While high school debate did teach me many positive lessons and I am thankful that I spent four years of my life doing it, many years later I have come to understand that it also taught me something truly negative: that the point of a conversation is to win.

I have put a lot of time in my adult life unlearning that trait, and reflecting on the harm it did to my relationships with other people.

If you want to grow like OP here suggests—which I think is a valuable, worthwhile goal—you will do yourself a great service in learning to listen. I know we all think that we do this, but I don’t think many of us actually do.

When you talk to others, take note of how much of the time you spend formulating a response. I know that for me, I find that frequently I’m already generating my rebuttal before they finish speaking. I am effectively listening to respond, not to hear what they have to say. I’m much much better at listening to hear today than I was a decade ago, but I still have to correct myself on this routinely.

It’s important to note that you can listen to hear and still be free to respond; if you want to have an interesting conversation you will definitely need to put in some effort too. Just make sure that you’re internalizing what they’ve said before you form a response to it. It will almost certainly slow down the pace of a conversation but stands a decent chance of making each exchange a lot more interesting for both of you.

I really believe that the most profound realizations of my life have come when I shut up and put in the effort to internalize what other people around me were doing and saying.

I strongly suspect debate club has a net negative impact on peoples social skills. It teaches a bunch of anti patterns to successful social interactions.

Like, you will be shooting the shit with the lads down pub the once or twice you see them per year when this dickhead (and every group has one) picks up on something and decides it's time to flex his master debater skills yet again.

Related absolutely cringe inducing behaviour includes the following:

- the "I am very smart" contrarian (so half of this website) - the "gonna then everything into politics" (liberal) one - the "gonna turn everything into politics" (conservative) one - that guy who says "let's not get political" (proceeds to get extremely political) - "uhm ackshually" overcorrecting guy - guy who doesn't know dick about a topic but will pontificate on it

Its entirely possible to unlearn these behaviours. The first thing is to realize you don't always have to respond.

Someone says something wrong in passing? Ignore it, move on.

Someone says something you disagree with? Evaluate if the inevitable unresolved and probably heated argument that will happen when you make it an issue is worth the time, effort, and awkwardness for everyone else present.

Someone says something exceptionally disagreeable? Just fucking leave it be and disengage as soon as possible. The fight isn't worth the time.

Someone says something wrong in passing? Ignore it, move on.

Someone says something you disagree with? Evaluate if the inevitable unresolved and probably heated argument that will happen when you make it an issue is worth the time, effort, and awkwardness for everyone else present.

Someone says something exceptionally disagreeable? Just fucking leave it be and disengage as soon as possible. The fight isn't worth the time.

There are surely former debaters who still feel the need to prove themselves to their friends and colleagues and will go out of their way to seek an argument. It is a competitive activity and so it attracts competitive types. But part of the process of becoming a well-adjusted adult, and yes, debaters all go through that process too in time, is recognizing where and when their skills are welcome.

What a lot of people failed to learn from debates club, is that a formal "win" is a net loss of a relationship.

In US competitive debate, debaters learn very quickly that whether you "win" or "lose" is not decided by themselves or their opponent but by the judge. You don't measure your success by whether being argumentative made you feel good or whether you felt like you won but by whether the judge evaluated what you said and what the other person said and signed a ballot in your favor. That actually involves a lot of "reading the room" and self-awareness about how other people will hear you when you talk. Good debaters solicit feedback from their judges and coaches to ask them how they can do better. And good judges look past the bluster, penalize debaters who use bad faith tactics, and reward debaters who succeed on substance. Judges are accountable for their decisions too - they have to explain to the debaters why they voted the way they did, which encourages judges to evaluate debaters carefully and give good feedback.

Again I think it is a caricature to say that a person who does debate structures their personality around it and tries to turn everything into an argument. I concede as a high schooler I went through a phase like this; then I went through college, matured a bit, got other hobbies and priorities and came to understand how to use the skills I learned as a debater in a positive-sum way.

What I learned from your response, is that debates in US teach you - ignore the principles of the argument, fail to follow up and say(or write) a lot of words. (to "win")

Funny, that to me you've become the caricature that you're complaining about.

Literally evoking the feeling of being attack, by introducing thinly veiled insults into your comment.

What do you think would result from such a retort? (specifically after you called my perspective "piss poor")

PS: I have debated many times at school and afterwards. Your condescension is poorly hidden

There's a time and place for everything and friendship dynamics get...complicated.

In most social situations "heavy" discussion or "debating" is entirely unwarranted and brings the overall mood down.

There are plenty of discussion groups and meetups if you want to hotly debate politics or suchlike!

I have been a regular at several places (sometimes coffee shops) across the country where I can sense very real substantive conversations. Sometimes people just need a little nudge to get out of their comfort zone.

Such interactions can help bring people even closer. It takes intention and some experimentation.

Not long ago as I was exploring those circles I kept hearing this name repeated. A streamer named Destiny. So I started consuming some of his material. And it was absolutely insufferable. This person treated every single statement as a drawn battle line that is to be defended by every last ounce of mustered anger and blood. No matter how infinitesmal or semantical the focal point of discussion was it was torn apart to shreds. There was no intent to learn, no hoping for new perspectives. It was solely a sport about feeling correct. It was awful to listen to.

I was shocked to see how popular this person is (given their streams and subscribers). Not only because I felt that overall they were a garbage person to have a parasocial relationship with but because if I found him as awful to listen to as I did, surely a large amount of others would feel the same. And while no doubt others feel like me about him, on the other hand I must be neglecting something. There must be a cadre of people that find (arguably) well defended positions thrilling and almost narcotic. I do not associate with many of those types of people in meatspace and I suppose I had slowly forgotten that there's a significant number of them out there.

But yeah, I'm right there with you. I'm here to learn, and there's others that aren't and will knowingly or otherwise prey upon that willingness by digging their heels in on the most miniscule of points. Makes no sense to me. If the only purpose served by me opening my mouth was to convince the world of my correctness, I would just assume everyone else was as obsinate as myself and wouldn't bother to open my mouth in the first place. Save the calories.

I had a friend in NYC who used to read a tonne load of books but now just watches the 3h Hasan stream every day and then parrots every take the video game streamer says as if it’s gospel. I ended up cutting him out of my life because he just grew so tiring to be around; any conversation had to be directed to how idiotic the other side (code for republicans) is. As a non-American, it grew really old hearing rant about how stupid 40% of their fellow countrymen are.

Listening to someone pretend to get angry and punching down on people less educated isn’t intellectually nourishing, it’s reddit prison slop.

It reminds me of an exchange between Neil Degrasee Tyson and Richard Dawkins in which Neil tells Dawkins that, while he makes good points, perhaps he should soften his delivery? Because it's hard for the realm of science to pull in new defenders when their staunchest proponents are telling its detractors they are imbeciles. And dawkins fires back with [...]"Science is interesting, and if you don't like it, you can fuck off". EDIT: This exchange must have been in the mid 00's? The birth of the Four-Horsemen-of-Atheism era. The absolutist cultural debate position has a rich history.

There's a time and place to cut ties and not waste time interacting with people that disagree with you. Sometimes the right move is to reject an ideology or group outright. But it seems like the modern concept of that time and place is very skewed.

Since those folks (the AM radio / unhinged Fox News guys) have been wildly successful at getting people to vote a certain way and swing rhetoric hard in the direction they promote, I'm torn on whether or not to be upset about this. If it eventually gets us a developed-world healthcare system and typical-in-most-of-the-rest-of-the-OECD worker protections and benefits, I guess I don't care if shitty psychological manipulation is what does it, if the alternative is that we continue not to manage to achieve those for several more decades. It'd be cool if my elementary-aged kids could have some nice things before they're middle-aged—I've only got 30-40 years left, probably, so have given up hope on any of this happening before I'm ancient, but maybe my kids' kids will fully reap the benefits, on the back half of this century.

And Destiny to be a fairly reasonable mostly good-faith debater.

I left a FOSS project that I liked a lot hacking on, because of a person like that. It was painful, but better for my mental health overall.

