
Argue well by losing - levosmetalo
http://haacked.com/archive/2013/10/21/argue-well-by-losing.aspx
======
hooande

      How to compose a successful critical commentary:
    
      1. Attempt to re-express your target's position so clearly, vividly and fairly that 
      your target says: "Thanks, I wish I'd thought of putting it that way."
      2. List any points of agreement (especially if they are not matters of general
      or widespread agreement).
      3. Mention anything you have learned from your target.
      4. Only then are you permitted to say so much as a word of rebuttal or criticism.
    

I wish that hackernews could be like this. It would be like laying down troll
poison. Even the most hardcore jerks don't like when the only response they
get is to be killed by kindness.

I read the book "Getting To Yes" by Roger Patton. It's highly recommend and
considered to be the manual on negotiation. And the main point of advice from
it was: Be Nice. Argument and negotiation aren't supposed to be about who is
louder or more aggressive. Calmly laying out points that are backed up by
facts works better every time.

Online arguments tend to be low stakes affairs. I can understand why so many
hn discussions devolve into personal attacks and accusations. I can only hope
that people behave differently in person. The best way to win an argument is
to turn it into a niceness contest where everybody walks away feeling better
for the experience.

~~~
networked
>1\. Attempt to re-express your target's position so clearly, vividly and
fairly that your target says: "Thanks, I wish I'd thought of putting it that
way."

There's a closely related concept with a pretty catchy name, which is
something that's often useful for making concepts stick; perhaps HN could make
use of it. That concept is the "steel man":

>Sometimes the term "steel man" is used to refer to a position's or argument's
improved form. A straw man is a misrepresentation of someone's position or
argument that is easy to defeat: a "steel man" is an improvement of someone's
position or argument that is harder to defeat than their originally stated
position or argument. [1]

It can be used as a noun or a verb, e.g.

>We will want to "steel-man" NASA's argument. [2]

This can be considered a stronger version of the idea in 1. since it deals
with improving not only the expression but also the substance of the opposing
side's argument.

[1]
[http://wiki.lesswrong.com/wiki/Steel_man](http://wiki.lesswrong.com/wiki/Steel_man)

[2]
[http://lesswrong.com/lw/hab/rocket_science_and_big_money_a_c...](http://lesswrong.com/lw/hab/rocket_science_and_big_money_a_cautionary_tale_of/)

~~~
gojomo
Another similar concept is the "Ideological Turing Test": can you answer
questions from your ideological opponent's perspective so well that a third
party can't tell you actually hold other views?

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ideological_Turing_Test](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ideological_Turing_Test)

Until you can pass it, you may be wasting time disputing a thin caricature of
the actual opposing viewpoint. And as you do well on such a test, you are
often helping to "steel-man" the viewpoint. (On the other hand, any time you
are steel-manning an unsubscribed position, you might also be hinting at your
true perspective, when you deploy extra effort against certain critiques.)

------
thaumasiotes
In the past I frequently tried to begin arguments / discussions by carefully
going over what I thought of as background assumptions. (To me, this is at
least closely related to the proposed step 1, restate your opponent's position
clearly.)

My experience suggests that if you do that, the other party will never stop
disagreeing with you no matter how far up the chain you go. Many, many, many
arguments never happened in my mind, while having happened quite heatedly in
the other person's, because of this.

There was another phenomenon which might be related: a person would start
telling me about a problem of theirs (I used to think it was weird for people
I barely knew to do this, but I've come to suspect that people just like
venting about problems they're experiencing), I'd rephrase it to be sure I
understood what they were saying, and they would say something along the lines
of "thanks, that was really helpful" and go away happy.

~~~
scott_s
Regarding your last paragraph, people explain their current problems as a
coping mechanism . But when people do that, what they're really looking for is
someone to understand them. It's an emotional thing, and you provided it.

~~~
plumbzium
Moreover, paraphrasing is one of basic tools in psychotherapy. Obviously it's
used as a part of a larger process, and depending on therapist' aims it may
have various forms, from a clarification or a simple restatement, to a more
reflective proposition or interpretation

------
acjohnson55
Thought-provoking article. I often battle friends on Facebook over issues of
politics, economics, and stuff, and I definitely notice that people are
generally more interested in winning than learning. In fact, that's the model
cable news shows and presidential debates teach us. It's all about introducing
some obscure fact or anecdote that your opponent can't possibly know off-hand
to force them to have to research enough to rebut, acquiesce to your position,
duck and counter with their own obscure fact, throw an exasperated ad hominem,
or quietly slink away. But none of those tactics involve actually trying to
learn some better picture of the truth or examining your own belief schema.

