Hacker News Reader

I noticed the same thing.

I don't think I "debate" much anymore. At least, not with the intention that I assume most people have when debating: changing the other's opinion.

Instead, I try to focus on understanding the other person's point of view as thoroughly as possible. I found that backtracking until the last point on which you both agree and then moving from there seems to be the most efficient. Whenever you disagree on something, make sure you're all making the same assumptions.

One tip to do this well is to rephrase what the person just said and ask if that's what they meant. If not, they'll elaborate. You won't even have to ask. If it was right, try to formulate your misunderstanding as a question instead of an affirmation.

For example:

"I understand that you feel y. Considering x (the point you both agreed on), what do you think of z (what you believe follows from x)?"

This sounds more like dialectics than debate.

If anything "debate" is something private school kids and self-proclaimed "intellectuals" do to grandstand.

Dialectics, or trying to reach a better and more insightful conclusion through collaboration and understanding, is far more productive.

Do you know if any good resources on improving at this? It takes me a while to arrive at a shared understanding and isolate any differences in opinion.

I would start with Plato. While the works are literary and not verbatim transcriptions of conversations, I think it gives a good view into the process of asking questions to dig into a point, then backtracking.

What you rapidly realize when applying this (as GP alludes to) is that most people simply aren't interested in the protracted examination of an idea. The challenge is to find people who are have interesting thoughts and the patience to work through it in depth.

Psychiatrist's Guide to Conversation: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tIATzLf-y04

Look into Street Epistemology[1]. Anthony Magnabosco on YouTube[2] is a good start.

Essentially, be interested and pose non-confrontational questions regarding the other person’s belief. Don’t argue for your point, have them explain theirs. If you ever reach a moment where the other person says “good question, I hadn’t thought of that”, stop the conversation. Let them mull it over in their own time, your job is done. You may or may not pick up the conversation another day, and either is OK.

Teach someone else this skill and you’ll have conversations where both parties are striving to understand each other instead of pushing their own agenda.

[1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peter_Boghossian#Street_episte...

[2]: https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCocP40a_UvRkUAPLD5ezLIQ

https://news.ycombinator.com/edit?id=28697803

I never saw it this way, but it sure looks like it!

Debate has not been some private school grandstand it's at the centre of much of the hard science discourse and rather than the plaything of philosophy such as dialectics.

I ask you this - are you in seek of greater truth and mutual understanding, or to be personally correct, to feed your own ego?

Amd what about compromising your believes and position means you will attain greater truth. You are naturally assuming that ever side of a debate has merit and i don't see how you could make that assumption.

If I go to argue against someone that the earth is indeed not flat i don't think I'd be inclined to compromise that position.

The problem with that view is that the number of positions with a clear answer like "is the earth flat" is basically zero in comparison to the nunber of positions where your views are either significantly or predominantly incorrect but you just don't know it.

Therefore when you operationalize this type of thinking, you end up holding many more foolish beliefs that you are very certain of than whatever time/purity you save by "not compromising". Thus it's an unhealthy attitude to maintain.

And a good example of why this is true is the cartoonish style examples that have to be resurrected -- like the earth being flat -- in order to provide a single meaningful example. The moment you get into any issue of real import, things become real murky real fast, and it's not hard at all for anyone to find someone much wiser and smarter than them on the other side of the issue.

The cartoon examples are exactly what are being brought by the counter argument the fact that i may take a position and defend it does not automatically mean that we can't get along and even work together. We can continue to hold positions without becoming inextricably partisan in a wider sense.

Also because I defend a position does not mean that I would do so ad infinitum, I can relinquish my position if your counter argument is stronger.

Obviously if we can't actually act like adults then none of these approaches will work, we'll either become violent or in the counter approach so compromised that are collective position may reflect absolute nonsense.

> One tip to do this well is to rephrase what the person just said and ask if that's what they meant.

So you're saying we should start sentences with "So you're saying..."?

Haha, yes, you're right!

With the addition that it must be done in good faith. If you only create straw men arguments for your opponent, you haven't tried to get to the bottom of their reasoning.

This is key. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Principle_of_charity

It gives the other person the feeling that you actually listen to what they are saying IMHO.

> I don't think I "debate" much anymore. At least, not with the intention that I assume most people have when debating: changing the other's opinion.

