The truly intellectually honest way to disagree: Take the idea in question, and give it some genuine love. Make an earnest attempt to make some form of the idea work in the context of everything you know.
This is my litmus test for first-class minds. I've been using this for the past 25 years and I've found that those who truly take this approach are 1) uncommon, 2) impressively smart, 3) genuinely curious, and 4) seem to offer the highest chance for truly profound and productive interactions.
Most often, people fail this test by not using this technique at all, or trying to pass off its doppleganger.
Such people are very easy to spot. Simply pay attention to the possible interpretations of what other people say. You are looking for the one who's always interpreting what others say in the best possible light and who runs with other's ideas, often in a delightful and surprising way.
EDIT: The fakers are easy to spot, by the their bias towards finding fault for other's ideas or their eager gravitation towards straw-man interpretations when more interesting alternatives are easily imagined.
> Take the idea in question, and give it some genuine love.
Something like this is often known as the principle of charity[1] or the principle of humanity[2]. There's a ton of interesting philosophical work on such principles (why they might be a good idea, whether they underpin all language use, whether they are part of our default belief-desire model for interacting with other people, etc.).
But the best succinct version I know comes from a friend I went to grad school with: "Don't be an asshole."
But the best succinct version I know comes from a friend I went to grad school with: "Don't be an asshole."
Another aspect: If you think you're so smart, that you can already know everyone else's ideas are stupid and don't matter, you're probably just being an asshole.
Spotting your own negativity is a good test, but I prefer to phrase it in more self-effacing terms, "When trying to spot all the assholes in the room, I always need to find a mirror."
At my last job I came to realize that I'm "the positive guy." Often my coworkers would be complaining about how an external party was interacting with us - usually a particular response to a query or support request, but often just in general terms of how they operate in conjunction with us.
I quickly became identified as the guy who can understand their position and describe it in a way that makes sense for everyone else. This usually wound up diffusing everyone's anger and frustration. I hope it also means my coworkers will be more understanding and effective in their communication with external teams, but I have my doubts. :)
Maybe what I described above isn't exactly what you're talking about, but I see a relation that I hope is actually there.
I know a brilliant computer scientist who has all four traits you describe, and follows your intellectually honest way to disagree by nature. When you meet these people, it's obvious, and often life-impacting.
I'm certainly not all the way there yet, but I hope my story above illustrates my growth towards the first class mind you describe.
In Bryan Magee's Confessions of a Philosopher, he describes exactly this habit as the thing that impressed him most about Karl Popper.
I think some fear that giving an opposing position (X) the best possible interpretation, or responding to the smartest supporters of X, might make their own position (Y) look weaker by comparison, perhaps so much so that some readers will decide to buy into X rather than Y after all! "Strawmanning" is the easier route, as it saves one the bother of having to come up with powerful or detailed counterarguments.
How can I stop being a "faker", as you call it? I, and probably some other HNers, are often pretty critical or take things people say more literally than they meant often, rather than giving them the benefit of the doubt with a more liberal interpretation.
I realize this is usually not conducive to "profound and productive interactions", but it is almost second nature for me, something of a gut reaction and I'm not entirely sure how to go about fixing this problem. Behavior change is difficult, just seeking advice.
I think many of us here are the same way (or were at some point or sometimes still are). I love to argue. Often that comes from a good place, but often it comes from just that desire to win or to be difficult or whatever. I still have to push myself to really listen to the other view. Then my first step (when I'm in a better place) is to literally ask myself something like these questions, in roughly this order:
+ What does this person believe?
+ Why does this person believe those things?
+ What would I need to believe (first) in order to convince me of those things?
Try to short-circuit evaluation: don't judge the thoughts at all. Don't ask if you agree. Just figure out what they believe and why they might hold those beliefs. What other beliefs seem to be required? What other beliefs would make someone think that way? This already gets you fairly far into their mindset.
Also like your last bit of advice - think about the person's point of view before evaluating what they've said. And by doing this, I see how one could also get to the root of a disagreement, rather than just the surface, and address that instead. Everything becomes philosophical from there I'm guessing.
