13 ms·

I’d like to offer an alternative framing: don’t debate at all, just listen. While high school debate did teach me many positive lessons and I am thankful that

I’d like to offer an alternative framing: don’t debate at all, just listen. While high school debate did teach me many positive lessons and I am thankful that I spent four years of my life doing it, many years later I have come to understand that it also taught me something truly negative: that the point of a conversation is to win. I have put a lot of time in my adult life unlearning that trait, and reflecting on the harm it did to my relationships with other people. If you want to grow like OP here suggests—which I think is a valuable, worthwhile goal—you will do yourself a great service in learning to listen. I know we all think that we do this, but I don’t think many of us actually do. When you talk to others, take note of how much of the time you spend formulating a response. I know that for me, I find that frequently I’m already generating my rebuttal before they finish speaking. I am effectively listening to respond, not to hear what they have to say. I’m much much better at listening to hear today than I was a decade ago, but I still have to correct myself on this routinely. It’s important to note that you can listen to hear and still be free to respond; if you want to have an interesting conversation you will definitely need to put in some effort too. Just make sure that you’re internalizing what they’ve said before you form a response to it. It will almost certainly slow down the pace of a conversation but stands a decent chance of making each exchange a lot more interesting for both of you. I really believe that the most profound realizations of my life have come when I shut up and put in the effort to internalize what other people around me were doing and saying.