I don't think people go into debate to changing their "opponent"'s opinion. Debates are usually public, I think the point is to change (or form) the audience's opinion

I've found the opposite. Most people have disagreements on fundamental viewpoints which means there's no point even discussing. For example I take the position that freedom of speech is almost sacred, which rules out the chance of any productive conversation with most people who prioritize things like preventing somebody from getting offended. Instead I choose to avoid topics where I know I disagree with the mainstream, unless it's with a close enough friend where I know our relationship won't be damaged by touching on a topic of disagreement.

freedom of speech != freedom to hate speech

There's a difference, words, speech do cause pain and terrible issues in society and has to be moderated like a forum. It's quite simple.

I wasn't talking about hate speech, but the fact that you jump to thinking disagreement = hate speech is exactly why I don't talk about things with people unless they're close friends.

I didn't jump anything, your freedom has limits, you're not free to kill people for example, same thing with speech and that's why it's moderated, grow up.

> words cause pain

more often than not it's the pain of hearing a different opinion. The "hate speech" label turned into "speech I hate" long time ago.

This is a great way to capture my view on the topic. How do we draw the line between hate speech that should be controlled, vs somebody's personal problem? If we call a rich white guy a cracker and he has a breakdown, I don't expect many anti-hate-speech people would mobilize a twitter army to defend him. That to me looks like an issue with "speech I hate" vs "hate speech", as you said.

How would you attempt objectively measure something like this? The experiences we, as individuals have, is such a small slice of reality. In order to make broad statements, it's crucial to have a lot of perspective - do you feel your experience is sufficiently representative to make such statements?

Honest question: why do I need more perspective than mine to make statements about my experience of the universe? Regardless of how broad or limited a statement I wish to make, the experience I have as an individual is the sum total of my reality. Unless I already value mitigating the pitfalls of undue generalization, why shouldn't I measure the universe by the yard stick of myself?

I'm not defending the original statement. I happen to agree with you, but for different reasons. If it isn't already crucial to me that I have a lot of perspective, then why is it crucial?

The old story where 8 blind people, who have never heard of an elephant, are asked to touch it and describe what they feel. One describes the trunk, and thinks it's like a snake. Another touches the side, and thinks it's a hippo. And so forth.

Our own experiences are so limited, and our brains really like to generalize from very limited data. We are also blind to what we don't see.

Perspective is one way to deal with these limitations.

I disagree that this is a representative parable. Putting eight blind men in a room to touch an elephant is a very controlled, very well-defined, problem; the insinuation is that if the blind people could merely collect the correct data, they'd arrive at the correct solution. Very few things in life exhibit these niceties, and the parable absolutely fails to generalize.

What about for the actual day-to-day of our lives? If I do not already value perspective, then why should I?

If you study decision making, it is prettt clear in the researchers that diverse viewpoints are connected with better decisions. There also an issue of fairness or representativeness: if you don’t have perspective in your inputs, you are going to leave a lot of people out.

The fact is that we are all wrong about almost everything. Perspective helps you be less wrong, in a way that is not possible to do on your own because we are blind to our biases.

Beyond that explanation, you’re probably going to have to form your own researched opinion - I’m not all that interested in trying to convince you. In fact, I actually don’t mind people being unconvinced of this issue! It’s to my advantage if other people don’t have as good of a decision making process.

I'm not asking you to convince me. I do study decision making. Your contention that it's to your advantage for others to not have as good of a decision making process seems like a pretty strikingly perspectiveless position; if you study game theory, it's pretty clear that being in a coalition with sub-optimal players reduces your ability to perform.

If you don't already value other people making good decisions, I can only say: perhaps you should.

> When you figure what the assumption is, it's basically guaranteed to make you agree with each other: "Ah, but so you believe A! Of course you'd argue for A' then, makes total sense now!" It's then much easier to find compromises since you can work on the small thing below rather than the whole scaffold built on top.

That sounds like this technique: https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/exa5kmvopeRyfJgCy/double-cru...

In my view, it's often even simpler than difference in assumptions in the more general sense: typically it simply comes down to people using the same words but having different definitions in mind for those words.

i think it comes down to difference in sources of the information, rather than difference of interpretation. These days people rarely form an opinion of their own, it's mostly a sort of digest of media they consume.

The assumptions can almost always be traced to some "fact" they believe to be true. And facts are easy to fake.

A good example is this recent Reddit thread based entirely on false "facts" promoted by the media, but believed to be true by significant chunk of the US population https://www.reddit.com/r/PoliticalHumor/comments/px9vr2/bles...

So the debate can often be reduced to something as basic as difference in sources you trust, rather than semantics.