I'd argue (heh) that what this behavior boils down to is: I'm restating what you're saying, only in terms I can understand, which makes me come across as argumentative. You're "wrong" only in that what you're saying doesn't compute with me-- I'm really shouting down my own lack of comprehension, which presents as me arguing with you (if that makes any sense). Her response "Well you must not have understood me" is classic Me, but in reality that's textbook projection, which backs me into into a corner I try to get out of...with more arguing!

Even knowing I do this, I can't ever catch myself doing it early enough to stop it; dopamine rush from outrage trumps my ability to dial it back. So I just avoid in-person debates altogether. I'm not aiming to offend anybody and can express my position more clearly in written form.

I have the same issue with understanding code other people write. I don't "get" larger architectures unless I wrote the entire stack myself (again, understanding someone else's concept by reinventing it myself). If I didn't write every goddamn class in the framework, I don't remember they exist or how they work together. Once I realized this I pivoted away from software development; nobody has time or need for another TempleOS.

Unfortunately this behavior is commonly found on the #mentalhealthawareness Narcissistic personality disorder checklists so everyone calls it out as malicious. I suspect autism though, since (for me) this always stems from information-processing difficulties. Make of it what you will.

Whatever i say, the first thing my mother says 95% of the time is "No" or another dismissal. It was astounding to see my son acting the same way, answering "No, thats wrong" to things he doesn't even know!

I have been really contrarian for most part of my life. But i realized how annoying that behaviour is and made an active effort to change it. Through repetition it became a habit to respond positively or neutral.

You're not wrong but I think you're overstating things. Honestly if you're that miffed about these conversations maybe it's you.

> Someone says something wrong in passing? Ignore it, move on.

This is a skill I've worked on for years. Not every conversation needs to be a teaching moment or life or death. Most are just people bullshitting around with each other. Constantly correcting or arguing doesn't help anyone.

A wise man argues not to prove he's right, he's arguing to become right.

Assuming (or at least allowing) your "opponent" knows something you don't is about all it takes to take a casual debate from a nuisance to learning experience.

- agreed, though, that these are all flavours of trying to ‘win’ rather than actually contributing meaningfully

The best conversations I had with the worst people stemmed from me not even telling them my opinion at all. I just asked them to explain theirs to me and asked the questions that occured to me in a respectful manner. Leaving them in healthy confusion and doubt afterwards (and learning a thing or two about them on the way) is more rewarding than winning a debate with them. Sometimes those people really surprise you as well, because they hold a combination of opinions that seem incompatible to you.

What people often don't realize is that winning a debate doesn't necessarily mean you side with the truth. A debate is aimed at winning on your existing opinions and the other losing. It is not aimed at discovery, validation or learning. Victory is more important than truth, and a lot of 'good moves' in a debate actually bring you further away from the truth.

If you engage in a conversation where you are both curious and submit to what's true (whatever that means), this conversation will rarely be a debate.

If a debate is in public between skilled debaters who show sportsmanship, then I think the public can gain a lot because a debate forces you to be very on point.

That's true of the sort of debate that's practiced competitively by "debating teams", but I don't think it's always true of debate as the word is used in an everyday context. A debate can also be more like a dialectic.

That's the problem with how we see a debate. It's just about that. There's no need to present your position in a compelling way or find common grounds with whoever you're debating.

If you read any books by professional negotiators - you'll notice that they conduct themselves very differently than you would in a debate.

Getting to Yes and Getting Past No have been eye opening to me. I no longer feel like I even need to "win an argument".

> the public can gain a lot because a debate forces you to be very on point

I recall reading some articles stating, that debates fail to convince anyone of anything. Public debates only encourage tribalism, IMO. If you watch a presidential debate - no amount of "winning" changed people's opinions.

I can even argue, that just hearing "X won the debate" will cause more impact; compared to listening to them.

I absolutely agree with you that the best conversations tends to come from the latter approach you describe. Unfortunately, it can often be difficult and take some skill to avoid pushing the other person into "debate mode" by making them feel like they're losing. Especially if there's an audience, however small.

While in reality for many things there are judgement calls, trade-offs, unknowns and basically "it depends". In software, POCs, trial&error, R&D, etc help you test out the options.

Many would do better to frame a discussion as surfacing the risks, trade-offs, potential pitfalls, and benefits of different answers such that the "bad answer" is avoided, more than "the one right answer" is somehow discovered.

Most people aren't debating you on purpose so there's no point as they continue to rubber duck (and maybe even thank you later). In case they really are in it for a debate, then by all means proceed.

But it'd be good if people got better training in "cooperative" debates, where the purpose is to learn and listen. I can't recall many instances where that was encouraged in school, but there were a few. All of them were focused on a subject, though, rather than actually teaching the skill of listening and debating constructively.

There's a space for both - sometimes you need to be combative -, but people switch to combative mode way too readily.

To your point on the time formulating a response: Online I find a good measure of whether I'm "listening" or gearing up to being combative is whether I end up significantly re-writing my reply while writing it as I process the comment I'm replying to, or if have it "ready and loaded" to fire back at someone by the time I hit the reply button.

The "cooperative" debate is what we call a conversation.

Throwing the word constructive in front of debate, does not change the adversarial nature of it.

https://youtu.be/O6N9nvk8bvE

It's much better than just continuing the conversation under a false assumption.

This is not the point of this technique. This technique is about actually talking to a person, one-on-one, and trying to understand what they mean. No one else is watching, or at least the interview isn't being recorded.

In that instance, doing that actually exposed it quite well. Jordan Peterson is able to respond off the cuff, so a reasonable percentage of the audience didn't walk away having assimilated the interviewer's version of his position.

The subsequent Joe Rogan interview of Jordan Peterson was illuminating. Joe Rogan is, against the odds, a good interviewer, because he listens and engages, and only occasionally challenges.

He’s probably the highest paid interviewer on the planet, of course he’s good at what he does! If he hadn’t found the ire of the online progressive crowd by letting on some unsavories, he’d probably be regarded super positively across the board. It’s crazy how many times I’ve seen web-activists go for blood with this guy and come up empty handed. Why is it hard for people to admit he’s just a really good podcaster?

I think that depends on how familiar they are with your perspective. You don't want to think of the interaction as unequal, with you taking the higher perspective of observing both their ideas and yours, appreciating and integrating them, while they only exist in their own point of view, the observed to your observer.

If they understand your perspective but you don't know theirs, it makes sense for them to do most of the talking. But if they don't understand where you're coming from, then a one-sided conversation is one-sided in a bad way. It's like looking at them through a telescope. You'll have your reactions to their ideas, but you won't have their reactions to yours, their reactions to your reactions.

I've always enjoyed arguing (in the sense of a polite dialogue between two who disagree). But for me, even though I enjoy arguing, being right is more important -- which includes trying to cultivate the discipline to recognise and acknowledge when my interlocutor makes a good point, and trying to understand why they think what they do.

At university, I checked out the debating club, thinking it might be a good fit for me, but I was wrong. There, the goal seemed to be purely to win, correctness be damned. I found the arguments they marshaled towards their goal to be dishonest and contrary to the goals of increasing understanding and getting to the heart of a matter.

I can see how that could be seen as a sport or competition of sorts, but I worried about the kind of habits it might form. It is too similar to the kind of arguing I enjoy that it would be easy to slip from one mode to the other if those debate club type skills were developed and honed.

Please stop talking as if his writing is profound.

...

Okay, I think that as expected the word salad doesn't do anything to expand on the subject; it's another grossly compact attempt at telling everyone what a crazy and interesting life he's had without going into detail beyond the barest mention that he was somewhere and talked to someone; serves yet again as a form of name-dropping; proves absolutely nothing about debate but somehow oddly inspires people here to go way out of their way debating what the author meant.