sokoloff 4y ago
I recently read a similar point phrased in a way that really resonated: “if you’re right, you’ll still be right in five minutes” (so you might as well listen carefully in case you’re wrong).
- atoav 4y ago
  While this is good advice, it is still in a debate-mindset where, ultimately, it is about "winning" a conversation. But if you argue with someone who holds factually wrong opinions is it truly winning "if you showed them" and they think "what an asshole" and move on? That type of person is practised at brushing off a debate loss. That means if you enjoy winning such a debate it tells more about you than about the person opposite. The best conversations I had with the worst people stemmed from me not even telling them my opinion at all. I just asked them to explain theirs to me and asked the questions that occured to me in a respectful manner. Leaving them in healthy confusion and doubt afterwards (and learning a thing or two about them on the way) is more rewarding than winning a debate with them. Sometimes those people really surprise you as well, because they hold a combination of opinions that seem incompatible to you.
  - vidarh 4y ago
    "Winning" a debate can have value if there's an audience and where there's something important at stake, but people need to consider that if you get into "debate mode", there's virtually zero chance the other side will consider your viewpoint for a second, so it's a tradeoff with respect to whether convincing an audience matters or having a good conversation where both sides are open to learning something. I absolutely agree with you that the best conversations tends to come from the latter approach you describe. Unfortunately, it can often be difficult and take some skill to avoid pushing the other person into "debate mode" by making them feel like they're losing. Especially if there's an audience, however small.
    - JAlexoid 4y ago
      Has anyone ever provided any evidence, that debate content ever influenced audience's opinions?
  - Annatar 4y ago
    [dead]
  - Lutger 4y ago
    Debate can be fun (for some) as a game, and force you to articulate your position well, and you can learn from it. But there are different modes of engagement which are often much more helpful. What people often don't realize is that winning a debate doesn't necessarily mean you side with the truth. A debate is aimed at winning on your existing opinions and the other losing. It is not aimed at discovery, validation or learning. Victory is more important than truth, and a lot of 'good moves' in a debate actually bring you further away from the truth. If you engage in a conversation where you are both curious and submit to what's true (whatever that means), this conversation will rarely be a debate. If a debate is in public between skilled debaters who show sportsmanship, then I think the public can gain a lot because a debate forces you to be very on point.
    - nicoburns 4y ago
      > A debate is aimed at winning on your existing opinions and the other losing. That's true of the sort of debate that's practiced competitively by "debating teams", but I don't think it's always true of debate as the word is used in an everyday context. A debate can also be more like a dialectic.
- sublinear 4y ago
  Very good advice. A classic debate tactic is to coerce the opponent to hastily misspeak and then force them to defend their poorly worded statements. Cooler heads usually prevail. The classic defense is to slow it down by asking them to clarify their position. You can take it from there if you want to debate or not. Most people aren't debating you on purpose so there's no point as they continue to rubber duck (and maybe even thank you later). In case they really are in it for a debate, then by all means proceed.
- steveBK123 4y ago
  These sorts of mindsets are predicated on the assumption that two people "talking it out" or possibly appealing to google will arrive on "the right answer". While in reality for many things there are judgement calls, trade-offs, unknowns and basically "it depends". In software, POCs, trial&error, R&D, etc help you test out the options. Many would do better to frame a discussion as surfacing the risks, trade-offs, potential pitfalls, and benefits of different answers such that the "bad answer" is avoided, more than "the one right answer" is somehow discovered.
  - kqr 4y ago
    Yes, this is the real purpose of debate. It's an adversarial method of ensuring all important factors in a decision are brought up and heard by all involved, so they can go on to make the tradeoffs they think are right on their own. Nobody has to win or convince anyone of anything.
    - steveBK123 4y ago
      I think you need to be mindful if your "adversary" enjoys the "adversarial" method or, like many introverted software devs, is simply expediting the conversation to get away from you.
      - kqr 4y ago
        That's what a moderator/chairperson is for. They give the word to alternating perspectives and then after a few exchanges call for a decision.
paulpauper 4y ago
I’d like to offer an alternative framing: don’t debate at all, just listen. There are two wanys of looking at this. Doing nothing means you lose the opportunity to possibly correct an innocent mistake or to set the record. But it's also possible you may have no clue what you are talking about.
- atoav 4y ago
  Listening doesn't mean you say nothing, otherwise the other side will (eventually) just stop. Listening means asking the right questions. Imagine someone has an out-there idea. Listening means you go along with them and have them explain it to you. And you play the nice, slightly curious, but not too curious person that has an open mind and ask the doubting questions. You know more Judo, less boxing, instead of punching and dodging you just make sure when they come at you, their own energy carries them into positions they have to deal with. I tell you, a big fraction of the people's strongly held opinions completely fall apart when you just make them explain it in detail. And if they realized it is bullshit themselves that is a much more valuable thing than any fact you could ever provide. Especially naive people with wrong opinions have a strong reactance. That means if you tell them they are wrong (something they are used to being told), they will now treat this as a fight and you as the enemy and they will proudly lie to themselves (1+1=3) just to one-up you. That means the best way to get into productive territory with those people is to not swallow the bait and slowly go from where they are into a direction that is completely new to them. That also means leaving arguments like "I studied $X" or "scientific journal $Y says $Z" at the door. Those basically trigger them back into learned talking points
  - trompetenaccoun 4y ago
    It reads like you're saying people should fake being open to arguments while actually already having made up their mind from the start. >Imagine someone has an out-there idea How would one know the idea is out-there until one has listened and understood what someone else is saying? >And you play the nice, slightly curious, but not too curious person that has an open mind... I don't have to "play" this part, unless I were someone who isn't naturally nice and curious.
donkeyd 4y ago
> the point of a conversation is to win I have a feeling that a lot of people think this. Coming to an 'agree to disagree' is really had for some people. Sometimes there's no other option though, because both people seem to know the same facts, they just have differing opinions on how to deal with those facts. > take note of how much of the time you spend formulating a response I've been paying attention to this for years now after hearing or reading something similar. I haven't been able to change this, but sometimes it's helped me move back to listening and not missing important details because of it.
- atoav 4y ago
  The point is you don't even have to agree to disagree — it is not mandatory to tell the other person your opinion. You can also just listen to theirs and ask questions etc. A conversation can be much, much more than a clash of opinions. Going into a conversation with the idea of "the other guy is wrong" is a sure way of never understanding how they arrived at that wrong opinion to begin with. Yet sometimes precisely this is the most valuable thing you could learn from them.
  - donkeyd 4y ago
    > A conversation can be much, much more than a clash of opinions. It can be, but sometimes it isn't. Those are the cases I was talking about where agreeing to disagree can be a good outcome.
  - JohnFen 4y ago
    > it is not mandatory to tell the other person your opinion. Even more -- it is not mandatory to have an opinion on everything.
- rightbyte 4y ago
  > Coming to an 'agree to disagree' is really hard for some people In many cases the person you talk to don't really disagree, but pretends to due to ideologic or some BS reason. Maybe they don't want to say the real reason they think X. The "agree to disagree" is often used as an escape hatch for hypocrisy.
noud 4y ago
When someone tries explaining something to me, I try to summarize what this person said when they are finished. E.g., "So you're saying that <summary here>" or "It seems like <summary here>". This forces me to actively listen and remember what the other person has said. Afterwards, I'm looking for a response in the lines of "That's correct!" or "That's right!", or a correction and explanation that I haven't heard it correctly. Even if I don't agree with the other persons believes, this seems to build good relationships.
- nibbleshifter 4y ago
  That is what is called active listening, and is a good way to do it.
- dayjaby 4y ago
  Reminds me of the interview with Jordan Peterson, where the interviewer said "so you're saying that <some invented bullshit that J.P. never actually said>". So I agree with you as long as you don't fall into that trap of putting false words in the other mouth.
  - mejutoco 4y ago
    It is also useful if the other person won't accept any other phrasing that word-by-word quoting, even if in good faith, and accurate. It shows they are not willing to compromise.
  - slowwriter 4y ago
    In situations where someasks "so you're saying that..." followed by something they didn't say it might very well be on purpose, but in other cases being explicit about how you understood someone can allow them to elaborate and correct your understanding. It's much better than just continuing the conversation under a false assumption.
  - robertlagrant 4y ago
    I agree - especially in an interview situation where many of us still have a vestigial instinct that an interviewer is not biased and is informed, we can assume that what they say is an objective interpretation. In that instance, doing that actually exposed it quite well. Jordan Peterson is able to respond off the cuff, so a reasonable percentage of the audience didn't walk away having assimilated the interviewer's version of his position. The subsequent Joe Rogan interview of Jordan Peterson was illuminating. Joe Rogan is, against the odds, a good interviewer, because he listens and engages, and only occasionally challenges.
Cthulhu_ 4y ago
That sounds like the public debates which seem to be more of a thing in the US in general, but go back to e.g. the Greek and Roman traditions; two people debating with an audience taking in both sides. The problem I have with modern-day debates (I mainly catch the political ones) is that they're not at all good or in good faith, there's a lot of "but YOU did this", a lot of dismissals, and no good structure; the moderator does not do their job very well in a lot of cases. Mind you, that depends on the politician as well. Populists (e.g. Trump) are not good at all in debates.
- dagw 4y ago
  Populists (e.g. Trump) are not good at all in debates. Depends what you think the point of the TV debate actually is. Trump, for all his flaws, instinctively understood the actual point of the televised debate, and crushed all his primary opponents. He knew that his target audience didn't care if he was right or wrong on any of the facts or detail, they want someone who looked strong and confident and commanding, so that's what he focused on.