How can I stop being a "faker", as you call it? I, and probably some other HNers, are often pretty critical or take things people say more literally than they meant often, rather than giving them the benefit of the doubt with a more liberal interpretation.
1) Find something fundamental to be secure in.
2) Just stop being a faker.
3) Get busy doing the real thing.
The first is the most important. One of the professors I admired greatly would always give your idea his best effort, because he knew that the mathematics would eventually cause it to blow up if it wasn't correct. Find first principles that you can take as iron clad, then always build off of those with honesty and humility. There was never a reason for him to grasp at straws to fabricate a straw man. He knew there were solid theories he could work from and test as hard as he could. He also never had a reason to pretend something was more solid than he actually knew it to be.
That's all well and fine for hard sciences, I guess, but the same goes for most of the softer disciplines as well. History is often your friend. Find the historical precedents and examine them honestly.
I've read that book already and even have alerts on it for new chapters, but thanks for mentioning it. It's thoroughly entertaining!
Well, in my case, it's not that I make fallacious counter-arguments. My arguments are generally quite sound, and simple logic/rationality serves my need for something fundamental.
My issue is that, when something looks illogical on the face of it, rather than giving it the benefit of the doubt and try to imagine how it might work, I just shoot it down. And I shoot it down quite harshly usually, though almost always with a well-reasoned argument.
I have to be arrogant here and say that most of these arguments/ideas/statements I shoot down seem to really deserve it, which I know because I do sometimes restrain myself and just shut up and listen. However, sometimes my response is really undeserved, and I'd do better if I tried to understand where others may be coming from. Even if it's deserved, I could be much less harsh and argumentative, so as to better foster a good discussion.
It's not even about preserving the feelings of others. I often find people interrupting me and shooting down a completely different idea than the one I actually had. Other times, I find that my seemingly ironclad argument doesn't apply in the intended context, or is fine theoretically but overlooks an important detail in a practical context.
How can I stop being a "faker", as you call it? I, and probably some other HNers, are often pretty critical or take things people say more literally than they meant often, rather than giving them the benefit of the doubt with a more liberal interpretation.
I think it helps to realize it is endemic to the culture and to understand why.
My original introduction to online communities was with parenting/homeschooling forums for folks with "gifted" kids. The members were generally bright and many of them well educated. The initial environment was pretty ugly, in spite of the intent that these were supposed to be "support" groups.
I eventually concluded that most of the members were used to being the smartest person in the room and had the routine experience that if someone didn't agree with them, it was because they didn't understand it. I felt it was the first time most of these people were exposed to a culture of intellectual equals where other people who disagreed with them had valid reasons for seeing it differently. I felt that we had no choice but to break new ground in order to get past the tendency for people to be obnoxious and arrogant.
Hacker News appears to have a similar situation. It is somewhat compounded by the fact that it is the most international forum I have participated in. This means people from very different cultures and very different life experience are interacting. This inevitably leads to inaccurate interpretations. I come from a multi-cultural background, so I tend to overlook foreign accents and grammatical errors to a greater degree than most bright, well-educated individuals. I operate on the rule of thumb that "They are speaking English way better than I would be able to speak their native language". I know a smattering of German and French, a smidgen of Spanish, and a few words of Russian. I'm not fluent in any of them. So I start with giving foreigners a pass on grammatical errors or oddities of wording. I don't see it as any indication of lack of intelligence. Grammar and spelling are often nit-picked here and I occasionally do it myself. I try hard to not come across as obnoxious. I sometimes genuinely was not sure what they were saying because of a misspelled word (that seems to trip me up more than grammar, which is mentally easier for me to account for, presumably because I grew up in a bilingual home). In some ways, I like the fact that people here will nit-pick grammar and spelling and such but I really hate it when it is done in a very obnoxious manner. I have seen instances where someone was railing about something of that sort and it just made me feel like "Oh, grammar and spelling are things you think are critically important to public appearances but manners are not??"