In general? I think debate is just a byword for civil discussion, and the concept of winning or losing one is stupid. Discussions are meant to elucidate and digress and open both people to one another's point of view, but that's no reason they shouldn't be contentious. To describe a contentious conversation as a debate in which someone has to win and someone has to lose is reductive and misses the point of conversation. To cast oneself as the ultimate martyr in such conversations by way of [losing one's ego on the road from Patpong to Nepal and] creating ranking click bait topics is pure Derek Sivers. There ya go.

Like others, I have no idea who Sivers is.

Also, some of the examples are infuriating. So someone thinks poverty is not upsetting? Well, screw them. And the rest of those examples are so bland, how about "losing" every debate with these:

- Nazism is right.

- Rich people should become richer and poor people should become poorer.

- Women should not have equal rights or vote.

Go on, "listen and lose the debate", I'm sure it will be illuminating and productive.

Poverty is not having to eat. Poverty is a self-compounding problem: you cannot eat, you cannot work (or not enough), you get sick, so you cannot work, etc. Every accident impacts someone living in poverty way more than someone who is not. "Find happiness in non-material things" is something only those who have their basic necessities covered have the possibility to contemplate.

> Ok, but was it absolutely wrong? Should we dismiss anything that even remotely resembles Nazism? Were there any good parts that Nazism had? E.g. patriotism or anti-communism?

"Yes", "yes", "no", and "no".

> Poor in US are among most wealthy people in the world

That doesn't address the worldview I mentioned, it's complete misdirection. The view is that the rich should get richer and the poor should get poorer. Engage with that.

(Also, poverty is not "a law of nature" and it's not true that every poor person in the US is among the most wealthy people in the world).

> Unequal rights doesn't necessarily mean someone is being taken advantage of.

Yes it is. Your proposed experiment is bullshit.

PS: you also misunderstood my prompt, which was to debate with people who believe what I listed, not debate with me. I don't care to debate with you about those awful, made-up and purposefully stupid statements. I don't want you to "teach me" anything, either.

No, that's famine.

Poverty has many definitions, but generally it's not being able to meet a certain standard of living. It may include nutrition standards, but again, malnutrition in US is very different from malnutrition in Africa. Again, if someone is "poor" by US standards, but lives a happy life - good for them. I could learn a thing or two from them. You could too.

> "Yes", "yes", "no", and "no".

Absolutist views are rather boring and a clear indication of a closed mindset. The exact opposite of what the post is about.

> That doesn't address the worldview I mentioned, it's complete misdirection. The view is that the rich should get richer and the poor should get poorer.

But it does. Rich are getting richer is the natural effect of positive feedback loops. You are rewarded for the value you produce, which allows you to produce more value. Streamlining those loops allowed us to create enormous amount of wealth in the last century.

The only way to fight it is to create an artificial compensating negative feedback loop, i.e. punish people for creating value. Evidently, not a good idea if you look at famine in USSR (google for "Dekulakization").

People like you seem to focus on a few outliers without recognizing that "rich getting richer" has benefitted billions. If having a few billionaires is the cost of moving billions out of poverty, I'll gladly take it. So yeah, rich should be getting richer, because the only alternative is everybody being poor.

> Yes it is. Your proposed experiment is bullshit.

Is this really your best argument?

No, that's poverty. Poverty is a self-reinforcing loop, this is well studied. Malnutrition is malnutrition, you die from it in North America, Africa or whatever. I don't care for your new age "find happiness where you can" mumbo jumbo.

I don't live in the US nor anywhere close to the US, so stick your assumptions where the sun don't shine!

> Absolutist views are rather boring and a clear indication of a closed mindset

I'm sorry you find denouncing and rejecting Nazism is boring.

> "rich getting richer"

You conveniently forgot "the poor must get poorer".

> (google for "Dekulakization")

I'm puzzled, is "assuming people don't know a term I'm using and need googling it" part of your "just listen, do not try to win debates" strategy of TFA? Thanks for teaching me though, I didn't know anything about the history of the USSR!

It must be that I am not "producing value", haw haw haw!

I wrote a longer post to your bullshit reply, but I won't bother, since you decided to ignore this: "you also misunderstood my prompt, which was to debate with people who believe what I listed, not debate with me". Since you failed to engage with pretty simple instructions, and instead you chose to go your own way -- funnily enough, breaking the premise of TFA, which was "to listen"; instead of doing so you launched into an attempt to refute what you guessed were my objections -- I'll bid you adieu.

Good luck with your debate tactics!

Evidently, simply denouncing and rejecting does nothing to prevent it from emerging again. All the raping and murdering in Ukraine is currently done in the name of denouncing Nazism, yet it looks very much like Nazism.

> you also misunderstood my prompt, which was to debate with people who believe what I listed, not debate with me

Turns out debates don't always happen on your terms. Despite your best effort, you still learned something today.

Ah, yes, I guess if we had debated the "good parts" of Nazism then the invasion of Ukraine wouldn't have happened.

> Despite your best effort, you still learned something today.

Do you really think that's an honest debate tactic? Do you think that, when reading your last line, I will think "gee, this guy truly taught me something!" or rather dismiss your remark entirely? And do you feel your way of debating is in line with what TFA proposes, or is it possible that you are trying to "win" here, therefore rejecting the whole article?

I guess I learned this conversation is futile?

Kind of. If more time was spent deconstructing Nazism/Fascism, instead of simply repeating "Nazism bad" it would be much easier to notice it right under our (their) nose.

> I guess I learned this conversation is futile?

I'd suggest you to re-read your messages in this thread. Analyze their tone. You never attempted to have a conversation.

"Despite your best effort, you still learned something today."

How would you say the above line ranks in the goal of "I hope to lose every debate" and "just listen" mindset?

Again, re-read your own comments. I've matched a fraction of your insults and you're already getting upset.

> How would you say the above line ranks in the goal of "I hope to lose every debate" and "just listen" mindset?

It doesn't rank well at all. Good thing I never claimed to have a "just listen" mindset. In fact, I said I disagree with it.

Am I upset? You sound upset yourself.

> Good thing I never claimed to have a "just listen" mindset. In fact, I said I disagree with it.

It raises the question of what you were trying to debate with me then.

Could you summarize what you think my initial comment was arguing?

In a lame "gotcha" attempt you took author's words extremely literally: "Let's see how you lose a debate against 2 x 2 = 5 believer. Haha, I'm so smart."

Now, which one do you think is more likely:

- Author meant to say that literally every debate is worth losing

- You (likely on purpose) misunderstood the point author is trying to make

What do you really think is the point author was trying to make? Can you explain in your own words?

Have you read the HN guidelines?

> You (likely on purpose) misunderstood

Ah, we have a mind reader!

> Can you explain in your own words?

I can, but I won't for you, because it would be fruitless.

No need to reply: you won. You won big time. Have a cookie.

This is a highly insightful take. Thanks. You nailed it.

Learning to listen may not come naturally for some of us. It's a skill that requires practice and reinforcement.

There are two wanys of looking at this. Doing nothing means you lose the opportunity to possibly correct an innocent mistake or to set the record. But it's also possible you may have no clue what you are talking about.

Imagine someone has an out-there idea. Listening means you go along with them and have them explain it to you. And you play the nice, slightly curious, but not too curious person that has an open mind and ask the doubting questions. You know more Judo, less boxing, instead of punching and dodging you just make sure when they come at you, their own energy carries them into positions they have to deal with.

I tell you, a big fraction of the people's strongly held opinions completely fall apart when you just make them explain it in detail. And if they realized it is bullshit themselves that is a much more valuable thing than any fact you could ever provide.

Especially naive people with wrong opinions have a strong reactance. That means if you tell them they are wrong (something they are used to being told), they will now treat this as a fight and you as the enemy and they will proudly lie to themselves (1+1=3) just to one-up you.

That means the best way to get into productive territory with those people is to not swallow the bait and slowly go from where they are into a direction that is completely new to them.

That also means leaving arguments like "I studied $X" or "scientific journal $Y says $Z" at the door. Those basically trigger them back into learned talking points

>Imagine someone has an out-there idea

How would one know the idea is out-there until one has listened and understood what someone else is saying?