nibbleshifter 4y ago
There is nothing more tedious in adult life than some debate club weenie trying to turn every random fucking conversation into a debate. I strongly suspect debate club has a net negative impact on peoples social skills. It teaches a bunch of anti patterns to successful social interactions. Like, you will be shooting the shit with the lads down pub the once or twice you see them per year when this dickhead (and every group has one) picks up on something and decides it's time to flex his master debater skills yet again. Related absolutely cringe inducing behaviour includes the following: - the "I am very smart" contrarian (so half of this website) - the "gonna then everything into politics" (liberal) one - the "gonna turn everything into politics" (conservative) one - that guy who says "let's not get political" (proceeds to get extremely political) - "uhm ackshually" overcorrecting guy - guy who doesn't know dick about a topic but will pontificate on it Its entirely possible to unlearn these behaviours. The first thing is to realize you don't always have to respond. Someone says something wrong in passing? Ignore it, move on. Someone says something you disagree with? Evaluate if the inevitable unresolved and probably heated argument that will happen when you make it an issue is worth the time, effort, and awkwardness for everyone else present. Someone says something exceptionally disagreeable? Just fucking leave it be and disengage as soon as possible. The fight isn't worth the time.
- taneq 4y ago
  - the one that compulsively comments on formatting without discussing the actual topic ;) - agreed, though, that these are all flavours of trying to ‘win’ rather than actually contributing meaningfully
- jojobas 4y ago
  Debate clubs have you argue points that you don't necessarily agree with, they compete in rhetorics, not proving they are right. A wise man argues not to prove he's right, he's arguing to become right. Assuming (or at least allowing) your "opponent" knows something you don't is about all it takes to take a casual debate from a nuisance to learning experience.
- coldtea 4y ago
  And another favorite sign of the debating idiocy: the "this-is-a-fallacy" corrector, using fallacy lists to point "logical errors" in discussions...
vidarh 4y ago
I think the important thing is to be aware that there are several different types of debates or discussions with different purpose. School debate teams focus on combative debates - debates where the goal is to convince an audience, not the other side. The type politicians tends to engage in during campaigns. But it'd be good if people got better training in "cooperative" debates, where the purpose is to learn and listen. I can't recall many instances where that was encouraged in school, but there were a few. All of them were focused on a subject, though, rather than actually teaching the skill of listening and debating constructively. There's a space for both - sometimes you need to be combative -, but people switch to combative mode way too readily. To your point on the time formulating a response: Online I find a good measure of whether I'm "listening" or gearing up to being combative is whether I end up significantly re-writing my reply while writing it as I process the comment I'm replying to, or if have it "ready and loaded" to fire back at someone by the time I hit the reply button.
- deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]
- eequah9L 4y ago
  All the team projects have that as an implicit element, don't they? In order to arrive at a solution, the team has to talk, divide labor, etc.
  - vidarh 4y ago
    Or one person takes charge and steamrollers everyone else, or one person ends up doing the work because the rest can't be bothered, etc. You're right there's often some implicit element of it, but how to do it well seems to be rarely taught. At least it wasn't made explicit at my schools, and I've heard little to indicate it's been made explicit at my sons schools either. It seems pretty arbitrary how well people pick up those skills.
- JAlexoid 4y ago
  What we understand as debate today, is exactly the school adversarial debates that you're referring to. The "cooperative" debate is what we call a conversation. Throwing the word constructive in front of debate, does not change the adversarial nature of it.
roenxi 4y ago
There is a gradient of Advanced Conversational Techniques that nobody seems to ever discuss. If someone hasn't got a real grasp on the basics then just listening is certainly a great start and gets people about half way there. Life gets easier. Most people are so desperately instinctual at social tactics that anything which involves thinking about what other people think will yield great dividends. But if the goal is self improvement, it can't be done with just listening. Like learning can't be done by just reading. It is far to slow finding the gaps in your own understanding; arguing is orders of magnitude quicker. People will explain an argument's flaws right quick, and often helpfully repeat themselves a few times. Although what you're leading towards here might be persuasion, because it is a great tool for learning and people often don't realise the subtle way a persuasive argument pushes back. Those aren't as much fun as the hot flush of a robust debate but they are a lot more powerful (especially since many people may not realise that there is an argument going on).
- legends2k 4y ago
  Where can I learn about _Advanced Conversational Techniques_?
  - roenxi 4y ago
    Sorry, in hindsight I shouldn't have capitalised that. It isn't a recognised name for something that I'm aware of. That said I found Marshall Rosenberg's Nonviolent Communication quite eye opening because it articulated the idea that it is possible and sensible to approach conversation strategically. Then after getting a feel for a do-no-harm approach it is relatively easy to start categorising what people say into tactics and there are some things that work and others that really don't. It seems pretty obvious that effective people are very good at listening, asking questions and what sort of evidence they treat as persuasive or unpersuasive.
bambax 4y ago
> don’t debate at all, just listen This is what the OP says; while the title of the post is "I want to lose every debate" that's what he says in the end: > I never want to debate, but if I had to, I would hope to lose. And I get it, I think; but there is something to be said in favor of debating, not as a competition, but as a method of refining each other's ideas. Someone exposing a theory of theirs that's apparently well polished is less interesting than people discussing, exchanging ideas and poking and exposing possible holes. That's what debating should be: not a sport with "winners" and "losers" (what does that even mean in the realm of ideas??) but as a joint effort and journey in search of the truth.
- TheSpiceIsLife 4y ago
  Discussion: an act or instance of discussing; consideration or examination by argument, comment, etc., especially to explore solutions; informal debate. Discuss is first recorded in 1300–50; Middle English, either from Anglo-French discusser or directly from Latin discussus “struck asunder, shaken, scattered,” past participle of discutere, equivalent to dis- dis-1 + -cutere (combining form of quatere “to shake, strike”).
- etothepii 4y ago
  I think this is what I dislike most about Jordan Peterson. He appears to behave as if it's your fault if when you paraphrase what you think he's said back to him is not something he wants to agree with. IMHO, you haven't understood someone if you can't repeat it back to them in your own language, and there's a good probability that this is the fault of the explainer not the explainee.
  - Supermancho 4y ago
    > He appears to behave as if it's your fault if when you paraphrase what you think he's said back to him is not something he wants to agree with. I don't think that's unique to JP. Most people are very bad at paraphrasing without veering into misrepresentation. I'm still working on getting better.
    - 4y ago
jojobas 4y ago
If you remain silent you potentially deny your parties the opportunity to have a profound realization.
underdeserver 4y ago
If it's a lecture and not a conversation, I will usually end up thinking of counterpoints to what they said. And I believe that they have a good response to any counterpoint I have, and I want to hear it. Otherwise I'm left with my counterpoints and I'm less engaged and less convinced.
hummingn3rd 4y ago
That makes me think of The Scout Mindset: Why Some People See Things Clearly and Others Don't https://g.co/kgs/2eXND7 https://g.co/kgs/2eXND7
noduerme 4y ago
Derek Sivers never listened to anything, he's a narcissistic maniac who floods the email boxes of everyone on every list he's ever had with self-help advice that's never more than the most thinly disguised self-promotion. Please stop talking as if his writing is profound.
- cmilton 4y ago
  What do you think about losing every debate?
  - noduerme 4y ago
    aw man, you're gonna force me to read this? fuck. ok. give me a minute. ... Okay, I think that as expected the word salad doesn't do anything to expand on the subject; it's another grossly compact attempt at telling everyone what a crazy and interesting life he's had without going into detail beyond the barest mention that he was somewhere and talked to someone; serves yet again as a form of name-dropping; proves absolutely nothing about debate but somehow oddly inspires people here to go way out of their way debating what the author meant. In general? I think debate is just a byword for civil discussion, and the concept of winning or losing one is stupid. Discussions are meant to elucidate and digress and open both people to one another's point of view, but that's no reason they shouldn't be contentious. To describe a contentious conversation as a debate in which someone has to win and someone has to lose is reductive and misses the point of conversation. To cast oneself as the ultimate martyr in such conversations by way of [losing one's ego on the road from Patpong to Nepal and] creating ranking click bait topics is pure Derek Sivers. There ya go.
    - cmilton 4y ago
      Thank you for that. I appreciate your conversation about the content of his article rather than the content of his character. Like others, I have no idea who Sivers is.
- BlueTemplar 4y ago
  Even a broken clock is right once in a while. I can understand your reaction if that is your experience with him (first time I hear of the guy), but it at least seems to have created some constructive discussion here.
tchalla 4y ago
"I never allow myself to hold an opinion on anything that I don't know the other side's argument better than they do" ― Charlie Munger
Winsaucerer 4y ago
> While high school debate did teach me many positive lessons and I am thankful that I spent four years of my life doing it, many years later I have come to understand that it also taught me something truly negative: that the point of a conversation is to win. I've always enjoyed arguing (in the sense of a polite dialogue between two who disagree). But for me, even though I enjoy arguing, being right is more important -- which includes trying to cultivate the discipline to recognise and acknowledge when my interlocutor makes a good point, and trying to understand why they think what they do. At university, I checked out the debating club, thinking it might be a good fit for me, but I was wrong. There, the goal seemed to be purely to win, correctness be damned. I found the arguments they marshaled towards their goal to be dishonest and contrary to the goals of increasing understanding and getting to the heart of a matter. I can see how that could be seen as a sport or competition of sorts, but I worried about the kind of habits it might form. It is too similar to the kind of arguing I enjoy that it would be easy to slip from one mode to the other if those debate club type skills were developed and honed.
