8 ms·

Argue well by losing

117 points by levosmetalo 13y ago

deleted 13y ago
[deleted]
TheSpiceIsLife 13y ago
Also check out Fred Kofman on youtube, his Verbal Aikido is great while very basic http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O6N9nvk8bvE http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O6N9nvk8bvE also check out his other work.
thaumasiotes 13y ago
In the past I frequently tried to begin arguments / discussions by carefully going over what I thought of as background assumptions. (To me, this is at least closely related to the proposed step 1, restate your opponent's position clearly.) My experience suggests that if you do that, the other party will never stop disagreeing with you no matter how far up the chain you go. Many, many, many arguments never happened in my mind, while having happened quite heatedly in the other person's, because of this. There was another phenomenon which might be related: a person would start telling me about a problem of theirs (I used to think it was weird for people I barely knew to do this, but I've come to suspect that people just like venting about problems they're experiencing), I'd rephrase it to be sure I understood what they were saying, and they would say something along the lines of "thanks, that was really helpful" and go away happy.
- kabouseng 13y ago
  >>My experience suggests that if you do that, the other party will never stop disagreeing with you no matter how far up the chain you go. Absolutely true. There was a MOOC about argumenting at coursera I think. The proffessor had the same viewpoint. One of the lessons was that you have to start at a common reference point and argument from there. If you and the other person have no common reference points, you will never resolve your difference of opinion ever.
- scott_s 13y ago
  Regarding your last paragraph, people explain their current problems as a coping mechanism . But when people do that, what they're really looking for is someone to understand them. It's an emotional thing, and you provided it.
  - plumbzium 13y ago
    Moreover, paraphrasing is one of basic tools in psychotherapy. Obviously it's used as a part of a larger process, and depending on therapist' aims it may have various forms, from a clarification or a simple restatement, to a more reflective proposition or interpretation
- drjesusphd 13y ago
  I completely agree. Global warming debates are well-suited for this: first get the "denier" to agree that the physical mechanism is valid. If you can't agree on physics, then there's no point in continuing. If you can, great, at least he/she can't question the physical mechanism when they're back into a political/economic corner.
jpswade 13y ago
You can’t win an argument. You can’t because if you lose it, you lose it; and if you win it, you lose it. Why? Well, suppose you triumph over the other man and shoot his argument full of holes and prove that he is non compos mentis. Then what? You will feel fine. But what about him? You have made him feel inferior. You have hurt his pride. He will resent your triumph. And – A man convinced against his will Is of the same opinion still. Carnegie, Dale (2010-09-30). How To Win Friends And Influence People (Kindle Locations 1972-1977). Ebury Publishing. Kindle Edition.
- mafribe 13y ago
  Is it universally true that being shown wrong in an argument leads to resentment, preventing learning? Surely that happens sometimes. But always? It's just methodologically unconstrained anecdotes, but if I look back at my personal history of changing my mind on things, occasions where I was shown by others to be an idiot, and the associated shame and humiliation, have been powerful forces for me to rethink and improve my position. Maybe there are different kinds of personality: those who react to a good argument by learning, and those that react by ressentiment and aggression. This has been thematised in social though as the distinction between a normative and a cognitive learning style.
- Shish2k 13y ago
  When I argue about things with similarly-minded friends, we all win all the time -- the aim is never to make the other person agree with yourself, but for both parties to agree on what's correct (which is sometimes what you think, sometimes what they think, and sometimes a third thing entirely). It's a shame that my "similarly-minded friends list" is in the single digits :( (It's not even that most people are stubborn and loud - quite the opposite - it's that they interpret constructive criticism (sometimes even neutral discussion) as conflict and shy away from it)
- nollidge 13y ago
  You can prove somebody wrong without making them feel like an idiot about it. I love being wrong, personally.
hooande 13y ago
How to compose a successful critical commentary: 1. Attempt to re-express your target's position so clearly, vividly and fairly that your target says: "Thanks, I wish I'd thought of putting it that way." 2. List any points of agreement (especially if they are not matters of general or widespread agreement). 3. Mention anything you have learned from your target. 4. Only then are you permitted to say so much as a word of rebuttal or criticism. I wish that hackernews could be like this. It would be like laying down troll poison. Even the most hardcore jerks don't like when the only response they get is to be killed by kindness. I read the book "Getting To Yes" by Roger Patton. It's highly recommend and considered to be the manual on negotiation. And the main point of advice from it was: Be Nice. Argument and negotiation aren't supposed to be about who is louder or more aggressive. Calmly laying out points that are backed up by facts works better every time. Online arguments tend to be low stakes affairs. I can understand why so many hn discussions devolve into personal attacks and accusations. I can only hope that people behave differently in person. The best way to win an argument is to turn it into a niceness contest where everybody walks away feeling better for the experience.
- bluecalm 13y ago