This dynamic -- of everyone in the room being confident they are Right, by god! -- was a problem within my own family (with my marriage and my kids). After about 16 1/2 years of marriage, my then husband bought me a t-shirt that said "I'm always RIGHT (except when I'm wrong)". It was something I said a lot at home and I think it was something of an admission on his part that perhaps he shouldn't argue with me so much, perhaps he should try harder to talk to me instead. (The constant arguing was one of the things that contributed to the demise of the marriage.) I try really hard to talk with people online rather than argue, even if I don't agree with them.
Can you provide a demonstration of this? For example, I disagree with the idea of intelligent design. How would I "give it some genuine love", to use your words?
With Intelligent Design, all you have to do is run with it for awhile and see where it leads. Others have done this for you. It's okay to reuse that work.
I understand and agree with your first paragraph, except I would sum it up as empathy.
Where I'm confused starts at "such people are very easy to spot...". Who are you referring to? The people who fail your test, or the people who exemplify this kind of intellectual honesty?
Another, admittedly more combative strategy is to try and disprove every new idea you're confronted with (albeit as honestly and charitably as possible). If an idea is too difficult to disprove, see if proving it is any easier.
I think the key realization is that genuinely being right is much more useful (especially in the long-run) than having others perceive you as being right in any particular debate.
I really do like your litmus test, and in most situations it will work
very well. None the less, please allow me to politely put on my "faker"
hat for a moment to pick apart a straw-man corner case.
I deal with feasibility assessment, or at least I used to, so when
giving an idea some love, I'm not only expected to find various ways an
idea can work (if possible), but I'm also expected to find the pit-falls
to avoid and the weaknesses to address. It is simply a matter of
learning and stating both the potential risks and the potential rewards
so a more informed decision can be made.
The finding of fault, or better said risks and caveats, is equally
important to finding positive ways to interpret, implement and express
an idea. The most important thing is how you express your findings,
both the positive and the not-so-positive. There really is a difference
between being critical and critical thinking.
For example, in terms of rhetoric, your post is stunningly beautiful.
You crafted a rhetorical statement where no one can disagree with you
without being a "faker" but in doing so, in terms of logic, your
argument is fallacious (similar to Suppressed Correlative [1]). The
fallacy might weaken your statement but it doesn't make your statement
entirely wrong, and the clever rhetoric actually makes you look rather
sharp.
The people who can interpret an idea in a positive light are wonderful
to work with, so we agree on your main point. None the less, the people
who can interpret an idea in a positive way while still spinning an
iteration to politely address short comings are even better.
The point I'm trying to make, hopefully by example, is both the
interpretation and iteration are important, but the most important
part is fair and polite expression of both the good parts and the
not-so-good parts. You may not agree with my result, but at least you
know why I proposed a change to your idea, and hopefully you were not
offended by my proposal.
Personally, I hope someone here will take my post, find my faults, and
politely respin an iteration with their proposed improvements. I'll
gain something from their efforts. Even if I disagree with their
results, I'll still learn a valuable new perspective that I've probably
overlooked or unfairly discounted.
Additionally, stcredzero do you think I'm a "faker" for iterating your
idea with a minor addition to address a small oversight? --Or was
iterating actually what you were talking about when you said
"interpreting" and running with it?
There really is a difference between being critical and critical thinking
This is essentially the point I'm making.
You crafted a rhetorical statement where no one can disagree with you without being a "faker"
Uh, no. Where am I saying "everyone" or "all"? I'm saying that certain admirable people do X and other not-so admirable people do Y. Nowhere do I say that everyone falls into one camp or another. Points deducted for trying to put words into my mouth!
Additionally, stcredzero do you think I'm a "faker" for iterating your idea with a minor addition to address a small oversight? --Or was iterating actually what you were talking about when you said "interpreting" and running with it?
EDIT: And no, I won't be offended by your opinion. I actually just like to know.
I'm talking about an honest iteration. But since you just blatantly tried to put a false dichotomy into my mouth, either you just tried a slimy rhetorical trick yourself or your thinking/writing was a bit confused, or there's another explanation I missed. In the first instance, it looks a lot like "faking."
Probably similar, but it's my own formulation which came out of observing 1) how people are dishonest when they discredit other's ideas unfairly and 2) the actions of people I admire as intellectuals.