BlueTemplar 4y ago
Yeah, it can work great one on one, sadly it's much harder to do as the number of interlocutors increases, as the time spent thinking things out instead of immediately answering is time that someone else can "hijack" the conversation (for bad or good reasons, nobody owes you a lot of time to formulate an answer), at which point it could be hard or sometimes even rude to come back to that point.
SuoDuanDao 4y ago
thank you. If I'm ever in a position of choosing a co-founder again, I'll probably ask potential candidates their opinions on debate and treat any positive sentiment towards debate as a negative signal. Few things are more tiring in an already difficult slog than needing to go to war every time you'd like to introduce a change. I know some people are energized by debate, but I'd rather work with someone who builds my confidence rather than constantly attacks my ideas and, if those don't have any weak corners, my character and judgement. Nothing wrong with either preference, but the two shouldn't work together in my experience.
- PaulDavisThe1st 4y ago
  Your position/preference seems to arise from your identification with your own ideas, which is one of the most fundamental differences in the realm of people's response to "debate". There's absolutely nothing wrong with identifying with your own ideas, and indeed, it will naturally lead to a negative experience if you have to interact with someone who attacks those ideas. However, there are people who don't experience as much, if any, attachment or identification with "their own ideas", and instead view "debate" (or indeed, any sort of exploration of ideas, truth, and so forth) as a chance to be, to use an over-used phrase, "less wrong". It doesn't bother me if someone demonstrates to me that what I thought is wrong (as long as they do it in a way that respects me as a person), and in fact I welcome the correction (though sometimes it may be difficult to process if it is a long-held idea with wide consequences). As usual, there's a spectrum (or two) here: a spectrum of identifying with your own ideas, and a spectrum of levels of personal respect when "debating". Certainly a very bad combination is one person with a high level of self-identification with their own ideas being debated/attack by someone who (a) has no concept that this self-identification experience is real (b) cannot engage with the ideas without criticizing the other person.
  - jancsika 4y ago
    There's a big difference between these two: 1. Co-founder who clearly signals respect and self-reflection, and who much later reveals they have a penchant for the occasional debate and dis-attachment from their own ideas. 2. A co-founder who signals they like debates in a candidate meeting. I rankly speculate here on HN that if OP always avoids #2, not only will nothing bad happen as a result, but they will also decrease the chance of choosing a bad candidate. I further rankly speculate this for any founder. HN debates are fun, but they hide the fact that debate is a low-effort tool. Like drinking alcohol, it can be useful. But if it moves from being a mere implementation detail to becoming part of the API in a candidate meeting: run!
peoplefromibiza 4y ago
> don’t debate at all, just listen. debates, even though I prefer the term discussions, are held between at least two parties. I might sometime be the part who listens, but we can't both be listening, there will be no discussion. So if you have something to say, say it and don't let anyone interrupt you. Listening to what other people are saying means donating your time and attention, not everybody deserve it, there's a reason why "professional listeners" such as psychologists charge a lot of money to do it. Most of the time people don't want to discuss, they simply want to talk about themselves. Like the author of this piece.
erenyeager 4y ago
Same experience with high school debate, there must be dozens of us.
foobarbecue 4y ago
The linked article did say: "I never want to debate"
dkarl 4y ago
> don’t debate at all, just listen I think that depends on how familiar they are with your perspective. You don't want to think of the interaction as unequal, with you taking the higher perspective of observing both their ideas and yours, appreciating and integrating them, while they only exist in their own point of view, the observed to your observer. If they understand your perspective but you don't know theirs, it makes sense for them to do most of the talking. But if they don't understand where you're coming from, then a one-sided conversation is one-sided in a bad way. It's like looking at them through a telescope. You'll have your reactions to their ideas, but you won't have their reactions to yours, their reactions to your reactions.
- deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]
alsetmusic 4y ago
I was told, by someone I was dating, many years ago, that they thought that when they were speaking, I was thinking about what I was going to say next. I didn't fully understand that comment for more than a decade. This is a highly insightful take. Thanks. You nailed it. Learning to listen may not come naturally for some of us. It's a skill that requires practice and reinforcement.
- Udis 4y ago
  I had the same experience with two exes and just now in my late 20s, after reading the comments, I feel Im understanding what they meant.
jffhn 4y ago
>high school debate [...] taught me something truly negative: that the point of a conversation is to win. The etymology of "debate" is "de-beat", i.e what you do to avoid beating each other, so in principle it's closer to negotiation than to mutual battering.
- trgn 4y ago
  Huizinga argues that debating is essentially a human expression of our animal play instinct. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homo_Ludens https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homo_Ludens This would also be the reason in settings where debate is formalized, e.g. a courtroom, there are elements of pageantry and pantomime. All playful exaggerations, nonetheless serious (because play can be serious business, look at any child absorbed in a game). Debating as a means to avoid combat then follows quite naturally. It's sublimation of a primal instinct, channeling dangerous antagonistic behaviors into the realm of harmless play.
lo_zamoyski 4y ago
Charitably, I get what you and the author of the article are describing, but I would make at least this comment. The point of listening is ultimately to know the truth. The fact that listening to others is ipso facto social means that we learn a great deal in community. But it's one thing to learn about what someone else believes. It's another to accept those beliefs as true. The person you are listening to could be in error. Listening is, therefore, a kind of data collection, and data need to be interpreted, after which some kind of verification generally ought to take place (of course, we cannot verify everything, hence for practical reasons, we often trust, e.g., the authority of tradition and its authoritative "keepers", at least until we have reason to doubt). W.r.t. debating, there's a time and place for it. Classically, it is a formal and public affair reserved for certain circumstances. You don't debate during data collection. I think Socratic dialogue is a better fit for exploration and discussion, though that, too, and trivially so, has a time and a place.
- dredmorbius 4y ago
  We listen to a great many things that we objectively know aren't true. Or which have no specific bearing on truth. Listening is critical to all communication (there's at least one speaker and one listener to any conversation involving one or more sentiences). I'd suggest that the goal of listening is to understand the other party, at least within the universe of their story or experience. You don't have to believe, agree, sympathise, or even empathise. You may have entirely selfish reasons for doing so (is this person a threat / kook / messiah / ...?). If we choose to listen, though, the principle goal is only occasionally seeking truth.
kishmat 4y ago
> don’t debate at all, just listen but if all people with this mindset, improvement never comes
mistermann 4y ago
> It will almost certainly slow down the pace of a conversation but stands a decent chance of making each exchange a lot more interesting for both of you. Deliberately slowing conversations down to one 100th of their normal pace might produce some interesting results. In a sense, this is one of the techniques that science uses, and it seems to reliably produce excellent outcomes in fairly complicated problem spaces.
TheRealPomax 4y ago
That's not an alternative, that's just "the final message in the post"? > I never want to debate, but if I had to, I would hope to lose.
starkd 4y ago
Another thing is realizing you really don't need to have an opinion on everything. Enormously freeing to realize this.
hbrn 4y ago
> don’t debate at all, just listen I disagree (pun intended). Debating allows you to understand your own position better, e.g. is it based on information, intuition, values, preference, experience, or bias? And it forces another party to do the same, which allows you to better decide how to handle disagreements. E.g. if their position is based on preference, we can agree to disagree and move on. If it's based on a bias, I will value their opinion less. If someone has a different knowledge, that's something we can (and should) resolve asap. If our values are different we will never be able to resolve it and it's better to avoid conflict.
- xpe 4y ago
  If you perceive there is sufficient trust and interest in engaging in some kind of debate, sure, consider it. Debate, in its many forms, can have many advantages, but it is not categorically preferable. Also consider all your other options: pure listening, mutual bonding, offering emotional support, even walking away (from a no-win situation). If / when debate falls apart, there are many options to reconnect.
- JAlexoid 4y ago
  That's really not how debate typically works. Someone states their position, while you're expected to undermine their position with a retort. It is one of the least productive ways of resolving differences.
  - hbrn 4y ago
    You're supposed to both attack your opponent's position and defend yours. What you're describing is a lack of debate culture. A good example of that was already referred here (the infamous "so you're saying" interview).
    - JAlexoid 4y ago
      That's literally worse.
dredmorbius 4y ago
Very much this, I was going to comment similarly. Every discussion is not a debate. Perhaps this is what Sivers was trying to communicate, in which case, he did so rather poorly. The examples offered all revolve around lived experiences, lifestyle preference (taste), and articles of faith, for which there really isn't much of an objective truth, let alone one which can be demonstrated through evidence and reason. There's something to be said for simply choosing to absorb a story, to bear witness, even to validate a person's view or choices (though that last isn't necessarily always appropriate). From my experience, some years back I encountered a ... local character ... who was known for accosting strangers on the street and ranting about various topics, generally rather fantastical. I'd seen this happen several times over the years, and one day it was my turn. After the tirade slowed, and unsure how to respond, I simply said "thank you". The transformation was immediate and profound: they were immensely grateful and their entire demeanor changed. I don't pretend that this is universally applicable. I do know that there was no point in rational argument with the person. The circumstances were such that there was no obvious danger to myself or those around me. But I've thought more than once over the years of how a simple acknowledgement might often be an excellent choice of response.