I think we've kind of moved to a post-fact society in this sense. Every
position has it's own set of miscellaneous facts that seem to support it, and
those facts are typically unverifiable, or at least certainly unverified.
Factual debate seems to quickly descend into partisanship. I've come to
believe that it's far more interesting and useful to debate principles
instead.

~~~
drjesusphd
> I often battle friends on Facebook over issues of politics, economics, and
> stuff, and I definitely notice that people are generally more interested in
> winning than learning.

Of course. If you want to learn something, talk one-on-one or seek out
authoritative sources. If you're engaging in a dispute in a public forum in
front of millions of spectators, like it or not, the debate exists to convince
others, not each other.

And there's nothing wrong with that.

------
jpswade
You can’t win an argument. You can’t because if you lose it, you lose it; and
if you win it, you lose it. Why? Well, suppose you triumph over the other man
and shoot his argument full of holes and prove that he is non compos mentis.
Then what? You will feel fine. But what about him? You have made him feel
inferior. You have hurt his pride. He will resent your triumph. And – A man
convinced against his will Is of the same opinion still.

Carnegie, Dale (2010-09-30). How To Win Friends And Influence People (Kindle
Locations 1972-1977). Ebury Publishing. Kindle Edition.

~~~
mafribe
Is it universally true that being shown wrong in an argument leads to
resentment, preventing learning? Surely that happens sometimes. But always?

It's just methodologically unconstrained anecdotes, but if I look back at my
personal history of changing my mind on things, occasions where I was shown by
others to be an idiot, and the associated shame and humiliation, have been
powerful forces for me to rethink and improve my position. Maybe there are
different kinds of personality: those who react to a good argument by
learning, and those that react by ressentiment and aggression. This has been
thematised in social though as the distinction between a normative and a
cognitive learning style.

------
adolph
A similar idea is the "Ideological Turing Test" [1] whereby a person attempts
to convincingly assert the ideas they disagree with.

[1]
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ideological_Turing_Test](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ideological_Turing_Test)

------
davegauer
While the rest of the article has some really great points, what I really love
about this is all in the beginning and is perfectly summed up with this quote
by Professor Daniel H. Cohen (in which he is conceding victory to a
hypothetical opponent):

> "So who won that argument? Well, the war metaphor seems to force us into
> saying you won, even though I’m the only one who made any cognitive gain."

I've been practicing something similar for at least half a decade now. I call
it (with a strong sense of irony), "I'm Always Right." By learning how to be
wrong ALL THE TIME, I'm actually becoming increasingly ALWAYS RIGHT.

The hardest part is being able to see when somebody else is actually making a
better point than I am.[1]

Then I 'lose' the argument by agreeing with them. In the bigger scheme of
things, I've actually won because I've just gained something - new knowledge
and a new point of view. My intellectual 'opponent' has gained nothing but a
temporary feeling of victory. I'm actually happy for both of us. This isn't
some trick. I really do change my mind about things all the time as I learn
more and listen more. After a while, being wrong feels so right. :-)

[1] The REAL challenge is to recognize this EVEN if you are actually doing a
much better job of debating (or think you are) than your 'opponent'.

------
TheSpiceIsLife
Also check out Fred Kofman on youtube, his Verbal Aikido is great while very
basic
[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O6N9nvk8bvE](http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O6N9nvk8bvE)
also check out his other work.

------
paddy_m
I recently read Crucial Conversations. It is big on finding a shared purpose
in a conversation, and maintaining a feeling of safety. I recommend it
strongly.

~~~
adolph
"Dialogue: The Art Of Thinking Together" is another good one.

[http://www.amazon.com/Dialogue-The-Art-Thinking-
Together/dp/...](http://www.amazon.com/Dialogue-The-Art-Thinking-
Together/dp/0385479999)

------
011011100
An important part of any argument is expressing any values or priorities you
might have. So it's still possible to disagree with the conclusion, even if
you agree on the facts. People should just be able to acknowledge diversity in
priorities or "biases". A lot of times this just doesn't happen. People want
to frame the disagreement in an objective sort of way.

------
erik14th
that reminds me of Monty Python's arguing clinic sketch

