Hacker News Reader

> When you meet people like this there are no 'tactics' ... it's just about presenting the truth in good faith

I will argue with tactics, but it’s not necessarily out of bad faith. Usually people are terrible at having an open-minded conversation, and you need to peel back the layers because most individuals won’t tell you why they believe something.

You’ll get all these canned responses and talking points from mainstream media (Or, if we’re talking about technology, the analog would be taking points from a particular corporation or vendor). But people won’t outright say “I don’t agree with that policy because I don’t trust that person” or “I got screwed over by a traumatic experience with X therefore I’m against X”. Most people aren’t capable of engaging on that level without a great deal of emotional maturity; of course, we’re far away from reality and facts at this point but humans are emotional creatures and emotion drives our decision making.

That's right. Having a conversation is an art and there is absolutely a role for good faith tactics to help bring out the truth of things.

> conversation is an art

It’s interesting how it totally is an art, but is largely taught completely informally by peers and parents.

I've found that being more like a therapist and discussing not what it is they think but trying to get to the bottom of why it is they feel as such a really good approach.

Even ignoring the issue and trying to ask them more about their values. And then going deeper and figuring out why they value those things.

And sharing the same about you to them.

A lot of disagreement I find surprisingly come from similar values but just different weights applied to how events impact those values. Or sometimes it's just different value sets, and then you have to discuss why it is we value different things.

Even if you walk away still in disagreement, because you might still just end up where you have differing values, or where you've got different weights to those values, at least you'll have an understanding of each other and why it is you don't agree on those things.

The problem is online discussions are just not conductive to this at all. You can't engage someone and really work through this process of shared understanding. Relationships online are too superficial and short lived.

> Usually people are terrible at having an open-minded conversation, and you need to peel back the layers because most individuals won’t tell you why they believe something.

What beliefs would they have? If I am having a conversation about a topic it is because I have no established beliefs about that topic. If I have firm beliefs in something, what additional benefit would be derived from discussing it? There is absolutely nothing more boring than talking about something you are certain you know everything about.

I expect I also seem closed-minded in such conversation as the most effective device I have found to be open-minded in conversation is to pick a position, any position, and see if it can be defended. Upon reflection, you can gain a lot of insight into where you fell short in understanding and learn from that.

> You’ll get all these canned responses and talking points from mainstream media

Which is fine. A weak defence is sufficient to get started. The goal isn't to "win", the goal is to learn and if canned responses greases the wheels of discussion that leads to something valuable to reflect on later, that's all that is needed. You have to start somewhere with what limited information you have available to you. After all, if you were the world's utmost expert you wouldn't be in the conversation, given the boringness and all.

Yeah and those open minded people might really be on to something there.

I didn't particularly like the premise of the article, which seems to be that the goal is to change the other's mind. But think about it, what could be more beneficial to me than having an argument that changes my mind? If I convince someone of my opinion (whether by "weapon" or by "gift") then they learned something (ideally...) but if I change my mind thanks to the conversation, then I just learned something, I got to make that improvement to myself.

A day where nobody changed your mind is a day of stagnation.

Right, that starts from the assumption that one's view is correct.

Bayesian reasoning has you start with priors, take in new information, change or adjust your credences, and possibly adjust your priors. Having that kind of conversation is far more productive, and potentially more charitable in assumption of sincerity on the other party's part.

I guess I should try to get better at asking good questions. Even if I'm genuinely curious about something, I always have trouble coming up with thoughtful questions, especially on the spot.

(I guess for me, "thoughtfulness" requires putting thought into something, and if I'm actively participating in a conversation, I can't do that. It's way easier if I have already invested time into the topic at hand at some point beforehand.)

> I tend to use the 'questioning level of thoughtfulness' (QLOT) of my discussion partner as the signal

That's easier to do if participants have aligned interests and desires. Harder when communicating with someone that is very different from yourself. In that case it's productive if the discussion is approached with patience as a learning experience. Without suspicions that the other person is only learning about you so their tribe can use it against you later.