sokoloff 4y ago

I recently read a similar point phrased in a way that really resonated: “if you’re right, you’ll still be right in five minutes” (so you might as well listen carefully in case you’re wrong).

atoav 4y ago
While this is good advice, it is still in a debate-mindset where, ultimately, it is about "winning" a conversation. But if you argue with someone who holds factually wrong opinions is it truly winning "if you showed them" and they think "what an asshole" and move on? That type of person is practised at brushing off a debate loss. That means if you enjoy winning such a debate it tells more about you than about the person opposite. The best conversations I had with the worst people stemmed from me not even telling them my opinion at all. I just asked them to explain theirs to me and asked the questions that occured to me in a respectful manner. Leaving them in healthy confusion and doubt afterwards (and learning a thing or two about them on the way) is more rewarding than winning a debate with them. Sometimes those people really surprise you as well, because they hold a combination of opinions that seem incompatible to you.
- vidarh 4y ago
  "Winning" a debate can have value if there's an audience and where there's something important at stake, but people need to consider that if you get into "debate mode", there's virtually zero chance the other side will consider your viewpoint for a second, so it's a tradeoff with respect to whether convincing an audience matters or having a good conversation where both sides are open to learning something. I absolutely agree with you that the best conversations tends to come from the latter approach you describe. Unfortunately, it can often be difficult and take some skill to avoid pushing the other person into "debate mode" by making them feel like they're losing. Especially if there's an audience, however small.
  - JAlexoid 4y ago
    Has anyone ever provided any evidence, that debate content ever influenced audience's opinions?
- Annatar 4y ago
  [dead]
- Lutger 4y ago
  Debate can be fun (for some) as a game, and force you to articulate your position well, and you can learn from it. But there are different modes of engagement which are often much more helpful. What people often don't realize is that winning a debate doesn't necessarily mean you side with the truth. A debate is aimed at winning on your existing opinions and the other losing. It is not aimed at discovery, validation or learning. Victory is more important than truth, and a lot of 'good moves' in a debate actually bring you further away from the truth. If you engage in a conversation where you are both curious and submit to what's true (whatever that means), this conversation will rarely be a debate. If a debate is in public between skilled debaters who show sportsmanship, then I think the public can gain a lot because a debate forces you to be very on point.
  - nicoburns 4y ago
    > A debate is aimed at winning on your existing opinions and the other losing. That's true of the sort of debate that's practiced competitively by "debating teams", but I don't think it's always true of debate as the word is used in an everyday context. A debate can also be more like a dialectic.
sublinear 4y ago
Very good advice. A classic debate tactic is to coerce the opponent to hastily misspeak and then force them to defend their poorly worded statements. Cooler heads usually prevail. The classic defense is to slow it down by asking them to clarify their position. You can take it from there if you want to debate or not. Most people aren't debating you on purpose so there's no point as they continue to rubber duck (and maybe even thank you later). In case they really are in it for a debate, then by all means proceed.
steveBK123 4y ago
These sorts of mindsets are predicated on the assumption that two people "talking it out" or possibly appealing to google will arrive on "the right answer". While in reality for many things there are judgement calls, trade-offs, unknowns and basically "it depends". In software, POCs, trial&error, R&D, etc help you test out the options. Many would do better to frame a discussion as surfacing the risks, trade-offs, potential pitfalls, and benefits of different answers such that the "bad answer" is avoided, more than "the one right answer" is somehow discovered.
- kqr 4y ago
  Yes, this is the real purpose of debate. It's an adversarial method of ensuring all important factors in a decision are brought up and heard by all involved, so they can go on to make the tradeoffs they think are right on their own. Nobody has to win or convince anyone of anything.
  - steveBK123 4y ago
    I think you need to be mindful if your "adversary" enjoys the "adversarial" method or, like many introverted software devs, is simply expediting the conversation to get away from you.
    - kqr 4y ago
      That's what a moderator/chairperson is for. They give the word to alternating perspectives and then after a few exchanges call for a decision.

paulpauper 4y ago

I’d like to offer an alternative framing: don’t debate at all, just listen. There are two wanys of looking at this. Doing nothing means you lose the opportunity to possibly correct an innocent mistake or to set the record. But it's also possible you may have no clue what you are talking about.

atoav 4y ago
Listening doesn't mean you say nothing, otherwise the other side will (eventually) just stop. Listening means asking the right questions. Imagine someone has an out-there idea. Listening means you go along with them and have them explain it to you. And you play the nice, slightly curious, but not too curious person that has an open mind and ask the doubting questions. You know more Judo, less boxing, instead of punching and dodging you just make sure when they come at you, their own energy carries them into positions they have to deal with. I tell you, a big fraction of the people's strongly held opinions completely fall apart when you just make them explain it in detail. And if they realized it is bullshit themselves that is a much more valuable thing than any fact you could ever provide. Especially naive people with wrong opinions have a strong reactance. That means if you tell them they are wrong (something they are used to being told), they will now treat this as a fight and you as the enemy and they will proudly lie to themselves (1+1=3) just to one-up you. That means the best way to get into productive territory with those people is to not swallow the bait and slowly go from where they are into a direction that is completely new to them. That also means leaving arguments like "I studied $X" or "scientific journal $Y says $Z" at the door. Those basically trigger them back into learned talking points
- trompetenaccoun 4y ago
  It reads like you're saying people should fake being open to arguments while actually already having made up their mind from the start. >Imagine someone has an out-there idea How would one know the idea is out-there until one has listened and understood what someone else is saying? >And you play the nice, slightly curious, but not too curious person that has an open mind... I don't have to "play" this part, unless I were someone who isn't naturally nice and curious.

donkeyd 4y ago

> the point of a conversation is to win I have a feeling that a lot of people think this. Coming to an 'agree to disagree' is really had for some people. Sometimes there's no other option though, because both people seem to know the same facts, they just have differing opinions on how to deal with those facts. > take note of how much of the time you spend formulating a response I've been paying attention to this for years now after hearing or reading something similar. I haven't been able to change this, but sometimes it's helped me move back to listening and not missing important details because of it.

