Comment by cupofpython | Hacker News Reader

Comment by cupofpython | Hacker News Reader

Parent Full thread

I have inadvertently been "starman"-ing people my entire life. I usually refer to it as "benefit of the doubt". I have not encountered any problems with it in practice other than that sometimes I end up talking in circles when the other person doesnt really have a strong central point to their argument (or it is just not clicking for me no matter how hard I try to understand)

I think if such practices became mainstream, then people would begin to realize the difficulties involved in having a coherent conversation about a point of disagreement. The passive-aggressive cudgels you mention would fall flat because it is instantly noticeable as not fitting the necessary patterns for coherent conversation.

No one needs to accept or reject the other. the point of an argument is to educate each other, answer questions, and allow each other to fit both opinions into their own world view (ex. what are the limits / specifics to your belief?). Maybe someone changes their mind during that conversation, maybe they dont. maybe someone needs to let the new information ferment in their minds and life for a bit before it clicks. that is part of giving someone benefit of the doubt

maybe you are talking to someone who is venting, or in the middle of a mental episode (i mean that literally, not derogatorily), or was unfortunately born a narcissistic manipulator and cant help themselves. It doesnt matter, they cannot "win" the conversation - no one can - and the more people that realize this truth about conversations in general, the better the world will become

> I have not encountered any problems with it in practice other than that sometimes I end up talking in circles

This is why I stopped giving people benefit of the doubt. With every uncharitable action of theirs, I tried to understand their perspective, explain mine, and discover a ground truth. Yet, they are not interested in finding the truth. They are interested in doing what they believe is to be true, regardless of whether it is true or not. They are not interested in getting educated. They have already decided that they are educated and I am wrong, just because we have different ideas. My strategy of giving benefit of the doubt in such a case turns out to be nothing but a waste of time.

Therefore, I've changed my strategy. If they don't respond well to my giving benefit of the doubt, I'll confront them directly. If they insist, then they'll become an out-group to me. Starmanning no more.

I understand that frustration, but there are layers to benefit of the doubt. Sometimes giving BotD involves changing the conversation topic because an understanding is not going to be reached on the current one. the best way to think about it is that the other person exists over a period of time, and maybe right now with you they are not their best self - for whatever reason.

I dont enjoy casting people into out-groups, but I understand its appeal and necessity for some people. However, I dont give BotD for the other persons benefit. I do it for my own peace of mind and because I find it yields better conversations overall. Sometimes conversations go nowhere, or people deliberately try to manipulate. Those conversations yield nothing, but that's okay. No one owes me anything, afterall. there's always the future.

I find the best way to keep people open to changing their minds about something either now or in the future is to make them feel like they are free to support whatever they want. Then I act as a source of information and act as a safe zone for thought-exploration.

People do not enjoy feeling hunted. and that goes for educated people hunting uneducated people in order to teach them something or else be out-casted. I think a response of "fuck you, go ahead and outcast me" to that would be pretty normal.

I would much prefer in-grouping people with proper differentiation. "so and so is a great cook!" instead of "so and so doesnt understand climate change and couldnt hold a rational conversation with me about it that one time so I dont associate with them anymore and if they die then good riddance". People want to be validated. Sometimes finding something to validate someone on rather than attack them on the points of disagreement can help reshape their identity. they might never agree with you, but maybe you can move them towards ignoring the topic entirely within their lives in favor of other things that are better aligned with the good of society.

I agree with most of these points. I don't want to give the impression that I want people to agree with me and that I will turn against them if they don't. I value and embrace differences. It's my goal to actively seek what I'm wrong about, so that I improve.

The types I'm talking about are the ones who are not willing to cooperate. I act as a team player, yet they have their own agenda against the team's. What's worse is they act as if they are willing to cooperate, to benefit from BotD. I don't know whether they do so consciously to manipulate people or because of their insecurities. It doesn't matter. If they are not willing to cooperate after being treated with the best of intentions, then those good intentions are better invested to where they are valued.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com