
Kids, Would You Please Start Fighting - _dps
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/11/04/opinion/sunday/kids-would-you-please-start-fighting.html
======
_dps
The article quotes studies claiming that people who grow up with conflict in
their personal lives are more likely to be comfortable with differing opinions
and certain forms of creative debate.

Since there's seemingly some benefit of exposure to these kinds of negative
experiences, they mention advice on how to mitigate the negative aspect of
conflict.

But I think it's actually great advice to teach children/students these civil,
but pseudo-adversarial skills as general purpose cooperative reasoning tools
completely independent of conflict-management. From the article:

• Frame it as a debate, rather than a conflict.

• Argue as if you’re right but listen as if you’re wrong.

• Make the most respectful interpretation of the other person’s perspective.

• Acknowledge where you agree with your critics and what you’ve learned from
them.

These behaviors correlate very strongly with the people I personally have
found most intelligent and productive in group settings.

~~~
iovrthoughtthis
This is fantastic advise for effective debate.

I would add:

* agree on the meaning of the words you use.

* be upfront about how willing you are to be wrong / change your mind (I phrase this as "what would have to be true for you to accept I am right" and vice versa for my beliefs).

~~~
_dps
I really like the part about agreeing on words, and I'd riff on a bit more
with two sub-patterns i've found useful

1) "I see when you say X you mean [specific definition]. Given that definition
I agree with you, but I disagree with the definition"

2) "When I say X it seems it means [specific definition] to you. Rather than
fight over the definition I will avoid saying X and use different terms so we
can keep moving"

~~~
thomastjeffery
This is a really problem with some specific topics like copyright, where the
terms were invented for propaganda.

We really need a better word than "piracy".

------
bjourne
I agree with the message. I think that it is our civic duty to ensure that
debates are possible. Because when a society transcends into Fascism, the
first thing that is lost is the right to disagree. If it becomes impossible to
question the prevailing dogma and everyone who attempts to do so is labelled a
traitor or worse, then the path to totalitarianism is open.

People should remember the Iraq war and especially the build-up to it. Debates
were silenced by the rallying call to "Support our troops!" You couldn't claim
that the war was a pointless hunt for oil engineered by the oil companies.
Because that implied that the "war moms," those who let their sons enlist and
fight the stupid war in Iraq, were doing something wrong. Telling it how it
was, that whoever travels half-way cross the world to participate in a war
against a people they should have no beef with, is committing state-sanctioned
murder, was not allowed. I know that is polarizing, but polarizing is whatever
a lot of people disagree with. It doesn't mean that it is factually incorrect.

So the next time the US rallies the dogs of war, remember Iraq and what made
that war possible. Because it will happen again. When Trump, or his successor,
decides that "something has to be done" about North Korea, Iran or Syria, do
break the decorum. Don't allow disagreement to become taboo because then
history will repeat itself.

~~~
true_religion
Traditionally, once the decision is made to go to war, all debate about the
justifications for the war must end.

Countries where the debate continues end up having a social split where part
of the nation supports the war, and part does not. This kind of civil division
is _fatal_ during war time if your enemy isn't similarly hobbled.

Any war, even the most worthy, is susceptible to having its justifications
criticized but the consequences of not being unified during the conflict are
so catastrophic that people prefer to criticise wars only after they have been
won or lost.

~~~
arglebarnacle
That's certainly true about total war where the nation's survival is
threatened by defeat, but it's not true about the kind of limited wars was
have seen since world war 2. In fact, because these wars are limited wars for
the world powers that start them, but total wars for the postcolonial states
in the receiving end, I think it's very correct that the public e.g. in the US
continue to aggressively question the rationale for war even after it's begun
in e.g. Vietnam, Iraq, and so on.

Henry Kissinger would certainly have been happier to see a US public united
behind the Vietnam war effort because it would have made it easier to win in a
geopolitical sense, but what about in a moral sense? The US wasn't threatened
existentially by failure in Vietnam, and it's right that we didn't adopt the
attitude expressed in your comment.

~~~
thomastjeffery
On that note, the US spends almost as much in defense as _the entire rest of
the world_.

