1. I don't really think any of the tips and strategies in this article are helpful unless both (or all) parties go in to it with this same mindset. Which means that, for example, I believe it is simply impossible to have these kind of "constructive arguments" on, say, Twitter, for example. One of the things I like most about HN is the guidelines are clear about the goals of the forums, and while of course they are not always followed (I've certainly not always followed them), they are very helpful to help recenter debates, and I think there are a lot of helpful commenters that try to get things back on track if they go off the rails (thank you, dang).
2. > When people feel that something so close to them is in question, they often lose sight of reason and argue instead from an emotional perspective.
This may sound condescending, and it's really not meant to be as I also used to believe this, but I have come to the realization over the years that this mindset is woefully naive and immature. As someone who identifies as pretty "Spock-ian" in nature, it took me a long time (and years of therapy) to realize that everyone argues from an emotional perspective. It's what it means to be human. The entire purpose of emotions is that they are they only place where human motivation comes from. Trying to separate "logic" vs. "emotion" when dealing with humans is a fools' game in my opinion.
> I don't really think any of the tips and strategies in this article are helpful unless both (or all) parties go in to it with this same mindset.
You'd be surprised. If there's a scale from 0 to 100, where 100 is "devoted follower of the Beginner's Guide to Arguing Constructively", I think it's possible to have a decent constructive argument with people who are about 30-40 and up. I've certainly done so myself.
If you lead by example, many people will conform the standards of the debate to your tenor. Not all, of course, but that's when you have to know when to quit.
> Which means that, for example, I believe it is simply impossible to have these kind of "constructive arguments" on, say, Twitter, for example.
That was mentioned in the guide :)
> everyone argues from an emotional perspective.
Certainly you'd agree that there's a scale? It's not black and white. I will edit this part to make that more clear.
> Certainly you'd agree that there's a scale? It's not black and white. I will edit this part to make that more clear.
Actually, not really. You seem to be missing my primary point, which is that thinking that things lie along a single scale where on one hand you have "pure, platonic ideal of reason" and on the other end you have "emotional hysterics". I don't think it works that way. I think the sibling commenter put it best:
>> everyone argues from an emotional perspective
> You kind of have to. If you were not emotionally invested in some way, you wouldn’t be arguing.
That is, I think step one is try to understand why you (and your debate partner) are emotionally incentivized to care about the topic in the first place.
> The entire purpose of emotions is that they are they only place where human motivation comes from. Trying to separate "logic" vs. "emotion" when dealing with humans is a fools' game in my opinion.
Not only that. Another aspect is that emotions and "instinct" are much, much older, from an evolutionary perspective, than our very recent reasoning abilities, and way more widespread amongst the animal kingdom than reason.
So, while far from perfect, they work. Emotions and instinct kept most of our ancestors and most of the currently living animals both alive and thriving. Which means that, despite their limits, they have their place and shouldn't simply be discarded by a wave of the hand.
Took me some time to understand that. And I still have a hard time taking it into account in my everyday life and interactions.
> So, while far from perfect, they work. Emotions and instinct kept most of our ancestors and most of the currently living animals both alive and thriving.
This is the point. Instincts developed to keep you alive in a world where the classic laws of the jungle where true. Since the modern world, the definition of what is "strongest" and the threats you find yourselve exposed to differ vastly from that back in the days.
While instincts will generally give you a good direction to start with, problems are too complex today to just rely on instincts. Heck even I had my instincts tell me "this feels wrong" and upon reading and getting smart about that topic i completely changed my mind.
If you have time to prepare for a discussion, try not to rely on instinct but let it push you to gather facts to undermine it or to oppose it.
> So, while far from perfect, they work. Emotions and instinct kept most of our ancestors and most of the currently living animals both alive and thriving.
It's not just that they work; they matter in and of themselves. For example, it may literally be true that I'm more likely to die from falling furniture than from terrorism, but the fact that I fear terrorism more than falling furniture is relevant on its own terms. The emotions we feel about something like terrorism are real. They have a direct impact on quality of life. And you're not just going to reason people out of them. You can read me the statistics every morning, but my relative fear levels aren't likely to change.
This doesn't mean we shouldn't be educated or that we shouldn't make an effort to control our emotions; it's just to say that the emotions are real and it's ridiculous to dismiss them as irrelevant.
