3 ms·

> What is the goal when you start arguing with someone online? Is that goal achievable? For me the goal is twofold. I'm arguing for the people reading the com

> What is the goal when you start arguing with someone online? Is that goal achievable? For me the goal is twofold. I'm arguing for the people reading the comment chain, not necessarily the commenter's sake. I know it's nearly impossible to convince someone you are arguing with. But also I do try and have an open mind. It's not common that I change my position, but it does happen. For example, I was once a climate change denier. It was debating with people online which caused me to reflect and change that position.

malfist 4mo ago
> I'm arguing for the people reading the comment chain, not necessarily the commenter's sake. I'm not sure people are reading comment chains deeply enough to be swayed by two strangers arguing online. All too often these days, folks are just engaging in point scoring type arguments and readers just agree with their tribe. Not saying it doesn't happen, nor that it's a good goal taken with care. But me personally the ROI just isn't there (your calculus is different, and that's okay!) A lot of times when I engage in arguments online, I think of it more as showing nuance to a person. I'm not trying to persuade them, I'm not trying to win, I'm just trying to show them that the problem space is a bit more complicated than their view is showing them. At least that's how I justify it to myself when I do engage. And of course, I'm no where close to perfect, I engage in petty point scoring arguments because it feels good at the time but isn't fruitful or healthy in the long run.
- JumpCrisscross 4mo ago
  > I'm not sure people are reading comment chains deeply enough to be swayed by two strangers arguing online I do, and I have. I’ve also argued something with someone and come out the other side convinced of their position. (Sometimes immediately. More often down the road. Nevertheless, a valuable exchange.)
  - EvanAnderson 4mo ago
    A very similar experience here. Reading comment threads over the years has absolutely turned me on to perspectives I never even conceived of previously. I've reconsidered my positions (on political and technical matters, mainly) by reading the discourse in comment threads.
    - TheOtherHobbes 4mo ago
      Sometimes I post to clarify my own position. Writing helps with that. There's a whole field of street epistemology which is about persuading people. Arguing with them is one of the least effective ways to do that. Socratic dialogue sometimes works, although for any belief that has an emotional root you're likely to hit a crash out point. It turns out the most effective techniques are manipulative. The best persuasion doesn't look like argument or persuasion, it looks like something self-evident you can't help agree with.
- firesteelrain 4mo ago
  The only times it has helped is when I am researching something like say gardening or researching a product. I find the back and forth between people helpful in making my decision on what to do.
- datsci_est_2015 4mo ago
  > I'm not sure people are reading comment chains deeply enough to be swayed by two strangers arguing online. Counterpoint, literally doing that right now in this thread as I’m considering the merits of online discourse in the context of stoicism.
  - cindyllm 4mo ago
    [dead]
  - malfist 4mo ago
    I'm glad to be wrong!
- cwnyth 4mo ago
  [dead]
- rho4 4mo ago
  > I'm not sure people are reading comment chains deeply enough to be swayed by two strangers arguing online HN comments sway me more than any other source nowadays. Reading comments not directed at myself probably makes it easier because my ego does not feel attacked.
- laurentlassalle 4mo ago
  Personally, I really enjoy reading the back and forth :-)
juleiie 4mo ago
Honestly if you change your opinion under effect of some online strangers then it wasn't a strong conviction in the first place
- cogman10 4mo ago
  The online stranger's argument was convincing because they brought a lot of evidence from research papers to general climatologist opinions which completely debunked a lot of the talking points I'd used (without me exposing those in the conversation). It also made me go back on my own sources and question where they were coming from. Let's just say the anti climate change positions become a lot less convincing when you dig into their sourcing and find a large number of them literally funded by the likes of Koch industries or Glenn Beck's personal companies.
  - juleiie 4mo ago
    Climate change being anthropogenic is so easy to verify nowadays that when someone has contrary conviction it isn’t because they don’t know the data. Data won’t help it at all. It’s available two clicks away, there is no shortage of it. People want to believe otherwise and you will never actually convince anyone on the internet using data on anything in 99% of the cases. Persuasion is an art and most of the people on the internet have no clue how to manipulate human mind to instil beliefs. I can give a short rundown on persuasion as non autistic individual actually having those skills: 1. Always say that you understand somebody point of view. Appear interested in what they have to say and respect their beliefs. 2. Intertwine few uncomfortable questions in their point of view, very gently and non argumentative. These are the seeds of doubt. You are a farmer it’s like gardening and watering a flower. You must be gentle with new sprouts of doubt. Tend to the garden of new beliefs and one day they will bear fruit.
    - cogman10 4mo ago
      > Climate change being anthropogenic is so easy to verify nowadays that when someone has contrary conviction it isn’t because they don’t know the data. I agree and this is true. But my opinion and position there shifted around 2010 or so. It's true the data was there and available in a few clicks. But I wasn't seeking it out and instead was relying on trusted sources that were lying to me. Now-a-days, though, even my parents are on board with climate change being real. It's just too apparent for anyone that can remember what the world was like 10 or 20 years ago.