  I agree about the principle. Few remarks: 1. I think being forthcoming about it is very important. Especially when it comes to obvious unclear points/mistakes which are easy to correct. You should do that before attempting the commentary. The main reason is to save time (if correction is obvious, you might as well do it yourself) another is to show good attitude ("I try resolve this issue instead of nitpicking, see ?") 3.Imo it just derails the point. Good thing to do when dealing with unknown/emotional people, just adds clutter between "let's get to the point" people. Nothing wrong with that at some point but if you use it as first thing in the discussion it looks like tactic to influence emotions of other person. I for one often get annoyed by too many niceties. I feel like someone tries to convince my emotions and not my intellect. It quickly becomes patronizing It takes time. It make me very suspicious of manipulation attempts; afterall if your point/offer is good, why not just present it and let me think about it. I don't want to be more likely to accept your point because you are nice to me. I want to take objective look at it, so keep being overly nice to after the discussion and/or everyday situations which doesn't involve resolving issues. I am not saying diplomacy is useless - it's great in every day relations and/or when dealing with emotional people. Among people who are good at discussing and just want to get to the point it should be kept to minimum. >"Getting To Yes" The title would be off-putting to me. I don't want to get to yes. I want to take possibly objective look at your point and I want you to take fair look at mine. The more I respect you the more I want eliminate emotions: positive or negative when discussing things.
011011100 13y ago
An important part of any argument is expressing any values or priorities you might have. So it's still possible to disagree with the conclusion, even if you agree on the facts. People should just be able to acknowledge diversity in priorities or "biases". A lot of times this just doesn't happen. People want to frame the disagreement in an objective sort of way.
erik14th 13y ago
that reminds me of Monty Python's arguing clinic sketch
paddy_m 13y ago
I recently read Crucial Conversations. It is big on finding a shared purpose in a conversation, and maintaining a feeling of safety. I recommend it strongly.
- adolph 13y ago
  "Dialogue: The Art Of Thinking Together" is another good one. http://www.amazon.com/Dialogue-The-Art-Thinking-Together/dp/0385479999 http://www.amazon.com/Dialogue-The-Art-Thinking-Together/dp/...
acjohnson55 13y ago
Thought-provoking article. I often battle friends on Facebook over issues of politics, economics, and stuff, and I definitely notice that people are generally more interested in winning than learning. In fact, that's the model cable news shows and presidential debates teach us. It's all about introducing some obscure fact or anecdote that your opponent can't possibly know off-hand to force them to have to research enough to rebut, acquiesce to your position, duck and counter with their own obscure fact, throw an exasperated ad hominem, or quietly slink away. But none of those tactics involve actually trying to learn some better picture of the truth or examining your own belief schema. I think we've kind of moved to a post-fact society in this sense. Every position has it's own set of miscellaneous facts that seem to support it, and those facts are typically unverifiable, or at least certainly unverified. Factual debate seems to quickly descend into partisanship. I've come to believe that it's far more interesting and useful to debate principles instead.
- frandroid 13y ago
  I don't think it's that we're post-fact in the sense that data in unverifiable; most data is verifiable. But there are enough websites and online communities out there to support any point of view, so that people find a peer group that supports their theory, especially one's fears on this complex world. Anti-vaxxers are a huge example of this. Try to find information about specific vaccines and you'll be deluged in anti-vax pages that sound rather scientific. The information is out there, but so is the disinformation.
- drjesusphd 13y ago
  > I often battle friends on Facebook over issues of politics, economics, and stuff, and I definitely notice that people are generally more interested in winning than learning. Of course. If you want to learn something, talk one-on-one or seek out authoritative sources. If you're engaging in a dispute in a public forum in front of millions of spectators, like it or not, the debate exists to convince others, not each other. And there's nothing wrong with that.
adolph 13y ago
A similar idea is the "Ideological Turing Test" [1] whereby a person attempts to convincingly assert the ideas they disagree with. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ideological_Turing_Test https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ideological_Turing_Test
davegauer 13y ago
While the rest of the article has some really great points, what I really love about this is all in the beginning and is perfectly summed up with this quote by Professor Daniel H. Cohen (in which he is conceding victory to a hypothetical opponent): > "So who won that argument? Well, the war metaphor seems to force us into saying you won, even though I’m the only one who made any cognitive gain." I've been practicing something similar for at least half a decade now. I call it (with a strong sense of irony), "I'm Always Right." By learning how to be wrong ALL THE TIME, I'm actually becoming increasingly ALWAYS RIGHT. The hardest part is being able to see when somebody else is actually making a better point than I am.[1] Then I 'lose' the argument by agreeing with them. In the bigger scheme of things, I've actually won because I've just gained something - new knowledge and a new point of view. My intellectual 'opponent' has gained nothing but a temporary feeling of victory. I'm actually happy for both of us. This isn't some trick. I really do change my mind about things all the time as I learn more and listen more. After a while, being wrong feels so right. :-) [1] The REAL challenge is to recognize this EVEN if you are actually doing a much better job of debating (or think you are) than your 'opponent'.