I agree with your point 1 and would go even further. With some people it is impossible to have constructive debates because they reject the fundamental premise of there being arguments that are supported by facts. Such people will reject any fact even if it is counter their fundamental believes.
In such case you are not arguing with the person but your argument is with the observers which might not be so fundamentalist in their views. There is in fact an excellent book that lays out this argument. Unfortunately it is only available in German, its called "Wie man mit Fundamentalisten diskutiert, ohne den Verstand zu verlieren: Anleitung zum subversiven Denken" by Hubert Schleichert. The rough translation of the title is: "how to argue with fundamentalists without loosing your mind. Instructions to subversive thinking".
He discusses some of the rhetorical tricks used by fundamentalists of every color using some historical examples and how to counter these strategies. For everyone who knows some German this is a highly recommended read.
That said, I highly appreciate the OP blog, because the arguments with fundamentalists are definitely in the minority and a more constructive argument culture is needed, especially online.
I wonder. I think some politicians argue deliberately and rationally to win over some followers. For them it does not matter what the truth is or whether they believe it themselves but how many people will be convinced to vote for them.
Their followers might not even believe it but still support and spread the argument, for their own selfish reasons.
Say Hitler pronouncing that Jews are an inferior race worthy of destroying. Did his followers really believe that when they agreed with him, or did it just seem in their self-interest to spread such propaganda further, and seize the property of Jews?
Just an example from past but I believe similar examples happen all the time. Some people argue in bad faith. If that is the case there is no reason to argue with them.
> The entire purpose of emotions is that they are they only place where human motivation comes from.
I agree that this is literally true, but only so long as you include intellectual curiosity as an "emotion". In fact I would count it as an emotion, exactly for the reason that you said - ultimately all human motivation can only be explained by emotion - combined with the fact that clearly most people and even some animals do some things solely out of curiosity. Just like all emotions, curiosity exists because its presence increases your chances of survival (having hunger at the right time decreases your chances of dying due to lack of food, having curiousity at the right time decreases your chances of dying due to lack of knowledge of the environment). Of course it's a lot weaker than other emotions (e.g. if a furious lion is running towards you but has a very strange spot on its nose, you're probably going to run away rather than investigate).
All that sounds like supreme pedantry, but it's important due to this other thing you said:
> everyone argues from an emotional perspective
I think most people reading this sentence would interpret the word "emotional" here in a subtly different way: to exclude intellectual curiousity. The implication is therefore "no one ever really argues because they're just curious about the truth". I agree with the literal meaning of this sentence, but not with that interpretation of "emotion", and not with that conclusion.
I'm sure I see this sort of mix up a lot: two statements that both sound completely reasonable on their own, but use the same word with a subtly but critically different meaning, forcing you to draw a conclusion (because you can't disagree with either part individually) that isn't really true.
I agree emotions are important. Given how all of our brains work, it's not realistic to take them out of the equation.
But it is important to maintain some moderation and rein them in. Emotions are powerful, and if you don't learn to exercise some degree of control them, then they will control you.
I think it helps to understand that emotions have a purpose. For example, fear helps you avoid threats, and anger pushes you toward taking action that is needed to change a situation. If they're serving their purpose constructively, that's good.
But if they're not, they need to be controlled. For example, when fear makes you avoid something which is actually safe, or when anger makes you act in a rash manner or suffer mentally over things you cannot change.
I totally agree with what you've written, with perhaps one small clarification/caveat/nuance. A mistake I've made in the past was to think about "controlling" emotions, as if emotions and logic were mutually exclusive, opposing forces. For example, take your excellent example about how a maladjusted fear response can make you afraid of things that aren't actually dangerous. The solution to this problem is not to try to "control" the fear, e.g. by telling yourself "there is nothing logically to be afraid of". The solution is actually to experience more of that fear - in a controlled, gradual and safe manner, which is what exposure therapy is all about.
Again, I'm not saying that this is what you meant by "controlling" or "moderating" emotions, but just want to clarify that learning how to express emotions in a constructive way usually makes an argument that much more forceful that trying to "rein in" your emotions and make them subservient to logic.
