3 ms·

I feel like there are two different things that are often talked about as the same thing: 1. Wanting to understand and learn. Here you use the help of another

I feel like there are two different things that are often talked about as the same thing: 1. Wanting to understand and learn. Here you use the help of another person to figure out what the best solution or the right answer to something is, or just to understand how something works or in other ways improve your knowledge. There is no winner or loser; the only outcome is whether the discussion was successful or not. 2. Wanting to prove how much you already know or that your idea is the correct one. This is just about showing everyone that you (or your idea and therefore you) are better than the other person, not about what you learn from it. Here there is a winner and loser; you win if you appear to know the right answer from the start. These are two very different things; you could even say that they are opposites. In number 1, the goal is to learn. In number 2, the goal is not to learn but to stay with your current idea. Why don't we have different words for these two things? It seems like in this article, what he is talking about is doing number 1 but talking about it as if it were number 2. Could the reason that we talk about these two things as the same thing be that people often do both at the same time? In that case maybe they want to appear as already knowing but secretly still trying to learn something. Or maybe they only try to learn but others are judging them as if they should already know everything from the start, and that way misunderstanding what they are doing.

fluoridation 4y ago
Consider this: You have an idea about how things are and this other person has another idea in direct contradiction with yours, such that at most one of the two can be right. If you want to treat their idea as if it has merit then you have to argue with them to understand why they think what they think and how well their idea fits in with other facts you already know. If you care about the truth then you will need to subject their idea to the same harsh trials your own idea (presumably) passed, and if there's any possible flaws or inconsistencies you'll want to dig in to thoroughly understand everything. You might that in fact you were wrong all along and this idea is actually better than yours. Do you see how and why one might want to learn something new while outwardly appearing to want to prove themselves right (or, more accurately, to prove the other person wrong)? An idea that one can't prove wrong is certainly worth considering seriously.
- robalni 4y ago
  > Do you see how and why one might want to learn something new while outwardly appearing to want to prove themselves right (or, more accurately, to prove the other person wrong)? An idea that one can't prove wrong is certainly worth considering seriously. Yes, this is exactly what I meant by my last sentence. Two people may want to learn something and in order to do that they have to "attack" each other's ideas so it may look to other people like the goal is just to prove how correct they are, and that the one who does that is the winner, when the real goal is to learn the truth, and proving that you are correct is just a way to get closer to that goal. So it seems like the difference is that in number 2, proving that you are correct is the goal, while in number 1 it is a tool you use to reach the other goal.
  - fluoridation 4y ago
    "Always wanting to be right" is something I've been accused of since I was little, when all I've always wanted was to know as few false things as possible, even before I could articulate that thought like that. In my experience, people who don't like or want to argue, which is most people, will always assume that someone who is arguing is doing #2 no matter what. I don't think someone can correctly tell which of the two the other person is doing.

fluoridation 4y ago

Consider this: You have an idea about how things are and this other person has another idea in direct contradiction with yours, such that at most one of the two can be right. If you want to treat their idea as if it has merit then you have to argue with them to understand why they think what they think and how well their idea fits in with other facts you already know. If you care about the truth then you will need to subject their idea to the same harsh trials your own idea (presumably) passed, and if there's any possible flaws or inconsistencies you'll want to dig in to thoroughly understand everything. You might that in fact you were wrong all along and this idea is actually better than yours. Do you see how and why one might want to learn something new while outwardly appearing to want to prove themselves right (or, more accurately, to prove the other person wrong)? An idea that one can't prove wrong is certainly worth considering seriously.

robalni 4y ago
> Do you see how and why one might want to learn something new while outwardly appearing to want to prove themselves right (or, more accurately, to prove the other person wrong)? An idea that one can't prove wrong is certainly worth considering seriously. Yes, this is exactly what I meant by my last sentence. Two people may want to learn something and in order to do that they have to "attack" each other's ideas so it may look to other people like the goal is just to prove how correct they are, and that the one who does that is the winner, when the real goal is to learn the truth, and proving that you are correct is just a way to get closer to that goal. So it seems like the difference is that in number 2, proving that you are correct is the goal, while in number 1 it is a tool you use to reach the other goal.
- fluoridation 4y ago
  "Always wanting to be right" is something I've been accused of since I was little, when all I've always wanted was to know as few false things as possible, even before I could articulate that thought like that. In my experience, people who don't like or want to argue, which is most people, will always assume that someone who is arguing is doing #2 no matter what. I don't think someone can correctly tell which of the two the other person is doing.