Hacker News Reader

Comment by version_five | Hacker News Reader

I really agree with the "words you use to explain vs words that can be used against you" one.

So often, both in person and online, I see people asking "can you explain what you mean by..." or trying to break your concern down further. At face value it seems like a good question, but among political types, it almost certainly is a device to either try and reduce your concern to a bunch of little things so small they don't matter, or to tell you you don't understand or have defined something wrong. If you want to stand your ground, its usually better to give nothing, even if you feel like you haven't explained well, or in an online discussion, if you feel like your counterpart has "won" by getting the last comment in.

View on HN

> So often, both in person and online, I see people asking "can you explain what you mean by..." or trying to break your concern down further.

...I mean, I do this all the time out of a genuine desire to understand the other person's thinking; it's not some ploy to "win" an argument or feel somehow superior.

Unfortunately, it has been weaponized (especially on-line) for a long enough period that many people will not give the benefit of doubt. And frankly, unless they really want your compassion or understanding they have no incentive or any obligation to. Except for very well moderated forums and positive company cultures, it seems like that's where we are. One on one things stil seem much better.

Thus my caveat of "among political types". In a good faith conversation it doesn't matter (and presumably staying silent and staring down your conversation partner happens less often generally). But as the other reply mentioned, there are lots of people - not friends, I've encountered it at work and online- that are basically trying to get you to talk more so they can trap you. The real trick is to recognize when it's happening with minimal false positives so you don't just look like a defensive jerk (been there also)

Can you share your definition of "political type" to make sure everyone's on the same page?

"Can you explain what you mean by 'political type' to make sure everyone's on the same page?" might have been more appropriate here :P

Their definition would be an explanation of what they mean.

http://wondermark.com/1k62/

> Can you share your definition of "political type" to make sure everyone's on the same page?

I'm not the poster, but here's what I envision they're suggesting. The "political type" is somebody who approaches a conversation not out of a good faith desire to come to a mutual understanding, or to better communicate things the conversant may not be aware of, but simply as a transaction that they can use to further some agenda (or, alternately, they view the conversation as a trap they must successfully navigate to avoid having their agenda impeded).

This is either somebody who is already convinced they are right or somebody who doesn't care about what is right. The latter is particularly dangerous - these people are only interested in increasing their esteem within a group and in reducing their "opponent's" esteem. The outcome of the conversation is totally irrelevant to them, except insomuch as it furthers those objectives by scoring "points."

That seems to set up every conversation to fail as people assume past each other rather than double check their interpretation. Good example: the other repliers who assumed ill intent.

Well, I think it's incontrovertible that some people will engage in bad faith conversations with the intent to only further their own agendas.

Sadly, there's no simple heuristic to detect this, and once participants are so far down the road of distrust that this question is on the table, it's unlikely to result in a healthy dialogue. Personally, I assume good faith until demonstrated otherwise - repeatedly.

What did the Supreme Court say about pornography [0] - "I know it when I see it."

[0] https://www.wsj.com/articles/BL-LB-4558

> If you want to stand your ground, its usually better to give nothing, even if you feel like you haven't explained well, or in an online discussion, if you feel like your counterpart has "won" by getting the last comment in.

Why would you want to stand your ground? Isn’t the point of a discussion to learn new information and reach new conclusions?

I don’t think that seeing discussions as a battle to be won is typically a good framework. Even if you reach the point that you consider winning, it is unlikely that much has been accomplished.

Depends on the discussion. Some types of discussions, like salary or business negotiations, are battles to be won, even though etiquette demands we pretend otherwise.

For example, if you're asking for a pay raise of $10k and your boss counters by asking why you need more money, it's not in your interest to go down that track.

If you feel like their question is trying to drag you into their field, you might want to also return a question instead. If none of you answers it stays as it is, if they were asking in good faith you get a better framing that isn't just a trap.

This method is called the Socratic method, and it was found so annoying when invented that excuses were found to execute the inventor.

Asking clarifying questions seems different from the Socratic method. Clarifying questions are a practical tool to make sure you understand someone.

No, it is exactly the Socratic method. Keep asking for clarification until you find a contradiction. Lead the target to trap themself.

That must be a difficult way to see the world. The answers to these questions often reveal how plausible it is that a discussion can go anywhere. I've avoided so many hell threads with them. That's time you don't get back. I'm just not going to persuade some people, and questions help me determine the viability of continuing.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com