The problem for discussion is when people are dishonest about their emotional motivations. So, someone who feels bad about this or that will really go out of way to absurd arguments to make it sound like he is rational. Conversely, it makes you mis-interpret people. People can be dismissive because they think something with idea is wrong, or because they are tired and cranky.
Emotions are not just big things. It may be that weird feeling about someone you cant explain. And that weird feeling may be either unfair bias or you actually noticing a problem with that person.
The emotion-logic dichotomy where mention of emotions makes you sound irrational motivates people to hide those. And it creates discussions that happen in sort of alternative reality and emotional conflicts that mask as professional disagreements.
I don't find your second point compelling in the slightest.
From reading your other responses, my conclusion is that in any hypothetical argument, you wouldn't consider either side to have better reasoning than the other and if you did, you would chalk it up to your own emotional biases.
Your attitude seems incompatible with the concept that one argument can be better than another.
Is my assessment inaccurate or is there some nuance here that I've missed?
> It’s true, as I wrote about last week, that emotions can bias our thinking. What’s not true is that the best thinking comes from a lack of emotion. “Emotion helps us screen, organize and prioritize the information that bombards us,”
> This realization turns the scientific language of emotion on its head. What are commonly called emotion functions in humans and animals are not emotional functions at all. They do not exist to make feelings. They are survival functions essential for the continued life of the individual or the species.
Agree. What people say and what really motivates their opinion in the topic at hand are not necessarily the same, I find people not being truthful to themselves nor to the conversation, which is really why I find this arguing endevour a waste of time in many subjects
>"This may sound callous, but if you've tried every strategy in this guide and your debate partner continues to operate at the bottom of the pyramid (for example, continuing to spout inflammatory ad hominem attacks), sometimes the best way to empathize with them is to pretend they have an undiagnosed mental illness."
The article reads like you took every smartass redditor on the planet and condensed them down into an article. Why can I not express emotions in an argument, or why do I need to be 'rational', or why can I not be subjective? I don't mean this in an offensive way but why is everyone who argues supposed to pretend they're autistic, because that's honestly how this piece comes across.
Because arguing points based on who can have the biggest temper tantrum and scream the most slurs is something most are proud to have grown out of around middle school.
This applies especially to important and complicated subjects that affect many people (the type often discussed on HN) which demand reasoned thought for coming up with good responses.
If you want to argue in bad faith, use logical fallacies and hysterically scream at opposing ideas rather than use rationality and reason then what's wrong with reddit or twitter?
Getting angry in a debate is usually a public show where the person is betting on having a better position. If you are angry and wrong, you appear as a fool. If you are angry, but able to keep composure and your arguments are sound, you've demolished your counterparty. Not that you should, or that it comes with any merit to society, but it certainly is entertaining to watch.
On one hand I agree with you. On the other, if you ever argued with autistic person, they are super emotional actually. They however cant recognize own emotions and dont interpret other people emotions.
But, they get super angry and are affected by own anger a lot. They also act irrationally due to own emotions. I mean, some can go into outrage over very minor things.
Do you think that people with autism don't have emotions? I'm trying to understand your comment but I'm having a hard time coming up with a generous interpretation.
> The article reads like you took every smartass redditor on the planet and condensed them down into an article. Why can I not express emotions in an argument, or why do I need to be 'rational', or why can I not be subjective? I don't mean this in an offensive way but why is everyone who argues supposed to pretend they're autistic, because that's honestly how this piece comes across.
The author never says you have to do any of those things. Just that if you want to argue constructively, then maybe being expressing a lot of hostility, irrationality, and subjectivity isn't the best way to do it.
I've had just as many constructive arguments that were angry, or subjective or whatever else. Hunter S. Thompson wasn't objective, but he was more insightful and sharper and commited to truth than most writers of the time. MLK didn't pull up an excel sheet when he advocated for a cause. Argumentation isn't just about facts, it's about expressing a state of mind and communicating authentically what one thinks, and if someone's angry then they ought to communicate it and I ought to be able to take it, they don't need to pretend to be Spok or something, I don't see the value in that.
I'm not even sure there's an objective definition of what a 'constructive argument' is. You can have an argument to settle a conflict, understand someone better, find an answer to some question, express emotions, demand justice or a hundred other things, a lot of which don't require anything on that list.