117 points by levosmetalo 13y ago

deleted 13y ago

[deleted]

Also check out Fred Kofman on youtube, his Verbal Aikido is great while very basic http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O6N9nvk8bvE http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O6N9nvk8bvE also check out his other work.

thaumasiotes 13y ago

In the past I frequently tried to begin arguments / discussions by carefully going over what I thought of as background assumptions. (To me, this is at least closely related to the proposed step 1, restate your opponent's position clearly.) My experience suggests that if you do that, the other party will never stop disagreeing with you no matter how far up the chain you go. Many, many, many arguments never happened in my mind, while having happened quite heatedly in the other person's, because of this. There was another phenomenon which might be related: a person would start telling me about a problem of theirs (I used to think it was weird for people I barely knew to do this, but I've come to suspect that people just like venting about problems they're experiencing), I'd rephrase it to be sure I understood what they were saying, and they would say something along the lines of "thanks, that was really helpful" and go away happy.

kabouseng 13y ago
>>My experience suggests that if you do that, the other party will never stop disagreeing with you no matter how far up the chain you go. Absolutely true. There was a MOOC about argumenting at coursera I think. The proffessor had the same viewpoint. One of the lessons was that you have to start at a common reference point and argument from there. If you and the other person have no common reference points, you will never resolve your difference of opinion ever.
scott_s 13y ago
Regarding your last paragraph, people explain their current problems as a coping mechanism . But when people do that, what they're really looking for is someone to understand them. It's an emotional thing, and you provided it.
- plumbzium 13y ago
  Moreover, paraphrasing is one of basic tools in psychotherapy. Obviously it's used as a part of a larger process, and depending on therapist' aims it may have various forms, from a clarification or a simple restatement, to a more reflective proposition or interpretation
drjesusphd 13y ago
I completely agree. Global warming debates are well-suited for this: first get the "denier" to agree that the physical mechanism is valid. If you can't agree on physics, then there's no point in continuing. If you can, great, at least he/she can't question the physical mechanism when they're back into a political/economic corner.