atoav 4y ago
The point is you don't even have to agree to disagree — it is not mandatory to tell the other person your opinion. You can also just listen to theirs and ask questions etc. A conversation can be much, much more than a clash of opinions. Going into a conversation with the idea of "the other guy is wrong" is a sure way of never understanding how they arrived at that wrong opinion to begin with. Yet sometimes precisely this is the most valuable thing you could learn from them.
- donkeyd 4y ago
  > A conversation can be much, much more than a clash of opinions. It can be, but sometimes it isn't. Those are the cases I was talking about where agreeing to disagree can be a good outcome.
- JohnFen 4y ago
  > it is not mandatory to tell the other person your opinion. Even more -- it is not mandatory to have an opinion on everything.
rightbyte 4y ago
> Coming to an 'agree to disagree' is really hard for some people In many cases the person you talk to don't really disagree, but pretends to due to ideologic or some BS reason. Maybe they don't want to say the real reason they think X. The "agree to disagree" is often used as an escape hatch for hypocrisy.

noud 4y ago

When someone tries explaining something to me, I try to summarize what this person said when they are finished. E.g., "So you're saying that <summary here>" or "It seems like <summary here>". This forces me to actively listen and remember what the other person has said. Afterwards, I'm looking for a response in the lines of "That's correct!" or "That's right!", or a correction and explanation that I haven't heard it correctly. Even if I don't agree with the other persons believes, this seems to build good relationships.

nibbleshifter 4y ago
That is what is called active listening, and is a good way to do it.
dayjaby 4y ago
Reminds me of the interview with Jordan Peterson, where the interviewer said "so you're saying that <some invented bullshit that J.P. never actually said>". So I agree with you as long as you don't fall into that trap of putting false words in the other mouth.
- mejutoco 4y ago
  It is also useful if the other person won't accept any other phrasing that word-by-word quoting, even if in good faith, and accurate. It shows they are not willing to compromise.
- slowwriter 4y ago
  In situations where someasks "so you're saying that..." followed by something they didn't say it might very well be on purpose, but in other cases being explicit about how you understood someone can allow them to elaborate and correct your understanding. It's much better than just continuing the conversation under a false assumption.
- robertlagrant 4y ago
  I agree - especially in an interview situation where many of us still have a vestigial instinct that an interviewer is not biased and is informed, we can assume that what they say is an objective interpretation. In that instance, doing that actually exposed it quite well. Jordan Peterson is able to respond off the cuff, so a reasonable percentage of the audience didn't walk away having assimilated the interviewer's version of his position. The subsequent Joe Rogan interview of Jordan Peterson was illuminating. Joe Rogan is, against the odds, a good interviewer, because he listens and engages, and only occasionally challenges.

Cthulhu_ 4y ago

That sounds like the public debates which seem to be more of a thing in the US in general, but go back to e.g. the Greek and Roman traditions; two people debating with an audience taking in both sides. The problem I have with modern-day debates (I mainly catch the political ones) is that they're not at all good or in good faith, there's a lot of "but YOU did this", a lot of dismissals, and no good structure; the moderator does not do their job very well in a lot of cases. Mind you, that depends on the politician as well. Populists (e.g. Trump) are not good at all in debates.

dagw 4y ago
Populists (e.g. Trump) are not good at all in debates. Depends what you think the point of the TV debate actually is. Trump, for all his flaws, instinctively understood the actual point of the televised debate, and crushed all his primary opponents. He knew that his target audience didn't care if he was right or wrong on any of the facts or detail, they want someone who looked strong and confident and commanding, so that's what he focused on.

nibbleshifter 4y ago

There is nothing more tedious in adult life than some debate club weenie trying to turn every random fucking conversation into a debate. I strongly suspect debate club has a net negative impact on peoples social skills. It teaches a bunch of anti patterns to successful social interactions. Like, you will be shooting the shit with the lads down pub the once or twice you see them per year when this dickhead (and every group has one) picks up on something and decides it's time to flex his master debater skills yet again. Related absolutely cringe inducing behaviour includes the following: - the "I am very smart" contrarian (so half of this website) - the "gonna then everything into politics" (liberal) one - the "gonna turn everything into politics" (conservative) one - that guy who says "let's not get political" (proceeds to get extremely political) - "uhm ackshually" overcorrecting guy - guy who doesn't know dick about a topic but will pontificate on it Its entirely possible to unlearn these behaviours. The first thing is to realize you don't always have to respond. Someone says something wrong in passing? Ignore it, move on. Someone says something you disagree with? Evaluate if the inevitable unresolved and probably heated argument that will happen when you make it an issue is worth the time, effort, and awkwardness for everyone else present. Someone says something exceptionally disagreeable? Just fucking leave it be and disengage as soon as possible. The fight isn't worth the time.

taneq 4y ago
- the one that compulsively comments on formatting without discussing the actual topic ;) - agreed, though, that these are all flavours of trying to ‘win’ rather than actually contributing meaningfully
jojobas 4y ago
Debate clubs have you argue points that you don't necessarily agree with, they compete in rhetorics, not proving they are right. A wise man argues not to prove he's right, he's arguing to become right. Assuming (or at least allowing) your "opponent" knows something you don't is about all it takes to take a casual debate from a nuisance to learning experience.
coldtea 4y ago
And another favorite sign of the debating idiocy: the "this-is-a-fallacy" corrector, using fallacy lists to point "logical errors" in discussions...

vidarh 4y ago

I think the important thing is to be aware that there are several different types of debates or discussions with different purpose. School debate teams focus on combative debates - debates where the goal is to convince an audience, not the other side. The type politicians tends to engage in during campaigns. But it'd be good if people got better training in "cooperative" debates, where the purpose is to learn and listen. I can't recall many instances where that was encouraged in school, but there were a few. All of them were focused on a subject, though, rather than actually teaching the skill of listening and debating constructively. There's a space for both - sometimes you need to be combative -, but people switch to combative mode way too readily. To your point on the time formulating a response: Online I find a good measure of whether I'm "listening" or gearing up to being combative is whether I end up significantly re-writing my reply while writing it as I process the comment I'm replying to, or if have it "ready and loaded" to fire back at someone by the time I hit the reply button.

deleted 4y ago
[deleted]
eequah9L 4y ago
All the team projects have that as an implicit element, don't they? In order to arrive at a solution, the team has to talk, divide labor, etc.
- vidarh 4y ago
  Or one person takes charge and steamrollers everyone else, or one person ends up doing the work because the rest can't be bothered, etc. You're right there's often some implicit element of it, but how to do it well seems to be rarely taught. At least it wasn't made explicit at my schools, and I've heard little to indicate it's been made explicit at my sons schools either. It seems pretty arbitrary how well people pick up those skills.
JAlexoid 4y ago
What we understand as debate today, is exactly the school adversarial debates that you're referring to. The "cooperative" debate is what we call a conversation. Throwing the word constructive in front of debate, does not change the adversarial nature of it.

roenxi 4y ago

There is a gradient of Advanced Conversational Techniques that nobody seems to ever discuss. If someone hasn't got a real grasp on the basics then just listening is certainly a great start and gets people about half way there. Life gets easier. Most people are so desperately instinctual at social tactics that anything which involves thinking about what other people think will yield great dividends. But if the goal is self improvement, it can't be done with just listening. Like learning can't be done by just reading. It is far to slow finding the gaps in your own understanding; arguing is orders of magnitude quicker. People will explain an argument's flaws right quick, and often helpfully repeat themselves a few times. Although what you're leading towards here might be persuasion, because it is a great tool for learning and people often don't realise the subtle way a persuasive argument pushes back. Those aren't as much fun as the hot flush of a robust debate but they are a lot more powerful (especially since many people may not realise that there is an argument going on).