I was just imagining how different hacker news would be if there were tags on each comment/post indicating what levels of disagreement hierarchy are contained within. I can't imagine a practical way to implement it but imagine the effect it would have on discourse if people were constantly reminded what they were reading/writing.
That sounds like a fun NLP project. But given the less than stellar performance I've seen in those types of programs you'd probably either need to accept a lot of false positives or a lot of false negatives. Except for the clear "u r a fag!!!!!!!!!!" cases.
It would make me feel constantly judged, arbitrarily even (because how would you ensure level-headed tagging?). It'd be as bad as downvoting, which is deliberately not possible on HN (with few exceptions).
I was assuming po meant some automatic system. If you wanted to use humans maybe you could have moderators do it.
I agree that it'd be dangerous to let anyone tag. People on YouTube usually mark anything they disagree with as spam. Hopefully it wouldn't be the same here though.
After reading your comment I realized I've seen downvoted comments but I can't downvote. Is there a karma requirement?
Yes. After you hit a certain karma threshold a down arrow shows up and you are able to downvote. The specific threshold varies, but it's below a thousand and above a hundred.
You're right to some extent... which is why I said I can't think of any practical solution. I disagree in that I think the biggest bar is not the judgmental nature of it (we're all being judged anyway) but the fact that it would be a ton of work to categorize comments along those rules if it were not automated.
I just feel that part of the reason people descend to name-calling is because there's no feedback before they hit post. Nobody says "That's not a very good reply." Afterward, it takes someone motivated enough to call it out. In the meantime people see it and think "Lots of name calling on here." I think it's good that downvoted comments are still visible rather than removed so that people learn what is considered unacceptable.
Tangent:
When I was reading this essay I couldn't help myself from imagining a counter essay (in satire) that argues a reverse valuing of the hierarchy of argument quality indicated by Graham. Additionally the quality of the argument to argue each tier's quality would be made using it's inverse tier's quality.
I.e. For DH0, name calling, a thorough argument would be made that it should in fact be the highest tier of argument DH6. It would be elaborate, with supporting examples and scenarios that would refute the central point of DH0 arguments being ineffective.
Then by the end, DH6's counter argument would be of quality DH0.
The argument would simply be "This is just dumb, Paul Graham is a fag." [disclaimer: inline with the example given in the DH0 tier. Not actually my opinion :)]
On topic:
Arguments that include DH0's tend to invoke a jerk-neck reaction from me, causing me to immediately discredit an entire (possibly well formed) argument. So much so, that even when only affiliated with such behavior good arguments lose all credibility. For example, in the 2008 election, when emails were constantly flying back and forth through the mailing list, I'd see forwarding of articles written in legitimate and well formed manner making valid statements. However, the forwarder would have prefix some DH0 level quip above the quote or article link which immediately made me write off the entire content. I.e "Barack Obama-bin-laden setting up death panels! <insert article link here>". Even if the article was bringing up valid concerns, and itself was well written--it was already sabotaged by being associated with infantile-ness.
The most convincing form of disagreement is refutation.
The only "problem" is that it may be "objectively" convincing, but it rarely convinces the person who's opinion/belief you refute, especially if there are deep emotional or irrational underpinnings, e.g. religion/fear/indoctrination, etc.
A favorite passage about argument from Robert Nozick's Philosophical Explanations.[1] It's a long quotation, but worth it, I think:
The terminology of philosophical art is coercive: arguments are powerful and best when they are knockdown, arguments force you to a conclusion, if you believe the premises you have to or must believe the conclusion, some arguments do not carry much punch, and so forth. A philosophical argument is an attempt to get someone to believe something, whether he wants to believe it or not. A successful philosophical argument, a strong argument, forces someone to a belief.
Though philosophy is carried on as a coercive activity, the penalty philosophers wield is, after all, rather weak. If the other person is willing to bear the label of "irrational" or "having the worse arguments," he can skip away happily maintaining his previous belief. He will be trailed, of course, by the philosopher furiously hurling philosophical imprecations: "What do you mean, you're willing to be irrational? You shouldn't be irrational because..." And although the philosopher is embarrassed by his inability to complete this sentence in a noncircular fasion - he can only produce reasons for accepting reasons - still, he is unwilling to let his adversary go.
