2 ms·

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

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.

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.