>And you play the nice, slightly curious, but not too curious person that has an open mind...

I don't have to "play" this part, unless I were someone who isn't naturally nice and curious.

"Debate" and "listen" are not the only two options.

Debate, specifically, comes from a mode of communication called rhetoric, or persuasive argument.

There are other forms of communicating, including simply narrating or relating an event or position, entertainment, and others, one of which is dialectic.

As I've commented a few times over the years here, confusing dilectic and rhetorical conversation is one of the oldest confounding points of conversations in the book --- it's what Socrates, Plato, and Aristotle wrote on at length (particularly Plato railing against the Sophists, that is, rhetoriticians, and Aristotle's Sophistical Refutations, a/k/a "bullshit arguments that must die" to put a contemporary spin on it.

Derek's entire premise strikes me as ... extraordinarily blinkered here. If you find you want to impart your own wisdom, it's possible to do so other than through raw debate. In particular, the mode of simple discussion or Socratic Method, in which you ask questions which (might) lead your interlocutor to reach the conclusion you're suggesting on their own seems especially valid.

"Had you considered X" or "How would you address Y" being possible entry points for that.

But if the goal is self improvement, it can't be done with just listening. Like learning can't be done by just reading. It is far to slow finding the gaps in your own understanding; arguing is orders of magnitude quicker. People will explain an argument's flaws right quick, and often helpfully repeat themselves a few times.

Although what you're leading towards here might be persuasion, because it is a great tool for learning and people often don't realise the subtle way a persuasive argument pushes back. Those aren't as much fun as the hot flush of a robust debate but they are a lot more powerful (especially since many people may not realise that there is an argument going on).

That said I found Marshall Rosenberg's Nonviolent Communication quite eye opening because it articulated the idea that it is possible and sensible to approach conversation strategically. Then after getting a feel for a do-no-harm approach it is relatively easy to start categorising what people say into tactics and there are some things that work and others that really don't. It seems pretty obvious that effective people are very good at listening, asking questions and what sort of evidence they treat as persuasive or unpersuasive.

The point of listening is ultimately to know the truth. The fact that listening to others is ipso facto social means that we learn a great deal in community. But it's one thing to learn about what someone else believes. It's another to accept those beliefs as true. The person you are listening to could be in error. Listening is, therefore, a kind of data collection, and data need to be interpreted, after which some kind of verification generally ought to take place (of course, we cannot verify everything, hence for practical reasons, we often trust, e.g., the authority of tradition and its authoritative "keepers", at least until we have reason to doubt).

W.r.t. debating, there's a time and place for it. Classically, it is a formal and public affair reserved for certain circumstances. You don't debate during data collection.

I think Socratic dialogue is a better fit for exploration and discussion, though that, too, and trivially so, has a time and a place.

Listening is critical to all communication (there's at least one speaker and one listener to any conversation involving one or more sentiences). I'd suggest that the goal of listening is to understand the other party, at least within the universe of their story or experience. You don't have to believe, agree, sympathise, or even empathise. You may have entirely selfish reasons for doing so (is this person a threat / kook / messiah / ...?). If we choose to listen, though, the principle goal is only occasionally seeking truth.

This is what the OP says; while the title of the post is "I want to lose every debate" that's what he says in the end:

> I never want to debate, but if I had to, I would hope to lose.

And I get it, I think; but there is something to be said in favor of debating, not as a competition, but as a method of refining each other's ideas.

Someone exposing a theory of theirs that's apparently well polished is less interesting than people discussing, exchanging ideas and poking and exposing possible holes.

That's what debating should be: not a sport with "winners" and "losers" (what does that even mean in the realm of ideas??) but as a joint effort and journey in search of the truth.

an act or instance of discussing; consideration or examination by argument, comment, etc., especially to explore solutions; informal debate.

Discuss is first recorded in 1300–50; Middle English, either from Anglo-French discusser or directly from Latin discussus “struck asunder, shaken, scattered,” past participle of discutere, equivalent to dis- dis-1 + -cutere (combining form of quatere “to shake, strike”).

I don't think that's unique to JP. Most people are very bad at paraphrasing without veering into misrepresentation. I'm still working on getting better.

Yes, it is. I quoted you and the source post is unmodified.

Ironically, my interpretation may not be what you meant, despite it's simplicity.

>> IMHO, you haven't understood someone if you can't repeat it back to them in your own language, and there's a good probability that this is the fault of the explainer not the explainee.

So I guess we just talk past each other. Sounds good.

I have a feeling that a lot of people think this. Coming to an 'agree to disagree' is really had for some people. Sometimes there's no other option though, because both people seem to know the same facts, they just have differing opinions on how to deal with those facts.

> take note of how much of the time you spend formulating a response

I've been paying attention to this for years now after hearing or reading something similar. I haven't been able to change this, but sometimes it's helped me move back to listening and not missing important details because of it.

A conversation can be much, much more than a clash of opinions. Going into a conversation with the idea of "the other guy is wrong" is a sure way of never understanding how they arrived at that wrong opinion to begin with. Yet sometimes precisely this is the most valuable thing you could learn from them.

It can be, but sometimes it isn't. Those are the cases I was talking about where agreeing to disagree can be a good outcome.

Even more -- it is not mandatory to have an opinion on everything.

In many cases the person you talk to don't really disagree, but pretends to due to ideologic or some BS reason. Maybe they don't want to say the real reason they think X.

The "agree to disagree" is often used as an escape hatch for hypocrisy.

Sometimes. Other times it's a great way to point out that hypocrisy by pointing out you all have the same information, yet you come to different conclusions/opinions.

Sometimes it's a conscious decision to have all the facts and ignore them. It's not hypocritical in that case.

I disagree (pun intended).

Debating allows you to understand your own position better, e.g. is it based on information, intuition, values, preference, experience, or bias?

And it forces another party to do the same, which allows you to better decide how to handle disagreements.

E.g. if their position is based on preference, we can agree to disagree and move on.

If it's based on a bias, I will value their opinion less.

If someone has a different knowledge, that's something we can (and should) resolve asap.

If our values are different we will never be able to resolve it and it's better to avoid conflict.

Also consider all your other options: pure listening, mutual bonding, offering emotional support, even walking away (from a no-win situation).

If / when debate falls apart, there are many options to reconnect.

Someone states their position, while you're expected to undermine their position with a retort. It is one of the least productive ways of resolving differences.

What you're describing is a lack of debate culture. A good example of that was already referred here (the infamous "so you're saying" interview).

Every discussion is not a debate. Perhaps this is what Sivers was trying to communicate, in which case, he did so rather poorly.

The examples offered all revolve around lived experiences, lifestyle preference (taste), and articles of faith, for which there really isn't much of an objective truth, let alone one which can be demonstrated through evidence and reason.

There's something to be said for simply choosing to absorb a story, to bear witness, even to validate a person's view or choices (though that last isn't necessarily always appropriate).

From my experience, some years back I encountered a ... local character ... who was known for accosting strangers on the street and ranting about various topics, generally rather fantastical. I'd seen this happen several times over the years, and one day it was my turn. After the tirade slowed, and unsure how to respond, I simply said "thank you". The transformation was immediate and profound: they were immensely grateful and their entire demeanor changed.

I don't pretend that this is universally applicable. I do know that there was no point in rational argument with the person. The circumstances were such that there was no obvious danger to myself or those around me. But I've thought more than once over the years of how a simple acknowledgement might often be an excellent choice of response.

I know some people are energized by debate, but I'd rather work with someone who builds my confidence rather than constantly attacks my ideas and, if those don't have any weak corners, my character and judgement. Nothing wrong with either preference, but the two shouldn't work together in my experience.

However, there are people who don't experience as much, if any, attachment or identification with "their own ideas", and instead view "debate" (or indeed, any sort of exploration of ideas, truth, and so forth) as a chance to be, to use an over-used phrase, "less wrong". It doesn't bother me if someone demonstrates to me that what I thought is wrong (as long as they do it in a way that respects me as a person), and in fact I welcome the correction (though sometimes it may be difficult to process if it is a long-held idea with wide consequences).