legends2k 4y ago
Where can I learn about _Advanced Conversational Techniques_?
- roenxi 4y ago
  Sorry, in hindsight I shouldn't have capitalised that. It isn't a recognised name for something that I'm aware of. That said I found Marshall Rosenberg's Nonviolent Communication quite eye opening because it articulated the idea that it is possible and sensible to approach conversation strategically. Then after getting a feel for a do-no-harm approach it is relatively easy to start categorising what people say into tactics and there are some things that work and others that really don't. It seems pretty obvious that effective people are very good at listening, asking questions and what sort of evidence they treat as persuasive or unpersuasive.

bambax 4y ago

> don’t debate at all, just listen This is what the OP says; while the title of the post is "I want to lose every debate" that's what he says in the end: > I never want to debate, but if I had to, I would hope to lose. And I get it, I think; but there is something to be said in favor of debating, not as a competition, but as a method of refining each other's ideas. Someone exposing a theory of theirs that's apparently well polished is less interesting than people discussing, exchanging ideas and poking and exposing possible holes. That's what debating should be: not a sport with "winners" and "losers" (what does that even mean in the realm of ideas??) but as a joint effort and journey in search of the truth.

TheSpiceIsLife 4y ago
Discussion: an act or instance of discussing; consideration or examination by argument, comment, etc., especially to explore solutions; informal debate. Discuss is first recorded in 1300–50; Middle English, either from Anglo-French discusser or directly from Latin discussus “struck asunder, shaken, scattered,” past participle of discutere, equivalent to dis- dis-1 + -cutere (combining form of quatere “to shake, strike”).
etothepii 4y ago
I think this is what I dislike most about Jordan Peterson. He appears to behave as if it's your fault if when you paraphrase what you think he's said back to him is not something he wants to agree with. IMHO, you haven't understood someone if you can't repeat it back to them in your own language, and there's a good probability that this is the fault of the explainer not the explainee.
- Supermancho 4y ago
  > He appears to behave as if it's your fault if when you paraphrase what you think he's said back to him is not something he wants to agree with. I don't think that's unique to JP. Most people are very bad at paraphrasing without veering into misrepresentation. I'm still working on getting better.
  - 4y ago

jojobas 4y ago

If you remain silent you potentially deny your parties the opportunity to have a profound realization.

underdeserver 4y ago

If it's a lecture and not a conversation, I will usually end up thinking of counterpoints to what they said. And I believe that they have a good response to any counterpoint I have, and I want to hear it. Otherwise I'm left with my counterpoints and I'm less engaged and less convinced.

hummingn3rd 4y ago

That makes me think of The Scout Mindset: Why Some People See Things Clearly and Others Don't https://g.co/kgs/2eXND7 https://g.co/kgs/2eXND7

noduerme 4y ago

Derek Sivers never listened to anything, he's a narcissistic maniac who floods the email boxes of everyone on every list he's ever had with self-help advice that's never more than the most thinly disguised self-promotion. Please stop talking as if his writing is profound.

cmilton 4y ago
What do you think about losing every debate?
- noduerme 4y ago
  aw man, you're gonna force me to read this? fuck. ok. give me a minute. ... Okay, I think that as expected the word salad doesn't do anything to expand on the subject; it's another grossly compact attempt at telling everyone what a crazy and interesting life he's had without going into detail beyond the barest mention that he was somewhere and talked to someone; serves yet again as a form of name-dropping; proves absolutely nothing about debate but somehow oddly inspires people here to go way out of their way debating what the author meant. In general? I think debate is just a byword for civil discussion, and the concept of winning or losing one is stupid. Discussions are meant to elucidate and digress and open both people to one another's point of view, but that's no reason they shouldn't be contentious. To describe a contentious conversation as a debate in which someone has to win and someone has to lose is reductive and misses the point of conversation. To cast oneself as the ultimate martyr in such conversations by way of [losing one's ego on the road from Patpong to Nepal and] creating ranking click bait topics is pure Derek Sivers. There ya go.
  - cmilton 4y ago
    Thank you for that. I appreciate your conversation about the content of his article rather than the content of his character. Like others, I have no idea who Sivers is.
BlueTemplar 4y ago
Even a broken clock is right once in a while. I can understand your reaction if that is your experience with him (first time I hear of the guy), but it at least seems to have created some constructive discussion here.

tchalla 4y ago

"I never allow myself to hold an opinion on anything that I don't know the other side's argument better than they do" ― Charlie Munger

Winsaucerer 4y ago

> While high school debate did teach me many positive lessons and I am thankful that I spent four years of my life doing it, many years later I have come to understand that it also taught me something truly negative: that the point of a conversation is to win. I've always enjoyed arguing (in the sense of a polite dialogue between two who disagree). But for me, even though I enjoy arguing, being right is more important -- which includes trying to cultivate the discipline to recognise and acknowledge when my interlocutor makes a good point, and trying to understand why they think what they do. At university, I checked out the debating club, thinking it might be a good fit for me, but I was wrong. There, the goal seemed to be purely to win, correctness be damned. I found the arguments they marshaled towards their goal to be dishonest and contrary to the goals of increasing understanding and getting to the heart of a matter. I can see how that could be seen as a sport or competition of sorts, but I worried about the kind of habits it might form. It is too similar to the kind of arguing I enjoy that it would be easy to slip from one mode to the other if those debate club type skills were developed and honed.

BlueTemplar 4y ago

Yeah, it can work great one on one, sadly it's much harder to do as the number of interlocutors increases, as the time spent thinking things out instead of immediately answering is time that someone else can "hijack" the conversation (for bad or good reasons, nobody owes you a lot of time to formulate an answer), at which point it could be hard or sometimes even rude to come back to that point.

SuoDuanDao 4y ago

thank you. If I'm ever in a position of choosing a co-founder again, I'll probably ask potential candidates their opinions on debate and treat any positive sentiment towards debate as a negative signal. Few things are more tiring in an already difficult slog than needing to go to war every time you'd like to introduce a change. I know some people are energized by debate, but I'd rather work with someone who builds my confidence rather than constantly attacks my ideas and, if those don't have any weak corners, my character and judgement. Nothing wrong with either preference, but the two shouldn't work together in my experience.