You can do these things, but the communication would be harder. Because it's difficult to convey subjectivity. But it's easier to convey objectivity. Rationality is the language we have for that.
If you wish to convey your subjectivity, I think art would be a better venue than debate.
> Your goal should be to get so good at steelmanning all types of arguments that you can pass the so-called Ideological Turing Test. To pass this test, you should be able to argue so persuasively and passionately for the other side that your text alone would pass for an argument proposed by someone who opposes your position.
The essay could have focused on just this one technique. The worst arguments I've witnessed and been part of lacked any attempt by either side to Steelman the opposing side's position.
To take it to the next level, try actively arguing for the side you think has the weaker points. It can be a lot of fun, not to mention educational.
> True collaboration requires that both parties open an investigation into why they may be wrong and consider changing their beliefs.
> Debates about personal identity, like race, gender, religion, or sexual orientation, can easily become inflammatory. When people feel that something so close to them is in question, they often lose sight of reason and argue instead from an emotional perspective.
I think this document does a good job describing ways that people who want to can have a fact-based, clarifying discussion.
But in cases where I and my interlocutor both have the curiosity, openness of mind and desire to come to a better understanding ... I don't think we need this document to have a productive debate, and it might not even feel like a debate, but rather a conversation.
People have vitriolic debates because they feel threatened, marginalized, attacked -- and then their goal is to defend themselves. We have ugly fights because we don't want a richer understanding in that moment. And for issues in which no one feels at risk, I think people tend to have either useful conversations, or none at all due to lack of interest.
If a colleague and I, neither of whom have put a lot of work into any specific approach to building compilers for functional languages enter into a conversation about the relative merits of compiling with continuations versus administrative normal form, either we can have a good nerdy time, or one of us leaves bored.
If I, a renter in a rent-controlled apartment, and a family member who is a landlord have a conversation about rent control, property taxes, the mortgage interest deduction, and the policies which have benefitted each of us, we can both feel attacked and defensive even if neither actively wishes the other ill, even though both of those groupings are potentially temporary states which apply to us. The goal becomes not just to better understand, but to walk away feeling ok about your life. Am I a parasite for paying below market rate? Is he a villain for being subsidized by his less wealthy tenants?
Once the stakes involve how you live your life, or how you view yourself, it's hard to keep wanting it to be a collaborative and open-minded exploration.
"Once the stakes involve how you live your life, or how you view yourself, it's hard to keep wanting it to be a collaborative and open-minded exploration."
On the flip side this is why, for example, Neo-Nazis can say things that are absolutely vile so calmly; It's not about their lives. In which case the expectation that emotion won't be brought in by the other party becomes tone policing.
From the pyramid diagram I feel like the destructive argument tactics of “isolated demands for rigor” and “disputing definitions” sums up the vast majority of arguments I see around Hacker News. One step up from social shaming and gotchas that you see on many other social message boards, but not much better in all honesty.
I think that’s probably OK for the most part though. It’s easy enough to ignore bad faith demands for evidence or “citation needed” commentary. Disputing definitions can be hard to break free from, but both of these failure modes are less likely to lead to toxic behavior or social shaming like “did you even read the article?”
I think it’s way too much to expect message forum discussions will ever consist of good faith survey of evidence. Even if you have pure motives, it’s just not going to happen. You have really little time, you’re going to rattle off comments that come from your deep seated pre-baked opinions and areas where you believe you already completed a good faith survey of the evidence and already are bringing the most well-rounded opinion to the table. You have exactly enough time to unload it and then go take care of your kids or go to the gym or something.
Instead of retorting your point explore theirs and walk them through scenarios where it will be wrong. Arguing your point directly always just ends in a tennis match.
Readit News
1. I don't really think any of the tips and strategies in this article are helpful unless both (or all) parties go in to it with this same mindset. Which means that, for example, I believe it is simply impossible to have these kind of "constructive arguments" on, say, Twitter, for example. One of the things I like most about HN is the guidelines are clear about the goals of the forums, and while of course they are not always followed (I've certainly not always followed them), they are very helpful to help recenter debates, and I think there are a lot of helpful commenters that try to get things back on track if they go off the rails (thank you, dang).
2. > When people feel that something so close to them is in question, they often lose sight of reason and argue instead from an emotional perspective.