As usual, there's a spectrum (or two) here: a spectrum of identifying with your own ideas, and a spectrum of levels of personal respect when "debating". Certainly a very bad combination is one person with a high level of self-identification with their own ideas being debated/attack by someone who (a) has no concept that this self-identification experience is real (b) cannot engage with the ideas without criticizing the other person.

1. Co-founder who clearly signals respect and self-reflection, and who much later reveals they have a penchant for the occasional debate and dis-attachment from their own ideas.

2. A co-founder who signals they like debates in a candidate meeting.

I rankly speculate here on HN that if OP always avoids #2, not only will nothing bad happen as a result, but they will also decrease the chance of choosing a bad candidate.

I further rankly speculate this for any founder.

HN debates are fun, but they hide the fact that debate is a low-effort tool. Like drinking alcohol, it can be useful. But if it moves from being a mere implementation detail to becoming part of the API in a candidate meeting: run!

debates, even though I prefer the term discussions, are held between at least two parties.

I might sometime be the part who listens, but we can't both be listening, there will be no discussion.

So if you have something to say, say it and don't let anyone interrupt you.

Listening to what other people are saying means donating your time and attention, not everybody deserve it, there's a reason why "professional listeners" such as psychologists charge a lot of money to do it.

Most of the time people don't want to discuss, they simply want to talk about themselves.

Like the author of this piece.

Deliberately slowing conversations down to one 100th of their normal pace might produce some interesting results. In a sense, this is one of the techniques that science uses, and it seems to reliably produce excellent outcomes in fairly complicated problem spaces.

> I never want to debate, but if I had to, I would hope to lose.

The problem I have with modern-day debates (I mainly catch the political ones) is that they're not at all good or in good faith, there's a lot of "but YOU did this", a lot of dismissals, and no good structure; the moderator does not do their job very well in a lot of cases.

Mind you, that depends on the politician as well. Populists (e.g. Trump) are not good at all in debates.

Otherwise I'm left with my counterpoints and I'm less engaged and less convinced.

The etymology of "debate" is "de-beat", i.e what you do to avoid beating each other, so in principle it's closer to negotiation than to mutual battering.

This would also be the reason in settings where debate is formalized, e.g. a courtroom, there are elements of pageantry and pantomime. All playful exaggerations, nonetheless serious (because play can be serious business, look at any child absorbed in a game).

Debating as a means to avoid combat then follows quite naturally. It's sublimation of a primal instinct, channeling dangerous antagonistic behaviors into the realm of harmless play.

but if all people with this mindset, improvement never comes

- the Christian explaining that the resurrection of Jesus is a historical fact?

- the prosecutor describing the heinous crimes of the people she's put behind bars?

- the sibling of an addict denouncing opiates & opioids, meth, crack and the drug trade?

Where's the limit for this person when encountering:

- the pederast who describes his perversion as "love?"

- the practitioner of FGM who praises it as a "tradition?"

- the religious fanatic who believes God has told him to kill?

I hope the person would be at least open to the first set of people, and would be willing to "win" against the second set.

Overall, I think the framing is a bit wrong. Having an open mind doesn't mean you have to stick your finger in the wind, and having firmly held beliefs without experience, knowledge or wisdom doesn't mean you need to preach them vociferously. Certain things are true, and certain perspectives are not so valuable.

In my case, the answer is never. Now I'd like to imagine this is obviously because I'm the most intelligent, objective, and insightful individual to have ever lived. Of course I suspect the actual reason is because anything worth debating will always have reasonable arguments for both sides. And so long as your arguments are reasonably factually based, it's never really possible to lose a debate, unless you choose to. You can learn new things, expand your worldview, but losing will only happen if you want it to. Hence the reason I added that qualifier about swapping worldviews as opposed to enhancing a prior held one.

Of course this doesn't preclude major worldview shifting change from happening, but it happens over long periods of times for reasons that I don't think any of us can really pin down. It's going to be a butterfly effect of a million little factors.

I think you did, otherwise you would never change your opinions, which I doubt.

But I think it works more subtly. I've noticed that when I lose a debate, my immediate emotional response is rejection - the person is wrong, my opinion is right, even though I couldn't effectively justify it.

But once the emotional hurt of loss wears off, it will sometimes (not always) move my position, sometimes a little bit, sometimes completely. It can take days, months, sometimes years.

That's exactly it; I'm convinced people's opinions can and will change over time, but they take time.

This is used in subtle ways too with modern-day internet and social media (and before that, newspaper headlines); people will scan the internet's headlines and depending on what they see, form an opinion. If all you see is headlines about police brutality, you will be convinced that the police is corrupt and violent and shit. If all you see is headlines about a demographic being involved in crime, you'll form prejudices about them.

It’s happening less in the past decade or so, because I’ve already had many of the same discussions, and I’m sure partly because I’m becoming more rigid as I age.

But many online forums also reduce visibility of unpopular comments, and it’s harder to engage in some of those discussions. This is the reason I never downvote, even the most awful takes.

Why would you talk about something you feel strongly about in the first place? If you are sure you have got it all figured out, there is nothing left to talk about. Discussion is only useful when you recognize gaps in your understanding and are able to learn more about it.

> it's never really possible to lose a debate

It is. If you cannot compel the other party to offer you information that you can successfully learn from, you've lost. A debate is only won if you've learned something from it. Which, again, is why it would be rather illogical to debate something you feel strongly about. What can you learn if you already have it figured out? If you truly know it all you are guaranteed to lose every time, and at that point why waste your time?

No one changes their mind in real time. Even if they know they are wrong their ego digs in in the moment.

Truly consequential shifts in your thinking happen gradually over time.

That's the trouble with the expression "losing a debate". There is the notion that you've been defeated. So what actually happened is not a debate, but a fight. A debate is something you can learn from, a gain.

Well having kids can change how you view things quite abruptly.

The author doesn't actually want to lose debates even if it doesn't seem to realise it. He doesn't want to have debates at all. He just wants to have conversations with people and less preconceptions. That's something I'm completely in line with. I believe we suffer as a society from a collective excess of opinions.

The funny thing is that even when he tries to describe is prejudice in an unprejudiced way, he horribly fails at it.

There are many sex workers which are forced to do this job, some even under threat.

I also don't see an issue using analogies to explain things.

Was the Hindu person poor itself? If so, how has this person dealt with sickness in the family?

Any religion is a perfect recipe for peace, it just depends on the fairness and good will of those practicing it.

Why should partying not be a good thing as long as it is done in a good balance, and why would an ugly tattoo require an explanation, unless a good story can be told about it?

What does any of the above have to do with stupidity? I certainly wouldn't want to lose a debate about why murdering someone can be considered a good thing.

I just don't understand the spirit in which that article has been written. But then again, "TED speaker" kind of explains it a bit.

I think the idea is to quickly touch on profiles of people whose world views (apparently?) contradict the authors and then to promote the idea of listening, with an open heart, to people who you believe at the outset are misguided. I think this is because it's common for us to find powerful new insights into how people see the world or feel about things when temporarily we set aside our judgements and understand the internal logic of people we disagree with? That people make more sense once you see things with their eyes, and then also the world makes more sense because those people want things in the world too?

I dunno, it's pretty fluffy.

Serious question: What is the benefit of winning this debate?

Someone presenting me an argument that "murdering someone can be considered a good thing" and them wanting me to lose this argument is something which I would not want to happen.

I think the issue in that sentence was the double negative in addition to the lack of definition of who is proposing that argument.

But assuming you did not get confused: I would prefer to live in a society where it's considered a good thing to not murder others and if this were up for debate, I sure hope I would not get convinced of the opposite, which would mean "losing the debate" in the way the author means it.

I'm going to be downvoted like crazy for saying this, but it seems you are making these statements with a feeling of safety because you are assuming the vast majority of people reading this comment (i.e. on HN) share your views. Other than that, there is nothing different in your attitude than the folks in countries I have lived in where they would say:

> I would prefer to live in a society where it's considered a good thing to not let women get a college degree and marry them off in their teens and if this were up for debate, I sure hope I would not get convinced of the opposite.