jpswade 13y ago

You can’t win an argument. You can’t because if you lose it, you lose it; and if you win it, you lose it. Why? Well, suppose you triumph over the other man and shoot his argument full of holes and prove that he is non compos mentis. Then what? You will feel fine. But what about him? You have made him feel inferior. You have hurt his pride. He will resent your triumph. And – A man convinced against his will Is of the same opinion still. Carnegie, Dale (2010-09-30). How To Win Friends And Influence People (Kindle Locations 1972-1977). Ebury Publishing. Kindle Edition.

mafribe 13y ago
Is it universally true that being shown wrong in an argument leads to resentment, preventing learning? Surely that happens sometimes. But always? It's just methodologically unconstrained anecdotes, but if I look back at my personal history of changing my mind on things, occasions where I was shown by others to be an idiot, and the associated shame and humiliation, have been powerful forces for me to rethink and improve my position. Maybe there are different kinds of personality: those who react to a good argument by learning, and those that react by ressentiment and aggression. This has been thematised in social though as the distinction between a normative and a cognitive learning style.
Shish2k 13y ago
When I argue about things with similarly-minded friends, we all win all the time -- the aim is never to make the other person agree with yourself, but for both parties to agree on what's correct (which is sometimes what you think, sometimes what they think, and sometimes a third thing entirely). It's a shame that my "similarly-minded friends list" is in the single digits :( (It's not even that most people are stubborn and loud - quite the opposite - it's that they interpret constructive criticism (sometimes even neutral discussion) as conflict and shy away from it)
nollidge 13y ago
You can prove somebody wrong without making them feel like an idiot about it. I love being wrong, personally.

hooande 13y ago

How to compose a successful critical commentary: 1. Attempt to re-express your target's position so clearly, vividly and fairly that your target says: "Thanks, I wish I'd thought of putting it that way." 2. List any points of agreement (especially if they are not matters of general or widespread agreement). 3. Mention anything you have learned from your target. 4. Only then are you permitted to say so much as a word of rebuttal or criticism. I wish that hackernews could be like this. It would be like laying down troll poison. Even the most hardcore jerks don't like when the only response they get is to be killed by kindness. I read the book "Getting To Yes" by Roger Patton. It's highly recommend and considered to be the manual on negotiation. And the main point of advice from it was: Be Nice. Argument and negotiation aren't supposed to be about who is louder or more aggressive. Calmly laying out points that are backed up by facts works better every time. Online arguments tend to be low stakes affairs. I can understand why so many hn discussions devolve into personal attacks and accusations. I can only hope that people behave differently in person. The best way to win an argument is to turn it into a niceness contest where everybody walks away feeling better for the experience.

bluecalm 13y ago
I agree about the principle. Few remarks: 1. I think being forthcoming about it is very important. Especially when it comes to obvious unclear points/mistakes which are easy to correct. You should do that before attempting the commentary. The main reason is to save time (if correction is obvious, you might as well do it yourself) another is to show good attitude ("I try resolve this issue instead of nitpicking, see ?") 3.Imo it just derails the point. Good thing to do when dealing with unknown/emotional people, just adds clutter between "let's get to the point" people. Nothing wrong with that at some point but if you use it as first thing in the discussion it looks like tactic to influence emotions of other person. I for one often get annoyed by too many niceties. I feel like someone tries to convince my emotions and not my intellect. It quickly becomes patronizing It takes time. It make me very suspicious of manipulation attempts; afterall if your point/offer is good, why not just present it and let me think about it. I don't want to be more likely to accept your point because you are nice to me. I want to take objective look at it, so keep being overly nice to after the discussion and/or everyday situations which doesn't involve resolving issues. I am not saying diplomacy is useless - it's great in every day relations and/or when dealing with emotional people. Among people who are good at discussing and just want to get to the point it should be kept to minimum. >"Getting To Yes" The title would be off-putting to me. I don't want to get to yes. I want to take possibly objective look at your point and I want you to take fair look at mine. The more I respect you the more I want eliminate emotions: positive or negative when discussing things.