This may sound condescending, and it's really not meant to be as I also used to believe this, but I have come to the realization over the years that this mindset is woefully naive and immature. As someone who identifies as pretty "Spock-ian" in nature, it took me a long time (and years of therapy) to realize that everyone argues from an emotional perspective. It's what it means to be human. The entire purpose of emotions is that they are they only place where human motivation comes from. Trying to separate "logic" vs. "emotion" when dealing with humans is a fools' game in my opinion.
You'd be surprised. If there's a scale from 0 to 100, where 100 is "devoted follower of the Beginner's Guide to Arguing Constructively", I think it's possible to have a decent constructive argument with people who are about 30-40 and up. I've certainly done so myself.
If you lead by example, many people will conform the standards of the debate to your tenor. Not all, of course, but that's when you have to know when to quit.
> Which means that, for example, I believe it is simply impossible to have these kind of "constructive arguments" on, say, Twitter, for example.
That was mentioned in the guide :)
> everyone argues from an emotional perspective.
Certainly you'd agree that there's a scale? It's not black and white. I will edit this part to make that more clear.
> Certainly you'd agree that there's a scale? It's not black and white. I will edit this part to make that more clear.
Actually, not really. You seem to be missing my primary point, which is that thinking that things lie along a single scale where on one hand you have "pure, platonic ideal of reason" and on the other end you have "emotional hysterics". I don't think it works that way. I think the sibling commenter put it best:
>> everyone argues from an emotional perspective
> You kind of have to. If you were not emotionally invested in some way, you wouldn’t be arguing.
That is, I think step one is try to understand why you (and your debate partner) are emotionally incentivized to care about the topic in the first place.
If the other party is with people, they tend to play to the audience.
Not only that. Another aspect is that emotions and "instinct" are much, much older, from an evolutionary perspective, than our very recent reasoning abilities, and way more widespread amongst the animal kingdom than reason.
So, while far from perfect, they work. Emotions and instinct kept most of our ancestors and most of the currently living animals both alive and thriving. Which means that, despite their limits, they have their place and shouldn't simply be discarded by a wave of the hand.
Took me some time to understand that. And I still have a hard time taking it into account in my everyday life and interactions.
This is the point. Instincts developed to keep you alive in a world where the classic laws of the jungle where true. Since the modern world, the definition of what is "strongest" and the threats you find yourselve exposed to differ vastly from that back in the days.
While instincts will generally give you a good direction to start with, problems are too complex today to just rely on instincts. Heck even I had my instincts tell me "this feels wrong" and upon reading and getting smart about that topic i completely changed my mind.
If you have time to prepare for a discussion, try not to rely on instinct but let it push you to gather facts to undermine it or to oppose it.
It's not just that they work; they matter in and of themselves. For example, it may literally be true that I'm more likely to die from falling furniture than from terrorism, but the fact that I fear terrorism more than falling furniture is relevant on its own terms. The emotions we feel about something like terrorism are real. They have a direct impact on quality of life. And you're not just going to reason people out of them. You can read me the statistics every morning, but my relative fear levels aren't likely to change.
This doesn't mean we shouldn't be educated or that we shouldn't make an effort to control our emotions; it's just to say that the emotions are real and it's ridiculous to dismiss them as irrelevant.
In such case you are not arguing with the person but your argument is with the observers which might not be so fundamentalist in their views. There is in fact an excellent book that lays out this argument. Unfortunately it is only available in German, its called "Wie man mit Fundamentalisten diskutiert, ohne den Verstand zu verlieren: Anleitung zum subversiven Denken" by Hubert Schleichert. The rough translation of the title is: "how to argue with fundamentalists without loosing your mind. Instructions to subversive thinking".
He discusses some of the rhetorical tricks used by fundamentalists of every color using some historical examples and how to counter these strategies. For everyone who knows some German this is a highly recommended read.
That said, I highly appreciate the OP blog, because the arguments with fundamentalists are definitely in the minority and a more constructive argument culture is needed, especially online.
You kind of have to. If you were not emotionally invested in some way, you wouldn’t be arguing.
Often these are ideas that I don't agree with, but I can't articulate exactly why I disagree.
When I argue it, I can get others to argue against the idea, and so I can discover points that I may not have been able to put to words.
It's essentially idea farming.