They too make these statements because they are in a community where the majority share their views.

A better way of knowing you are right is to allow the possibility of being wrong. If you are going to go in with the mindset of "Of course I'm right and I need to win", chances are you will process the other party's arguments very differently compared to "I think I am right but I'd like to see why other people think differently."

But honestly, there are just facts which are settled in the larger community and trying to negate them just doesn't lead anywhere, when the fruitful discussion is in "the smaller issues".

We (as in "we from the West") don't have anything to gain from entertaining thoughts like reconsidering the banning of women from any type of education. That's a settled topic. And luckily in my country the murdering issue is also a settled topic, specially if put in contrast to what is currently happening in Iran.

Maybe what triggered me was his title and his cheering about his enlightenment. "The benefits of listening to other people's opinions" vs. "I want to lose every debate".

It sounds like you actually do not want to discuss these issues (which is fine), and that is different from debating to win on these issues. What I don't get is that while you do not want to explore these issues, why do you take issue with someone who does? When Derek sees that a large collection of people believe in something that he doesn't, he wants to know what they see/believe that he doesn't. If you don't want to, that's OK. But if he does, that should also be OK.

> like reconsidering the banning of women from any type of education

Your phrasing is telling. I didn't say anything about banning women from education, nor do the people I refer to in those countries advocate for it.

There's no reason for me to stick to your exact argument since yours is a subset of a problem which is occurring in several places. For us this issue is settled and there is no reason to undo the progress which has been made.

> I would prefer to live in a society where it's considered a good thing to not let women get a college degree and marry them off in their teens and if this were up for debate, I sure hope I would not get convinced of the opposite.

This implies that you are assuming the perspective of a person which is in favor of a patriarchal society, let's take Afghanistan for example. The people you are referring to there do certainly not want to get convinced of the opposite of their beliefs, they would be giving up (unfair) privileges. There is no value for us assume their point of view, there's nothing to gain but an understanding of which methods could exist in order to try to educate these men to make them understand that those are no human rights. The author implies that he accepts the point of view of those people which he talks to, which is perfectly fine, but in this case, it is unacceptable. There is nothing left to debate. In that case the only thing that can happen is that some courageous women fight for their rights, but we also have to admit that it gets harder and harder the more modern a population becomes. Take Iran for example, not that they have the education issue, but there it's about some freedoms which some citizens want to obtain, but it get's harder because there's the new technology which the oppressors can make use of.

Where is the point in debating that murder should be an accepted and not punishable fact of life? You simply can't put a person with me in a room which is pro-murder and have it debate with me that it is ok. There is nothing, absolutely nothing for me to gain from his point of view, with the exception of me maybe getting to understand how a murderer thinks which could be a benefit if I would be a detective, which I am not. There's also nothing for me to gain by having some Taliban with me in a room and he trying to make me understand that women have essentially no rights. There's zero reason for me to even listen to a single word which this person has to say to me in this regard.

That is what I'm trying to explain, that some things are not even worthy of debate and if those were assumed that they would be worthy of it, then I certainly would not want to lose those debates when engaging in them. The other person should be the one learning something. There are hills I'm willing to die on. Sometimes the other person is, simply put, a stupid person.

This is just an "I've made up my mind and don't want to think about it" mentality.

Overall you're missing the point: You say "For us this issue is settled" and they say the same - it just settled differently. If you're not open to explore it, do you see that it is weird to expect them to be open to changing?

> This implies that you are assuming the perspective of a person which is in favor of a patriarchal society, let's take Afghanistan for example. The people you are referring to there do certainly not want to get convinced of the opposite of their beliefs, they would be giving up (unfair) privileges.

While this may be true of Afghanistan, it is not true of the people I am talking about. But how would you know that without engaging?

> There is no value for us assume their point of view, there's nothing to gain but an understanding of which methods could exist in order to try to educate these men to make them understand that those are no human rights.

Saying "there's nothing to gain" is simply saying "I know better" without knowing perhaps half of what there is to know. Of course you do! So do they!

> You simply can't put a person with me in a room which is pro-murder and have it debate with me that it is ok.

That much is clear from your comments. But if the pro-murder person is willing to listen to you, he is already ahead of you in understanding.

> There is nothing, absolutely nothing for me to gain from his point of view, with the exception of me maybe getting to understand how a murderer thinks which could be a benefit if I would be a detective, which I am not. There's also nothing for me to gain by having some Taliban with me in a room and he trying to make me understand that women have essentially no rights. There's zero reason for me to even listen to a single word which this person has to say to me in this regard.

Going back to my original comment, your mentality is the same as those who argue the opposite. And while opaque to you, it is crystal clear to people who have lived in both societies. They have the stances you find repugnant for precisely the same reasons you have your stances - you get validation from the society you live in and are unwilling to comprehend that there can be (reasonable) other points of view.

What I think is happening is that you simply don't want to explore these issues. As I said - that is totally fine. Life is limited and we can't explore everything. But instead of stating it as your preference, you are trying to make absolutist statements about it ("not worthy of debate" "other person is ... a stupid person", etc.)

Do you really want to lose the debate to flat earth advocate? Do you want to lose a debate to a war aggressor supporter? Do you want to lose a debate to a serial killer?

I bet you don't.

PS. Maybe I didn't get something right, but I suffered a lot in conversations with close relatives who are denying that killing other people is bad in the light of ongoing war in Ukraine :(

Nobody, except people with legitimate mental health issues, thinks killing is a "good" thing.

Your close relatives believe Russia is on defense. Kind of like how the US was on defense in Iraq. So, from their perspective, the way to save lives is to negotiate an end to the war where Russia takes that tiny bit of land, and Ukraine stops being considered for the UN.

Come to the discussion using human life as the topic. Figure out where solutions exist that save the most lives. Talk about how many die and what is gained or lost as a result.

Moving the conversation from nations to humans will not only help the argument make more sense, it will have you coming away with far superior respect for your incredibly important family unit.

I know a lot of people that believe killing can be justified and in that sense a "good."

I look at maps showing between 10-15% of Ukraine being of the Donbas region from 5+ random Google-provided sources. What source do you get the 20% from?

As to the total erasure of Ukraine I am also unaware of any evidence that this is true. I always appreciate being informed and would love an authoritative source on this if you(or anyone) can provide it.

Based on the personal attacks at the end, I'm not expecting a reply. My comment is for others mostly with a small hope that you can help further my understanding.

The 20% figure might be outdated now after the Ukrainians liberated Khersonks'ka Oblast north of the Dnipro. The NYT most recently put the figure at 18%[0].

> As to the total erasure of Ukraine I am also unaware of any evidence that this is true. I always appreciate being informed and would love an authoritative source on this if you(or anyone) can provide it.

The russians are only rarely going to state their aims so blatantly. It is only recently that kremlin officials admitted that the soldiers who invaded Ukraine in 2014 were indeed kremlin-backed. Until recently, they denied it.

You can see fact #2 here[1] for a more detailed explanation, but to really understand the kremlin's perspective, there's quite a lot of material you need to follow and digest.

More explanation from Carnegie[2]:

> The Kremlin’s logic appears to stem from its thesis about the “artificial” nature of Ukrainian statehood. If Ukraine was “constructed” by Lenin in 1918, as Moscow now insists, then it can be just as easily and legitimately “deconstructed”: its neighbors have the right to claim Ukrainian territory, which Russia will not oppose. Indeed, it has already made a head start by declaring the annexation of four Ukrainian regions in September.

I have Ukrainian residence and I was living in Ukraine for most of last year. I also have many personal and professional relationships in the country, so this imperialist war and the innumerable war crimes committed are of special importance to me. I have literally watched missiles fly and explode in the sky from my kitchen window.