malfist 4mo ago

> I'm arguing for the people reading the comment chain, not necessarily the commenter's sake. I'm not sure people are reading comment chains deeply enough to be swayed by two strangers arguing online. All too often these days, folks are just engaging in point scoring type arguments and readers just agree with their tribe. Not saying it doesn't happen, nor that it's a good goal taken with care. But me personally the ROI just isn't there (your calculus is different, and that's okay!) A lot of times when I engage in arguments online, I think of it more as showing nuance to a person. I'm not trying to persuade them, I'm not trying to win, I'm just trying to show them that the problem space is a bit more complicated than their view is showing them. At least that's how I justify it to myself when I do engage. And of course, I'm no where close to perfect, I engage in petty point scoring arguments because it feels good at the time but isn't fruitful or healthy in the long run.

JumpCrisscross 4mo ago
> I'm not sure people are reading comment chains deeply enough to be swayed by two strangers arguing online I do, and I have. I’ve also argued something with someone and come out the other side convinced of their position. (Sometimes immediately. More often down the road. Nevertheless, a valuable exchange.)
- EvanAnderson 4mo ago
  A very similar experience here. Reading comment threads over the years has absolutely turned me on to perspectives I never even conceived of previously. I've reconsidered my positions (on political and technical matters, mainly) by reading the discourse in comment threads.
  - TheOtherHobbes 4mo ago
    Sometimes I post to clarify my own position. Writing helps with that. There's a whole field of street epistemology which is about persuading people. Arguing with them is one of the least effective ways to do that. Socratic dialogue sometimes works, although for any belief that has an emotional root you're likely to hit a crash out point. It turns out the most effective techniques are manipulative. The best persuasion doesn't look like argument or persuasion, it looks like something self-evident you can't help agree with.
firesteelrain 4mo ago
The only times it has helped is when I am researching something like say gardening or researching a product. I find the back and forth between people helpful in making my decision on what to do.
datsci_est_2015 4mo ago
> I'm not sure people are reading comment chains deeply enough to be swayed by two strangers arguing online. Counterpoint, literally doing that right now in this thread as I’m considering the merits of online discourse in the context of stoicism.
- cindyllm 4mo ago
  [dead]
- malfist 4mo ago
  I'm glad to be wrong!
cwnyth 4mo ago
[dead]
rho4 4mo ago
> I'm not sure people are reading comment chains deeply enough to be swayed by two strangers arguing online HN comments sway me more than any other source nowadays. Reading comments not directed at myself probably makes it easier because my ego does not feel attacked.
laurentlassalle 4mo ago
Personally, I really enjoy reading the back and forth :-)

juleiie 4mo ago

Honestly if you change your opinion under effect of some online strangers then it wasn't a strong conviction in the first place

cogman10 4mo ago
The online stranger's argument was convincing because they brought a lot of evidence from research papers to general climatologist opinions which completely debunked a lot of the talking points I'd used (without me exposing those in the conversation). It also made me go back on my own sources and question where they were coming from. Let's just say the anti climate change positions become a lot less convincing when you dig into their sourcing and find a large number of them literally funded by the likes of Koch industries or Glenn Beck's personal companies.
- juleiie 4mo ago
  Climate change being anthropogenic is so easy to verify nowadays that when someone has contrary conviction it isn’t because they don’t know the data. Data won’t help it at all. It’s available two clicks away, there is no shortage of it. People want to believe otherwise and you will never actually convince anyone on the internet using data on anything in 99% of the cases. Persuasion is an art and most of the people on the internet have no clue how to manipulate human mind to instil beliefs. I can give a short rundown on persuasion as non autistic individual actually having those skills: 1. Always say that you understand somebody point of view. Appear interested in what they have to say and respect their beliefs. 2. Intertwine few uncomfortable questions in their point of view, very gently and non argumentative. These are the seeds of doubt. You are a farmer it’s like gardening and watering a flower. You must be gentle with new sprouts of doubt. Tend to the garden of new beliefs and one day they will bear fruit.
  - cogman10 4mo ago
    > Climate change being anthropogenic is so easy to verify nowadays that when someone has contrary conviction it isn’t because they don’t know the data. I agree and this is true. But my opinion and position there shifted around 2010 or so. It's true the data was there and available in a few clicks. But I wasn't seeking it out and instead was relying on trusted sources that were lying to me. Now-a-days, though, even my parents are on board with climate change being real. It's just too apparent for anyone that can remember what the world was like 10 or 20 years ago.