Their followers might not even believe it but still support and spread the argument, for their own selfish reasons.
Say Hitler pronouncing that Jews are an inferior race worthy of destroying. Did his followers really believe that when they agreed with him, or did it just seem in their self-interest to spread such propaganda further, and seize the property of Jews?
Just an example from past but I believe similar examples happen all the time. Some people argue in bad faith. If that is the case there is no reason to argue with them.
I agree that this is literally true, but only so long as you include intellectual curiosity as an "emotion". In fact I would count it as an emotion, exactly for the reason that you said - ultimately all human motivation can only be explained by emotion - combined with the fact that clearly most people and even some animals do some things solely out of curiosity. Just like all emotions, curiosity exists because its presence increases your chances of survival (having hunger at the right time decreases your chances of dying due to lack of food, having curiousity at the right time decreases your chances of dying due to lack of knowledge of the environment). Of course it's a lot weaker than other emotions (e.g. if a furious lion is running towards you but has a very strange spot on its nose, you're probably going to run away rather than investigate).
All that sounds like supreme pedantry, but it's important due to this other thing you said:
> everyone argues from an emotional perspective
I think most people reading this sentence would interpret the word "emotional" here in a subtly different way: to exclude intellectual curiousity. The implication is therefore "no one ever really argues because they're just curious about the truth". I agree with the literal meaning of this sentence, but not with that interpretation of "emotion", and not with that conclusion.
I'm sure I see this sort of mix up a lot: two statements that both sound completely reasonable on their own, but use the same word with a subtly but critically different meaning, forcing you to draw a conclusion (because you can't disagree with either part individually) that isn't really true.
But it is important to maintain some moderation and rein them in. Emotions are powerful, and if you don't learn to exercise some degree of control them, then they will control you.
I think it helps to understand that emotions have a purpose. For example, fear helps you avoid threats, and anger pushes you toward taking action that is needed to change a situation. If they're serving their purpose constructively, that's good.
But if they're not, they need to be controlled. For example, when fear makes you avoid something which is actually safe, or when anger makes you act in a rash manner or suffer mentally over things you cannot change.
Again, I'm not saying that this is what you meant by "controlling" or "moderating" emotions, but just want to clarify that learning how to express emotions in a constructive way usually makes an argument that much more forceful that trying to "rein in" your emotions and make them subservient to logic.
Emotions are not just big things. It may be that weird feeling about someone you cant explain. And that weird feeling may be either unfair bias or you actually noticing a problem with that person.
The emotion-logic dichotomy where mention of emotions makes you sound irrational motivates people to hide those. And it creates discussions that happen in sort of alternative reality and emotional conflicts that mask as professional disagreements.
From reading your other responses, my conclusion is that in any hypothetical argument, you wouldn't consider either side to have better reasoning than the other and if you did, you would chalk it up to your own emotional biases.
Your attitude seems incompatible with the concept that one argument can be better than another.
Is my assessment inaccurate or is there some nuance here that I've missed?
> It’s true, as I wrote about last week, that emotions can bias our thinking. What’s not true is that the best thinking comes from a lack of emotion. “Emotion helps us screen, organize and prioritize the information that bombards us,”
As well as http://mitp.nautil.us/article/157/feelings-what-are-they-and...
> This realization turns the scientific language of emotion on its head. What are commonly called emotion functions in humans and animals are not emotional functions at all. They do not exist to make feelings. They are survival functions essential for the continued life of the individual or the species.
1) explicitly state what emotions I'm feeling (this is surprisingly difficult for me)
2) figure out why I'm feeling that way.
Logic and rigorous thinking becomes relevant for that second step - it's where the "both / and" union of the two modes happens.
This process forms the backbone of "Nonviolent Communication": https://www.nonviolentcommunication.com/
If you want to have effective, kind conflicts, that book is a must-read.
>"This may sound callous, but if you've tried every strategy in this guide and your debate partner continues to operate at the bottom of the pyramid (for example, continuing to spout inflammatory ad hominem attacks), sometimes the best way to empathize with them is to pretend they have an undiagnosed mental illness."
The article reads like you took every smartass redditor on the planet and condensed them down into an article. Why can I not express emotions in an argument, or why do I need to be 'rational', or why can I not be subjective? I don't mean this in an offensive way but why is everyone who argues supposed to pretend they're autistic, because that's honestly how this piece comes across.