> Based on the personal attacks at the end,

Sorry, my outrage isn't directed at you specifically. It is directed towards anyone who parrots kremlin propaganda. For some reason, this is all too common among intellectuals like Chomsky and his ilk who struggle with the painfully basic principle that the enemy of your enemy is not your friend.

---

[0]: https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2022/world/europe/ukrain....

[1]: https://mfa.gov.ua/en/10-facts-you-should-know-about-russian...

[2]: https://carnegieendowment.org/politika/88585

More:

- https://kafkadesk.org/2022/05/08/russian-invasion-to-continu...

I lean towards promoting a solution that doesn't turn this invasion into WW3. Preferably a solution that results in fewer deaths. That does also include worldwide deaths that for example may stem from the financial fallout of the war itself. As well as a comparison of lives saved/saveable using the money being spent.

I'm very aware this is a privileged position that I can justify while living in Canada. Knowing I would find it incredibly difficult if not impossible to maintain my position if the conflict was localized. I like to believe I would still lean to societal benefit, but for that I have zero confidence.

I primarily ponder on the options allowing for an eventual de-escalation being limited or even non-existent. Is there a route to an end of the invasion that you see as viable? What is needed to get there and who do you think could make it happen?

Thank you again for the informative response. I've come out with better information than I had this morning.

Unfortunately, because Putin has gone all-in with this war, he has backed himself into a corner. There is no off-ramp that he can now take to save face. I think the hesitance of the western powers in arming Ukraine has been an attempt to provide Putin with off-ramps and minimise both civilian and military casualties on both sides. They have slowly begun to realise that Putin has no interest in diplomacy, which is why they have stepped up arms shipments.

The way this ends is in russian military defeat. That might not happen before they lose about half a million soldiers though, and we’re about 20% of the way there. It might also end sooner if the Ukrainians are able to expel all russian forces from all of Ukrainian territory, and then build sufficient defences so that further border skirmishes are futile. The Ukrainians need a whole load of equipment for that though.

It's also questionable just how long the US will be able to afford to export that methane (phase change isn't free), since the related tight oil seems to already have peaked ? (Maybe a few decades still ?)

But what if a woman wants to kill her unborn child?

Canada as a country doesn't see an unborn baby as a person for example.

That is not a statement I am making or denying. Though I have noted that this definition could be used as a justification in someone's view.

Maybe this is an internet thing but genuine enlightening discussion is kinda hard to be found on internet.

I wonder what your point of view would be if your family was killed by people who have no intention of listening to another person's point of view.

I understand the desire of US fossil fuel companies to do fracking. They're not stupid or comically evil. But they can be greedy, misguided, selfish and too focused on short term gains (if you want to be extra accustory, "within their lifetime"). If you then move over to how much astroturfing is involved in pushing through a viewpoint you may even call it evil. Though not comically, because everything here is still just following the forces and inventives of our economic system - profit at every non-monetary expense. If you want change, your solution needs to address systemic issues (not neccessarily abolishing capitalism, but focusing on different inventives and making other alternatives viable/profitable though taxes)

(I hope the point I picked is uncontroversial enough, but you can probably apply it to your least favorite policies of your least favorite flavor of political party, organization, movement or institution)

Our world is full of perverse incentives which are embedded into society itself. It’s been one of the most important lessons I’ve ever learned.

Truly evil people are rare. Selfish people not so much. But selfish people nevertheless will generally follow the law and social convention.

Unfortunately it’s hard to change either of these things.

Say there's a comic book where fossil fuel co's worked to permanently ruin the groundwater and increase earthquakes in a region - bribing lawmakers and fucking over the people who lived there, gagging scientists, etc - all just for a resource that is literally burning the planet... So they can upgrade their megayacht/private jet... I'd find it hard to believe that others could allow it to happen.

"Following the incentives of our economic system", so your actions are indistinguishable or worse than those of a comic book villain, *is* comically evil. Literally. The fact that so much of our economic system defends this behavior says a lot.

Such people are somewhere between rare and nonexitent. You could say the fossil fuel company executives are pretty high on the evil scale, but they are not evil for the sake of being evil. And I was careful calling them evil because HN is a politically diverse bunch and sometimes saying things diplomatically is the right choice over being technically or morally correct but getting downvoted into oblivion for invoking a certain kind of language.

If you need an example: I basically never say I'm trans or an anarchist in any top level comment to explain the origin of my perspective or my claim to knowing more context than others because these two words got me outright dismissed too much in the past.

Or to another major producer, Putin's Russia stuck in the Stalinist imperial mindset.

Pick your poison.

Also for the same reason I like to say, "Don't tell me I'm wrong; instead, improve my worldmodel to the point that you no longer have to, because the wrongness will be obvious."

But I'm not sure that what Sivers describes here is coterminous with "losing a debate". Rather, it's just one way you might "lose a debate". In practice, losing a debate more often looks something more like:

1) The other side stubbornly refuses to engage with your point while effectively signaling you're a bad person despite endorsing the same tradeoffs you do. [B]

2) The other side points being so muddled that you can't untangle what they're disagreeing with or what makes your point wrong, but they speak with that confidence that everyone wants to agree with them. [A]

I don't like losing a debate those ways.

[A] Example of this kind of misdirection from Thank You For Smoking: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xuaHRN7UhRo

[B] Recent example from HN: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=33900804

Professional debating and the article both feel wrong since they're missing the key element to me: synthesis of opposing ideas into something more than each individual side. It might happen that at times this synthesis means that one side is completely discarded, but the goal of any debate to me should be to achieve the sum of all truths that are held by all parties.

Most places from from schools to success stories seem to fail in describing the purpose of debating to me because of that.

Of course, there are cases with an answer, often scientific type questions.

If you don't plan for failure, you plan to fail.

If you don't plan for being wrong, you plan to be wrong.

Jefferson, himself would one day advise a grandson, "when I hear another express an opinion which is not mine, I say to myself, he has a right to his opinion, as I to mine." And "Why should I question it. His error does me no injury, and shall I become a Don Quixote, to bring all men by force of argument to one opinion?... Be a listener only, keep within yourself, and endeavor to establish with yourself the habit of silence, especially in politics."

Isn't that an incredibly dangerous behavior especially in political debates ? I mean, wrong political opinions do injure people. Maybe not the other people in the room but the people who elected them.

Do I miss something ?

Yes, the part of governmental politics that involves creating and enforcing policy. Jefferson would listen to people's arguments in legislature but infrequently debated them because his strength (in his own estimation, at least) was in writing responses, especially as policy proposals.

Someone speaking a disagreement does him no harm, even if what's being described would be harmful. But someone implementing something he viewed harmful in enforced policy is different, and he treated it very differently.

Governmental politics tends to emphasize, even glamorize, the former, but the latter is what actually affects people and Jefferson often focused his attention on it.

One could strongly suggest that Jefferson's preference for written arguments and policy over political debate and lobbying is why Hamilton had more effective Federalist influence over early policies of the United States, and manifests even more strongly in Jefferson's prescriptions for the republic — the Declaration of Independence and Bill of Rights, wanting to rewrite the Constitution every 20 years, his opposition to slavery and promotion of universal free education, freedom both of and from religion in government, strongly held national liberties and local self-government — many of which were at the time, or have always been, ignored in practice.

I want to win every debate, because I define winning a debate as coming out of it knowing more that I did going in. Debating isn't a zero-sum game, me winning doesn't make you the loser.

I mean your point does apply if you actually acknowledge your lack of knowledge on a subject and do your research before bringing in an argument, but a lot of people don't, they have a standpoint and will stick to it.

Losing isn't good, but neither is winning if that was your goal going into a debate; the goal should be to learn and come to a consensus.

The point I'm making is that you should redefine "winning a debate". Learning (and hopefully coming to a consensus) is exactly what winning should mean in your head. Just altogether abandon the notion that you win by convincing the other party you're right.

I'm not talking about on an individual encounter level - BS almost always loses to truth. But the percentage isn't so high that smart and/or successful people never fall for BS in their lifetime.

Especially since BS is under evolutionary pressure to be extremely believable.

