weren't one of those "apolitical types" who's oblivious to the politics around them unless someone points it out and sneers at people who do. I come here because even at its worst, HN is usually capable of hosting conversations that would otherwise devolve to accusations and namecalling between people who could have a conversation without accusations and namecalling. This subthread is an example of HN at its worst. Not one of the four people who replied are the person I actually asked, and only one of you tried to make a good comment. (not you)
    - durovo 5y ago
      "Can you explain what you mean by 'political type' to make sure everyone's on the same page?" might have been more appropriate here :P
      - Kye 5y ago
        Their definition would be an explanation of what they mean.
    - totetsu 5y ago
      http://wondermark.com/1k62/ http://wondermark.com/1k62/
    - genewitch 5y ago
      I'm not going to workshop definitions with you right now.
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]
richk449 5y ago
> If you want to stand your ground, its usually better to give nothing, even if you feel like you haven't explained well, or in an online discussion, if you feel like your counterpart has "won" by getting the last comment in. Why would you want to stand your ground? Isn’t the point of a discussion to learn new information and reach new conclusions? I don’t think that seeing discussions as a battle to be won is typically a good framework. Even if you reach the point that you consider winning, it is unlikely that much has been accomplished.
- dustintrex 5y ago
  Depends on the discussion. Some types of discussions, like salary or business negotiations, are battles to be won, even though etiquette demands we pretend otherwise. For example, if you're asking for a pay raise of $10k and your boss counters by asking why you need more money, it's not in your interest to go down that track.
makeitdouble 5y ago
If you feel like their question is trying to drag you into their field, you might want to also return a question instead. If none of you answers it stays as it is, if they were asking in good faith you get a better framing that isn't just a trap.
dotancohen 5y ago
This method is called the Socratic method, and it was found so annoying when invented that excuses were found to execute the inventor.
- Kye 5y ago
  Asking clarifying questions seems different from the Socratic method. Clarifying questions are a practical tool to make sure you understand someone.
  - dotancohen 5y ago
    No, it is exactly the Socratic method. Keep asking for clarification until you find a contradiction. Lead the target to trap themself.
    - Kye 5y ago
      That must be a difficult way to see the world. The answers to these questions often reveal how plausible it is that a discussion can go anywhere. I've avoided so many hell threads with them. That's time you don't get back. I'm just not going to persuade some people, and questions help me determine the viability of continuing.

Wowfunhappy 5y ago

> So often, both in person and online, I see people asking "can you explain what you mean by..." or trying to break your concern down further. ...I mean, I do this all the time out of a genuine desire to understand the other person's thinking; it's not some ploy to "win" an argument or feel somehow superior.

kurthr 5y ago
Unfortunately, it has been weaponized (especially on-line) for a long enough period that many people will not give the benefit of doubt. And frankly, unless they really want your compassion or understanding they have no incentive or any obligation to. Except for very well moderated forums and positive company cultures, it seems like that's where we are. One on one things stil seem much better.
version_five 5y ago
Thus my caveat of "among political types". In a good faith conversation it doesn't matter (and presumably staying silent and staring down your conversation partner happens less often generally). But as the other reply mentioned, there are lots of people - not friends, I've encountered it at work and online- that are basically trying to get you to talk more so they can trap you. The real trick is to recognize when it's happening with minimal false positives so you don't just look like a defensive jerk (been there also)
- Kye 5y ago
  Can you share your definition of "political type" to make sure everyone's on the same page?
  - Robin_Message 5y ago
    It's you. (Or maybe I missed the <satire> tags on your comment.)
    - Kye 5y ago
      In keeping with HN guidelines, I read their comment in the most fair way I could and assumed they weren't one of those "apolitical types" who's oblivious to the politics around them unless someone points it out and sneers at people who do. I come here because even at its worst, HN is usually capable of hosting conversations that would otherwise devolve to accusations and namecalling between people who could have a conversation without accusations and namecalling. This subthread is an example of HN at its worst. Not one of the four people who replied are the person I actually asked, and only one of you tried to make a good comment. (not you)
  - durovo 5y ago
    "Can you explain what you mean by 'political type' to make sure everyone's on the same page?" might have been more appropriate here :P
    - Kye 5y ago
      Their definition would be an explanation of what they mean.
  - totetsu 5y ago
    http://wondermark.com/1k62/ http://wondermark.com/1k62/
  - genewitch 5y ago
    I'm not going to workshop definitions with you right now.
deleted 5y ago
[deleted]
deleted 5y ago
[deleted]

richk449 5y ago

> If you want to stand your ground, its usually better to give nothing, even if you feel like you haven't explained well, or in an online discussion, if you feel like your counterpart has "won" by getting the last comment in. Why would you want to stand your ground? Isn’t the point of a discussion to learn new information and reach new conclusions? I don’t think that seeing discussions as a battle to be won is typically a good framework. Even if you reach the point that you consider winning, it is unlikely that much has been accomplished.

dustintrex 5y ago
Depends on the discussion. Some types of discussions, like salary or business negotiations, are battles to be won, even though etiquette demands we pretend otherwise. For example, if you're asking for a pay raise of $10k and your boss counters by asking why you need more money, it's not in your interest to go down that track.

makeitdouble 5y ago

If you feel like their question is trying to drag you into their field, you might want to also return a question instead. If none of you answers it stays as it is, if they were asking in good faith you get a better framing that isn't just a trap.

dotancohen 5y ago

This method is called the Socratic method, and it was found so annoying when invented that excuses were found to execute the inventor.

Kye 5y ago
Asking clarifying questions seems different from the Socratic method. Clarifying questions are a practical tool to make sure you understand someone.
- dotancohen 5y ago
  No, it is exactly the Socratic method. Keep asking for clarification until you find a contradiction. Lead the target to trap themself.
  - Kye 5y ago
    That must be a difficult way to see the world. The answers to these questions often reveal how plausible it is that a discussion can go anywhere. I've avoided so many hell threads with them. That's time you don't get back. I'm just not going to persuade some people, and questions help me determine the viability of continuing.