Wouldn't it be better if philosophical arguments lef the person no possible answer at all, reducing him to impotent silence? Even then, he might sit there silently, smiling, Buddhalike. Perhaps philosophers need arguments so powerful they set up reverbarations in the brain: if the person refuses to accept the conclusion, he dies. How's that for a powerful argument. Yet, as with other physical threats ("your money or your life"), he can choose defiance. A "perfect" philosophical argument would leave no choice. (All emphases Nozick's.)
I've found that a lot of the listed fallacies can have charitable interpretations.
A strawman argument where A proposes X and B attacks Y instead of attacking X can often be a case where X indirectly leads to Y and person B assumes that it is known that X leads to Y. Or, X is just Y in disguise. So it's not necessarily a matter of being fallacious, but fully formalizing an argument is often not feasible, so you take shortcuts. If you formalized the argument too much, it gets boring and people stop listening/reading.
I've seen this in action. I think if people would just be in the habit of saying "I believe X leads to Y" that would be sufficient, and doesn't require being too formal. But I think that habit is way above the level of discourse in America, where, near as I can tell ideologies and social news sites reinforce a partisan or "if you're not one of us you're not worth respecting" attitude.
The more interesting idea to explore is why people disagree in the first place. Most arguments that I witness are more about relationship positing than trying to prove a point. This includes jockeying for a better spot in the dominance hierarchy or identifying yourself as a part of a group.
Sorry for offtopic, but (with all due respect to author and content) why da heck 95'ish buttons in website menu? They are burning my eyeballs and make me feel old.
"The most convincing form of disagreement is refutation... The most powerful form of disagreement is to refute someone's central point." This is a subjective statement, presented without evidence [DH6, DH5]. In any particular discussion, the most convincing forms of argument depends on the situation, the information both parties have available and their cognitive styles [DH4]. For example [DH3], sometimes highlighting a person's stake in the issue is often very effective. http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=2156623
As an analytical thinker, Paul seems to be projecting his own preferences to others [DH1] -- and he's left out some techniques that are extremely effective such as appealing to the emotions.
"Most people don't really enjoy being mean; they do it because they can't help it."
I wish this point had been expanded upon, but I feel like I just saw a bunch of weasels sucking eggs.
It would make a very interesting essay on the origins of meanness, clearly (citation needed) it has evolutionary advantage (or is a side effect of such). I wonder if a poll could be constructed that would given to enough people would support or refute pg's claim. Given limited resources and if it comes down to me feed my family or you feed yours I'm pretty sure the past 600million years of brain development would kick in and side with meanness, but we live in a time of relative plenty and given those conditions I truly wonder where human nature falls.
There's also the difference between disagreeing and trying to change the other person's opinion. Disagreeing is cheap: you just don't agree and that's it. You're not obliged to explain yourself to anyone but yourself.
This was my first day. I stuck around for a day or two, then I just logged out and stopped participating. Just use this as a site to find links, and when you're not logged in there's no incentive to go see what people said in reply to you, and no focus on karma score or anything. I don't know if the site requires a certain level of karma to submit new items, but I don't really feel like submitting things here when I don't feel like they'll get a fair shake. (There were good discussions on some of my other comments, but another one where it became clear that I no real discussion was possible because of ideology combined with the "fucking idiot" comment were enough to have me stop participating.
This is just FYI. I'd love for there to be a place to have good discussions with people. I don't know how to make HN that place, and so I'm just going to use it as a source of articles to read.
I think all news sites that allow downvoting end up operating as a sort of "smear the queer" system for punishing people who have a minority viewpoint, without regard to how well they articulate it or even what they are actually saying (in some cases.)
Edit: Yes this topic got me to log in, and I'll be logging out now. I don't really want to debate the topic that I got attacked over, as my original comment was actually trying to defend someone else's perspective. Please whether you agree with me or not, take this as "market feedback" of what a new user experienced, and why I'm not participating. Maybe I have thin skin in your opinion, that's fine. Maybe I'm way too wordy to participate on a site like this! That's fine too.