PaulDavisThe1st 4y ago
Your position/preference seems to arise from your identification with your own ideas, which is one of the most fundamental differences in the realm of people's response to "debate". There's absolutely nothing wrong with identifying with your own ideas, and indeed, it will naturally lead to a negative experience if you have to interact with someone who attacks those ideas. However, there are people who don't experience as much, if any, attachment or identification with "their own ideas", and instead view "debate" (or indeed, any sort of exploration of ideas, truth, and so forth) as a chance to be, to use an over-used phrase, "less wrong". It doesn't bother me if someone demonstrates to me that what I thought is wrong (as long as they do it in a way that respects me as a person), and in fact I welcome the correction (though sometimes it may be difficult to process if it is a long-held idea with wide consequences). As usual, there's a spectrum (or two) here: a spectrum of identifying with your own ideas, and a spectrum of levels of personal respect when "debating". Certainly a very bad combination is one person with a high level of self-identification with their own ideas being debated/attack by someone who (a) has no concept that this self-identification experience is real (b) cannot engage with the ideas without criticizing the other person.
- jancsika 4y ago
  There's a big difference between these two: 1. Co-founder who clearly signals respect and self-reflection, and who much later reveals they have a penchant for the occasional debate and dis-attachment from their own ideas. 2. A co-founder who signals they like debates in a candidate meeting. I rankly speculate here on HN that if OP always avoids #2, not only will nothing bad happen as a result, but they will also decrease the chance of choosing a bad candidate. I further rankly speculate this for any founder. HN debates are fun, but they hide the fact that debate is a low-effort tool. Like drinking alcohol, it can be useful. But if it moves from being a mere implementation detail to becoming part of the API in a candidate meeting: run!

peoplefromibiza 4y ago

> don’t debate at all, just listen. debates, even though I prefer the term discussions, are held between at least two parties. I might sometime be the part who listens, but we can't both be listening, there will be no discussion. So if you have something to say, say it and don't let anyone interrupt you. Listening to what other people are saying means donating your time and attention, not everybody deserve it, there's a reason why "professional listeners" such as psychologists charge a lot of money to do it. Most of the time people don't want to discuss, they simply want to talk about themselves. Like the author of this piece.

erenyeager 4y ago

Same experience with high school debate, there must be dozens of us.

foobarbecue 4y ago

The linked article did say: "I never want to debate"

dkarl 4y ago

> don’t debate at all, just listen I think that depends on how familiar they are with your perspective. You don't want to think of the interaction as unequal, with you taking the higher perspective of observing both their ideas and yours, appreciating and integrating them, while they only exist in their own point of view, the observed to your observer. If they understand your perspective but you don't know theirs, it makes sense for them to do most of the talking. But if they don't understand where you're coming from, then a one-sided conversation is one-sided in a bad way. It's like looking at them through a telescope. You'll have your reactions to their ideas, but you won't have their reactions to yours, their reactions to your reactions.

deleted 4y ago
[deleted]

alsetmusic 4y ago

I was told, by someone I was dating, many years ago, that they thought that when they were speaking, I was thinking about what I was going to say next. I didn't fully understand that comment for more than a decade. This is a highly insightful take. Thanks. You nailed it. Learning to listen may not come naturally for some of us. It's a skill that requires practice and reinforcement.

Udis 4y ago
I had the same experience with two exes and just now in my late 20s, after reading the comments, I feel Im understanding what they meant.

jffhn 4y ago

>high school debate [...] taught me something truly negative: that the point of a conversation is to win. The etymology of "debate" is "de-beat", i.e what you do to avoid beating each other, so in principle it's closer to negotiation than to mutual battering.

trgn 4y ago
Huizinga argues that debating is essentially a human expression of our animal play instinct. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homo_Ludens https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homo_Ludens This would also be the reason in settings where debate is formalized, e.g. a courtroom, there are elements of pageantry and pantomime. All playful exaggerations, nonetheless serious (because play can be serious business, look at any child absorbed in a game). Debating as a means to avoid combat then follows quite naturally. It's sublimation of a primal instinct, channeling dangerous antagonistic behaviors into the realm of harmless play.

lo_zamoyski 4y ago

Charitably, I get what you and the author of the article are describing, but I would make at least this comment. The point of listening is ultimately to know the truth. The fact that listening to others is ipso facto social means that we learn a great deal in community. But it's one thing to learn about what someone else believes. It's another to accept those beliefs as true. The person you are listening to could be in error. Listening is, therefore, a kind of data collection, and data need to be interpreted, after which some kind of verification generally ought to take place (of course, we cannot verify everything, hence for practical reasons, we often trust, e.g., the authority of tradition and its authoritative "keepers", at least until we have reason to doubt). W.r.t. debating, there's a time and place for it. Classically, it is a formal and public affair reserved for certain circumstances. You don't debate during data collection. I think Socratic dialogue is a better fit for exploration and discussion, though that, too, and trivially so, has a time and a place.

dredmorbius 4y ago
We listen to a great many things that we objectively know aren't true. Or which have no specific bearing on truth. Listening is critical to all communication (there's at least one speaker and one listener to any conversation involving one or more sentiences). I'd suggest that the goal of listening is to understand the other party, at least within the universe of their story or experience. You don't have to believe, agree, sympathise, or even empathise. You may have entirely selfish reasons for doing so (is this person a threat / kook / messiah / ...?). If we choose to listen, though, the principle goal is only occasionally seeking truth.

kishmat 4y ago

> don’t debate at all, just listen but if all people with this mindset, improvement never comes

mistermann 4y ago

> It will almost certainly slow down the pace of a conversation but stands a decent chance of making each exchange a lot more interesting for both of you. Deliberately slowing conversations down to one 100th of their normal pace might produce some interesting results. In a sense, this is one of the techniques that science uses, and it seems to reliably produce excellent outcomes in fairly complicated problem spaces.

TheRealPomax 4y ago

That's not an alternative, that's just "the final message in the post"? > I never want to debate, but if I had to, I would hope to lose.

starkd 4y ago

Another thing is realizing you really don't need to have an opinion on everything. Enormously freeing to realize this.

hbrn 4y ago

> don’t debate at all, just listen I disagree (pun intended). Debating allows you to understand your own position better, e.g. is it based on information, intuition, values, preference, experience, or bias? And it forces another party to do the same, which allows you to better decide how to handle disagreements. E.g. if their position is based on preference, we can agree to disagree and move on. If it's based on a bias, I will value their opinion less. If someone has a different knowledge, that's something we can (and should) resolve asap. If our values are different we will never be able to resolve it and it's better to avoid conflict.

xpe 4y ago
If you perceive there is sufficient trust and interest in engaging in some kind of debate, sure, consider it. Debate, in its many forms, can have many advantages, but it is not categorically preferable. Also consider all your other options: pure listening, mutual bonding, offering emotional support, even walking away (from a no-win situation). If / when debate falls apart, there are many options to reconnect.
JAlexoid 4y ago
That's really not how debate typically works. Someone states their position, while you're expected to undermine their position with a retort. It is one of the least productive ways of resolving differences.
- hbrn 4y ago
  You're supposed to both attack your opponent's position and defend yours. What you're describing is a lack of debate culture. A good example of that was already referred here (the infamous "so you're saying" interview).
  - JAlexoid 4y ago
    That's literally worse.

dredmorbius 4y ago

Very much this, I was going to comment similarly. Every discussion is not a debate. Perhaps this is what Sivers was trying to communicate, in which case, he did so rather poorly. The examples offered all revolve around lived experiences, lifestyle preference (taste), and articles of faith, for which there really isn't much of an objective truth, let alone one which can be demonstrated through evidence and reason. There's something to be said for simply choosing to absorb a story, to bear witness, even to validate a person's view or choices (though that last isn't necessarily always appropriate). From my experience, some years back I encountered a ... local character ... who was known for accosting strangers on the street and ranting about various topics, generally rather fantastical. I'd seen this happen several times over the years, and one day it was my turn. After the tirade slowed, and unsure how to respond, I simply said "thank you". The transformation was immediate and profound: they were immensely grateful and their entire demeanor changed. I don't pretend that this is universally applicable. I do know that there was no point in rational argument with the person. The circumstances were such that there was no obvious danger to myself or those around me. But I've thought more than once over the years of how a simple acknowledgement might often be an excellent choice of response.