011011100 13y ago

An important part of any argument is expressing any values or priorities you might have. So it's still possible to disagree with the conclusion, even if you agree on the facts. People should just be able to acknowledge diversity in priorities or "biases". A lot of times this just doesn't happen. People want to frame the disagreement in an objective sort of way.

erik14th 13y ago

that reminds me of Monty Python's arguing clinic sketch

paddy_m 13y ago

I recently read Crucial Conversations. It is big on finding a shared purpose in a conversation, and maintaining a feeling of safety. I recommend it strongly.

adolph 13y ago
"Dialogue: The Art Of Thinking Together" is another good one. http://www.amazon.com/Dialogue-The-Art-Thinking-Together/dp/0385479999 http://www.amazon.com/Dialogue-The-Art-Thinking-Together/dp/...

acjohnson55 13y ago

Thought-provoking article. I often battle friends on Facebook over issues of politics, economics, and stuff, and I definitely notice that people are generally more interested in winning than learning. In fact, that's the model cable news shows and presidential debates teach us. It's all about introducing some obscure fact or anecdote that your opponent can't possibly know off-hand to force them to have to research enough to rebut, acquiesce to your position, duck and counter with their own obscure fact, throw an exasperated ad hominem, or quietly slink away. But none of those tactics involve actually trying to learn some better picture of the truth or examining your own belief schema. I think we've kind of moved to a post-fact society in this sense. Every position has it's own set of miscellaneous facts that seem to support it, and those facts are typically unverifiable, or at least certainly unverified. Factual debate seems to quickly descend into partisanship. I've come to believe that it's far more interesting and useful to debate principles instead.

frandroid 13y ago
I don't think it's that we're post-fact in the sense that data in unverifiable; most data is verifiable. But there are enough websites and online communities out there to support any point of view, so that people find a peer group that supports their theory, especially one's fears on this complex world. Anti-vaxxers are a huge example of this. Try to find information about specific vaccines and you'll be deluged in anti-vax pages that sound rather scientific. The information is out there, but so is the disinformation.
drjesusphd 13y ago
> I often battle friends on Facebook over issues of politics, economics, and stuff, and I definitely notice that people are generally more interested in winning than learning. Of course. If you want to learn something, talk one-on-one or seek out authoritative sources. If you're engaging in a dispute in a public forum in front of millions of spectators, like it or not, the debate exists to convince others, not each other. And there's nothing wrong with that.

adolph 13y ago

A similar idea is the "Ideological Turing Test" [1] whereby a person attempts to convincingly assert the ideas they disagree with. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ideological_Turing_Test https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ideological_Turing_Test

davegauer 13y ago

While the rest of the article has some really great points, what I really love about this is all in the beginning and is perfectly summed up with this quote by Professor Daniel H. Cohen (in which he is conceding victory to a hypothetical opponent): > "So who won that argument? Well, the war metaphor seems to force us into saying you won, even though I’m the only one who made any cognitive gain." I've been practicing something similar for at least half a decade now. I call it (with a strong sense of irony), "I'm Always Right." By learning how to be wrong ALL THE TIME, I'm actually becoming increasingly ALWAYS RIGHT. The hardest part is being able to see when somebody else is actually making a better point than I am.[1] Then I 'lose' the argument by agreeing with them. In the bigger scheme of things, I've actually won because I've just gained something - new knowledge and a new point of view. My intellectual 'opponent' has gained nothing but a temporary feeling of victory. I'm actually happy for both of us. This isn't some trick. I really do change my mind about things all the time as I learn more and listen more. After a while, being wrong feels so right. :-) [1] The REAL challenge is to recognize this EVEN if you are actually doing a much better job of debating (or think you are) than your 'opponent'.