Hacker News Reader

Comment by Gadiguibou | 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)?"

View on HN

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.

> 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

> 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.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com