I'd suggest not viewing karma as the reward, but rather your influence. Ad-hominem attacks and downvotes are typically a response to cognitive dissonance - your argument or facts forced someone to rethink views they are emotionally attached to, and they don't like it.
You received at least 3 upvotes, and earl received 4. (Actually, most likely you both received a mix of both upvotes and downvotes.) Since I seriously doubt that those are coming from the same people, you influenced 7 people in some way. You made 4 people uncomfortable about their views, but they were unable to rationally respond. That pushes them a little closer to changing their views.
I have seen similar objections to my comments, along with the downvotes. Just as yummyfajitas said, if you evoke cognitive dissonance or frankly mess with peoples' worldview, they will downvote you. It matters not if you are discussing in a matters of science or otherwise.
Meditation seems to be a popular thing here on HN, given the amount of "Zen", "Meditation", Buddhism, and other Eastern topics. One of my specialities is specifically Yoga, Tantra, and Tibetan Buddhism. Meditation is a key part of these practices, as is other spiritual and religious work.
However, the disjoin I witness here is although meditation is seen as good benefit, anything spiritual and/or religious is downvoted to oblivion. One of the first lessons in proper meditation is shielding, yet the naysayers come out in droves. The Hindus have fond Asana to deal with the itches and movements when trying to meditate. Tumo was developed by the ascetic monks in the Tibetan mountains to generate massive amounts of body heat. Reincarnation, in Tibet, is not seen as some religious belief but as a fact of life. This is to the point that payments can be arranged between lifetimes.
I can discuss these techniques at length, as well as do some of them. I'm still learning and do not claim to be any sort of master. However, if these people want to learn about meditation, they better as well know how meditation fails, what happens when you succeed, and pitfalls thereof. Yet when I mention, there are a few who are genuinely curious, and a majority who -1.
> Reincarnation, in Tibet, is not seen as some religious belief but as a fact of life. This is to the point that payments can be arranged between lifetimes.
I just have to know how that works. How are you supposed to find the guy's reincarnation to get paid? Or do they pay your reincarnation?
Not quite. You're thinking of payments as in money or other monetary goods. There are other types of payment and contracts that can be done that are out of the scope of goods. And that is time.
If chosen, one can make a binding contract that trades time for something. For example, I could agree to protect a friend for the rest of this life and of the next we meet for something. Gurus make similar agreements about being a teacher as well. Usually a guru agreement is binding until otherwise broken. And life usually puts us back in contact, even in other lives. Now, our relationship can (and usually does) change, but we will almost always meet them.
The show and movie Avatar the Last Airbender is very similar how the Dalai Lama is actually chosen. In the Dalai Lama's case, they are shown about a hundred objects, 3 of which belong to the last reincarnation. The TV show shows 4 objects that respond unnaturally (the 4 being representatives of wind/water/fire/earth). It is also in the Dalai Lama's case that he is also to choose people who was in his cabinet prior to his reincarnation, as there is only a few years between the death and life. This step is also proof of who he is. The search usually goes on 2 weeks after his death, in which the world is searched for his new incarnation. And in the case of the Dalai Lama, what makes his so important is that he is seen as the Avatar of Chenrezig (the Patron God of Tibet).
This is my litmus test for first-class minds. I've been using this for the past 25 years and I've found that those who truly take this approach are 1) uncommon, 2) impressively smart, 3) genuinely curious, and 4) seem to offer the highest chance for truly profound and productive interactions.
Most often, people fail this test by not using this technique at all, or trying to pass off its doppleganger.
Such people are very easy to spot. Simply pay attention to the possible interpretations of what other people say. You are looking for the one who's always interpreting what others say in the best possible light and who runs with other's ideas, often in a delightful and surprising way.
EDIT: The fakers are easy to spot, by the their bias towards finding fault for other's ideas or their eager gravitation towards straw-man interpretations when more interesting alternatives are easily imagined.