This applies especially to important and complicated subjects that affect many people (the type often discussed on HN) which demand reasoned thought for coming up with good responses.
If you want to argue in bad faith, use logical fallacies and hysterically scream at opposing ideas rather than use rationality and reason then what's wrong with reddit or twitter?
But, they get super angry and are affected by own anger a lot. They also act irrationally due to own emotions. I mean, some can go into outrage over very minor things.
To an emotional person, he could seem vexingly detached and flat. To my way of thinking, he's just masterful at keeping the discussion on track.
The author never says you have to do any of those things. Just that if you want to argue constructively, then maybe being expressing a lot of hostility, irrationality, and subjectivity isn't the best way to do it.
I'm not even sure there's an objective definition of what a 'constructive argument' is. You can have an argument to settle a conflict, understand someone better, find an answer to some question, express emotions, demand justice or a hundred other things, a lot of which don't require anything on that list.
If you wish to convey your subjectivity, I think art would be a better venue than debate.
The essay could have focused on just this one technique. The worst arguments I've witnessed and been part of lacked any attempt by either side to Steelman the opposing side's position.
To take it to the next level, try actively arguing for the side you think has the weaker points. It can be a lot of fun, not to mention educational.
> Debates about personal identity, like race, gender, religion, or sexual orientation, can easily become inflammatory. When people feel that something so close to them is in question, they often lose sight of reason and argue instead from an emotional perspective.
I think this document does a good job describing ways that people who want to can have a fact-based, clarifying discussion. But in cases where I and my interlocutor both have the curiosity, openness of mind and desire to come to a better understanding ... I don't think we need this document to have a productive debate, and it might not even feel like a debate, but rather a conversation.
People have vitriolic debates because they feel threatened, marginalized, attacked -- and then their goal is to defend themselves. We have ugly fights because we don't want a richer understanding in that moment. And for issues in which no one feels at risk, I think people tend to have either useful conversations, or none at all due to lack of interest.
If a colleague and I, neither of whom have put a lot of work into any specific approach to building compilers for functional languages enter into a conversation about the relative merits of compiling with continuations versus administrative normal form, either we can have a good nerdy time, or one of us leaves bored.
If I, a renter in a rent-controlled apartment, and a family member who is a landlord have a conversation about rent control, property taxes, the mortgage interest deduction, and the policies which have benefitted each of us, we can both feel attacked and defensive even if neither actively wishes the other ill, even though both of those groupings are potentially temporary states which apply to us. The goal becomes not just to better understand, but to walk away feeling ok about your life. Am I a parasite for paying below market rate? Is he a villain for being subsidized by his less wealthy tenants? Once the stakes involve how you live your life, or how you view yourself, it's hard to keep wanting it to be a collaborative and open-minded exploration.
On the flip side this is why, for example, Neo-Nazis can say things that are absolutely vile so calmly; It's not about their lives. In which case the expectation that emotion won't be brought in by the other party becomes tone policing.
I think that’s probably OK for the most part though. It’s easy enough to ignore bad faith demands for evidence or “citation needed” commentary. Disputing definitions can be hard to break free from, but both of these failure modes are less likely to lead to toxic behavior or social shaming like “did you even read the article?”
I think it’s way too much to expect message forum discussions will ever consist of good faith survey of evidence. Even if you have pure motives, it’s just not going to happen. You have really little time, you’re going to rattle off comments that come from your deep seated pre-baked opinions and areas where you believe you already completed a good faith survey of the evidence and already are bringing the most well-rounded opinion to the table. You have exactly enough time to unload it and then go take care of your kids or go to the gym or something.
Instead of retorting your point explore theirs and walk them through scenarios where it will be wrong. Arguing your point directly always just ends in a tennis match.
Any clash of ideas could have any number of purposes, and of all the garden variety reasons to engage in one, this must be one of the lesser ones.
Anecdotally I would rank the commonality of reasons to debate as:
1- Getting something out of it
2- Sharpening your teeth to achieve #1 later
3- Escalating a situation
4- For the kicks of it. (some personalities just love it)
To find out the truth you have much better options than getting into conversation with an adversarial position.