That's a big part of the benefit of being part of the mainstream of knowledge. It's almost certain that large swaths of the mainstream are BS. But the mainstream is also exposed to the most criticism (at least the parts where criticism is acceptable), which means that BS tends to get filtered out more quickly as well.

In contrast, looking at "alternative" knowledge communities, they all generally have that whiff of being scammy. There's probably some truth in there, at least in some of those communities, but there's also a lot more BS.

So, I'm not saying to never lose. Losing is generally good. Just take care to make sure that you're actually losing.

This is what I worry in relation to ChatGPT. Producing quality, believable BS is currently expensive, and the price of exposing it is relatively manageable. But with ChatGPT, it will be possible to produce huge amounts of BS which will be extremely believable and simply uneconomical to critique and expose.

BS can be tailored to the audience, imagine a Wikipedia written by ChatGPT specifically for your which takes into account your own biases. It doesn't even have to be factually wrong, it can just modify the writing style, a word here and there to evoke a different sentiment, play on your personal preconceptions to move slightly your political position in a certain direction. People will claim they are immune to such subtle manipulations, but I don't believe that.

This is an important effect to note. If criticism of an idea is not socially allowed then you cannot rely on mainstreamness as a proxy for truth.

There's also another effect worth noting: if an idea is relies on building blocks outside daily experience (e.g. anything about the large scale) and requires quantification as part of the argument then its going to struggle to propagate (both the guys with the megaphones and your average Joe are bad at thinking quantatively). Incorrect ideas about the dangers of nuclear power being the classic example.

This is why I love browsing HN. Despite its relatively homogeneous userbase, people manage to stay civil when they disagree

Elsewhere it's harder, but it still happens.

Yet another Derek Sivers post that makes me think he's a freaking genius.

Best thing to do, if you detect you're about to enter a debate, is to ask "What would it take for you to change your opinion?". If they reply with "nothing" or a vague answer or whatever, exit the debate. Likewise though, ask yourself the same question.

Sometimes you gotta preemptively "lose" a debate, by not answering at all. At most a "Alright, I get your point but I disagree" which also doesn't really add much to the discussion.

1. Wanting to understand and learn. Here you use the help of another person to figure out what the best solution or the right answer to something is, or just to understand how something works or in other ways improve your knowledge. There is no winner or loser; the only outcome is whether the discussion was successful or not.

2. Wanting to prove how much you already know or that your idea is the correct one. This is just about showing everyone that you (or your idea and therefore you) are better than the other person, not about what you learn from it. Here there is a winner and loser; you win if you appear to know the right answer from the start.

These are two very different things; you could even say that they are opposites. In number 1, the goal is to learn. In number 2, the goal is not to learn but to stay with your current idea. Why don't we have different words for these two things?

It seems like in this article, what he is talking about is doing number 1 but talking about it as if it were number 2.

Could the reason that we talk about these two things as the same thing be that people often do both at the same time? In that case maybe they want to appear as already knowing but secretly still trying to learn something. Or maybe they only try to learn but others are judging them as if they should already know everything from the start, and that way misunderstanding what they are doing.

Do you see how and why one might want to learn something new while outwardly appearing to want to prove themselves right (or, more accurately, to prove the other person wrong)? An idea that one can't prove wrong is certainly worth considering seriously.

Yes, this is exactly what I meant by my last sentence. Two people may want to learn something and in order to do that they have to "attack" each other's ideas so it may look to other people like the goal is just to prove how correct they are, and that the one who does that is the winner, when the real goal is to learn the truth, and proving that you are correct is just a way to get closer to that goal.

So it seems like the difference is that in number 2, proving that you are correct is the goal, while in number 1 it is a tool you use to reach the other goal.

I feel like losing a debate and understanding someone else's point of view/learning from them are separate things. In my own experience a debate is not the ideal means of communication if I want to empathize or understand someone better. But as groestl points out, this is a personal matter.

It's about learning to turn it off afterwards.

Debate at its best is where the issues are at stake -- not the relationship. Getting clear on that is an important communicative and emotional skill.

The problem with "wanting to lose" in this post is how fake and sentimental that attitude can become, against our best intentions.

If both sides can put their cards on the table, that's a more productive conversation, rather than one side shutting up and keeping theirs close to the vest.

Confrontation is not an evil to be avoided. Hurting others is the harm to be avoided. Those are two very different things. Sometimes avoiding confrontation hurts oneself and others the very most.

Furthermore, there is no logical reason why one should default to thinking that only others will bring value to the conversation, and that one's own experience and judgment are not as important to share. By sharing one's thoughts, the other side may hear, learn, or rethink something that could change their lives. To the extent that "wanting to lose" consciously or unconsciously results in one bringing less of a certain energy to a debate, that's an opportunity lost for everyone.

Discernment and diplomacy are the valuable skills here. Again, rather than check out (whether smugly or earnestly), instead, let's make efforts to figure out when, where, why, and with whom to turn on the heat, -- and then turn it off.

Sportsmanship among athletes and collegiality among lawyers are good examples of this in practice.

"And do as adversaries do in law,

Strive mightily, but eat and drink as friends."

--Shakespeare, The Taming of the Shrew, Act I, sc. 2.

Yes. Plus it can seem condescending. I wouldn't want to debate anything with someone adopting some sort of "philosophical master" stance that "through losing" will achieve enlightening. I prefer the other person gets angry if need be, which at least is honest, rather than trying to play some Socratic bullshit on me.

It comes across as "I'm better than you, let me show you that to lose is actually to win".

The whole thing cools. They'll say just enough to get to the next topic gracefully. The dispute is patched up with something like "we'll agree to disagree" or something like that, in the interest of polite conversation, rather than square-on debate.

In that scenario one does not receive the full force of an opponent's argument. It never got ventilated. An opponent only brings that energy to a debate between earnest people who see themselves -- not their arguments -- as equals.

A better way might be to say, "losing can be good" If you put your best forward, and still lose, then you learned something, and hopefully became stronger. In the same way tennis players always want to play people better than them, because they will get better playing a superior player even when they lose.

Some debates I want to win, for the simple joy of teaching someone something new.

While it would be an optimal use of my time (from an information-theory point of view) for me to lose every debate I participate in, some debates are worth taking up for the chance to share.

Instead they could have listened, compromised, come out of the assumption that neither side is wrong, and there should be a middle ground that works for all.

But instead we're stuck with side-ism and an everlasting shift from one extreme to the other, while the majority in the middle get car sick from all that violent movements.

We all know the saying "It's not about the nails", where one person try to solve an appearing problem for another one who secretly just need an ear to be listen to. Yes, listening is important as a human skill to relate & connect, but ultimately living together is dancing between perspective. We hardly all be passive or let others strongly shape our shared narratives.

We know we're not right, how can we be ? we share a narrative about the world and try to make sense of it. Like the Tao symbol Yin & Yang interlacing, everything we do, we tell contains a part of truth and a part of wrong. The issue is when one identifies too strongly to one's perspective. We're always at least partly wrong but living is deciding which path to take at any moment, and accepting it's not right.

Politic is how we organize ourselves & Democracy aims to listen to everyone, the only way to do that is to share our perspective and enable true dialectic. Sure, sometimes positions are strongly held, but there is no true freedom without a bit of a fight isn't it ? how can we all relate all the time ? share the same taste, share the same vision ? it's boring and borderline dangerous. That what anarchism tell us, not as a dogma to political utopia but as a way to relate politically : we differ so we need to talk, we need to dance everytime to build a better shared perspective, with as many vision there is.

Anarchism is a dialectic of every moment, inhaling and exhaling, sharing and dancing, but we cannot dance alone, and we cannot just all listen (and say nothing), and we cannot all talk (and be deaf to others perspectives).

And this is what we are all doing just now, what the authors of the post did too. He speaks his truth and wait for people to dance with it.

(But as anything goes, what I just typed is neither completely true or false, and that's ok)

Ergo, we must reclaim quality time for engaging with others if we want to live in quality societies