Hacker News Reader

Comment by Spivak | Hacker News Reader

> How many people know how to make a good argument or how to spot one?

Even if you could spot "good" arguments that really isn't enough without knowing that it's also made in good faith. If the person making an argument doesn't actually believe what they're saying, is arguing with a particular outcome, or is arguing with an ulterior motive like flame-bait then you also shouldn't bother engaging them even if it's well-formed.

I would take a bad argument made in good faith every time over the reverse. People who speak genuinely but are passionate, emotional, or aren't the best at expressing themselves can have productive conversations. Someone who's arguing to win isn't worth your time.

View on HN

How would you know whether someone is making a good faith argument? Without some outward signifier like a cartoon character for an online avatar, which even then wouldn't provide any measure of certainty, it would require mind reading.

> People who speak genuinely but are passionate, emotional, or aren't the best at expressing themselves can have productive conversations. Someone who's arguing to win isn't worth your time.

If you want to get along in some kind of shallow fashion then the former are better, if you want to find truth or open your mind to possibilities then the latter will outstrip the former by a long way. Both are needed in life but to dismiss either as stupid or bad intentioned seems a stretch.

If an argument is bad faith but right, doesn't that still make it right?

Perhaps what you object to is being dragged into some messy going-in-circles argument. Those are frustrating but they happen because the good-faith participant tolerates some of the logical fallacies and false information presented by the bad-faith one.

People have a powerful force driving them to argue for the thing they believe in so it makes sense to tap into that force to generate high quality arguments. If everyone was kind of passive and willing to accept whatever seems obviously right, we wouldn't push any boundaries. Being kind of passive can happen if you're not emotionally invested in your argument.

I found the position of preferring a poorly formed, good faith argument weird at first but I've come to like it, given we are talking about material world, practical problems (of any scale).

Ultimately, most of our arguments are about solving problems (or pursuing opportunities). Most problems worth arguing at length require collaboration to solve.

I would rather discuss problems and their solutions, and hash out disagreements, with someone who is likely to be a true partner in the implementation of the solution.

Bad faith vs good faith can then be inferred by track records or commitments, same as you would for anything else.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com