Losing a "war" in the middle East would not affect the US very much outside
reputation.

~~~
dragonsky67
I would respectively suggest that most countries in the rest of the world
don't behave in such a was as to require this level of excessive spending on
"defence". As you state, if you are conducting defensive operations, how can
it be that failure of that defence will not impact your country.

------
cornyNetHandle
I showed 'Crockers Rules', after Lee Daniel Crocker, to my mum and my sister
over Christmas, as I thought it might help all of us indicate the level of
acerbic comment we are currently able to process.

"Declaring yourself to be operating by "Crocker's Rules" means that other
people are allowed to optimize their messages for information, not for being
nice to you. Crocker's Rules means that you have accepted full responsibility
for the operation of your own mind - if you're offended, it's your fault.
Anyone is allowed to call you a moron and claim to be doing you a favor.
(Which, in point of fact, they would be. One of the big problems with this
culture is that everyone's afraid to tell you you're wrong, or they think they
have to dance around it.) Two people using Crocker's Rules should be able to
communicate all relevant information in the minimum amount of time, without
paraphrasing or social formatting. Obviously, don't declare yourself to be
operating by Crocker's Rules unless you have that kind of mental discipline.

Note that Crocker's Rules does not mean you can insult people; it means that
other people don't have to worry about whether they are insulting you.
Crocker's Rules are a discipline, not a privilege. Furthermore, taking
advantage of Crocker's Rules does not imply reciprocity. How could it?
Crocker's Rules are something you do for yourself, to maximize information
received - not something you grit your teeth over and do as a favor."

~~~
platz
How silicon valley.. maximize efficiency at the expense of all culture and
social norms!

No need for complex social relations, I will process information, more than
ever before (because there is so much of it now!), like the great logical-
positivist that I am!

Moreover, I certainly do not have any political positions embedded in my
norms-steamrolling worldview, because all there is, in fact, is information.

~~~
_dps
This seems like an uncharitable read. The whole point of Crocker Rules is that
you opt in. No one forces you to accept Crocker Rules (that would indeed be
steamrolling). You declare "feel free to say things that might insult me", not
"I'm going to assume you don't mind being insulted".

Personally, I've found this to be a very useful tool with people who are
conflict-avoidant. I tell them "if you're afraid of offending me, please don't
hesitate, I promise I won't get mad".

Sometimes I go as far as to suggest something they might be thinking that
might be offensive in order to get the ball rolling and show them there won't
be negative consequences.

For example: "Hey I wonder if you're concerned I'll be offended if you propose
throwing out my work and replacing it. Don't worry, it's fine. I just want
what's best for the project, so if you're holding back because you're
concerned I'll be upset, you can relax."

~~~
platz
\- You are are participant in society, so your preferences indeed affect other
people

\- the example of the project at work is benign, especially since the outcome
doesn't matter to you. What happens then the issues are about personal skin-
in-the-game, like someone coming after your means of living, gentrification of
your neighborhood, attacking the behavior of your significant other, etc..

~~~
_dps
I think we must be interpreting the meaning of Crocker Rules differently.

You say the example I gave is benign — so is it fair to assume you believe
that this behavior is useful in at least some cases?

You're right that I have the "luxury" to do so in that situation because the
outcome isn't particularly painful.

And you're also right that it would be difficult to opt in to Crocker Rules
when discussing something with huge stakes and emotional charge. But that's
why it's opt-in ... no one should try to force you to accept it, and you can
choose to accept it depending on context.

I would probably not volunteer for Crocker Rules with someone proposing
something that would grievously harm my family.

(and just to be clear: I never actually use the term, I always use in-context
statements like the one in the example).

~~~
platz
I can certainly appreciate the desire to not overreact to every little thing,
and try to discuss things calmly, yes

~~~
cornyNetHandle
I come from somewhere where the opposite of that is the dominant culture, so I
was explaining Crocker's rules as a method of us pointing out to each other
when we are not capable of operating by them, rather than when we are. I had a
bad head cold and was trying to work out a diplomatic method to get them to
chill out a little. It half worked, some of the time.

------
pjkundert
Or, perhaps restore training in the Scientific Method.

A root of the growing divide between Left and Right is that neither party
realizes how easily falsified their claims are.

Scientists realize that they are wrong almost always, and that when they are
right, their hypothesis is usually very narrowly defined.

If people were trained to realize that they were almost always wrong by the
time they reached 6th grade, you’d see a lot more openness to debate, and far
fewer entrenched positions - and much more liberty allowed by/to everyone, I
think.

Presently, kids exit grade school pretty much believing that they are pretty
much “right” in everything they believe. This is tragically false, and a
foundation for a lifetime of deep disappointment.

------
rainbowmverse
I don't know if NYT's assessment of the study is accurate (the study is
paywalled), but here's the key paragraph for people trying to decide if this
or the study is worth reading:

>> _It turns out that highly creative adults often grow up in families full of
tension. Not fistfights or personal insults, but real disagreements. When
adults in their early 30s were asked to write imaginative stories, the most
creative ones came from those whose parents had the most conflict a quarter-
century earlier. Their parents had clashing views on how to raise children.
They had different values and attitudes and interests. And when highly
creative architects and scientists were compared with their technically
skilled but less original peers, the innovators often had more friction in
their families. As the psychologist Robert Albert put it, “the creative
person-to-be comes from a family that is anything but harmonious, one with a
‘wobble.’ ”_

Referenced study:
[http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0092656698...](http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0092656698922401)

There's another study linked, but the rest is anecdata built on famous people
that, personally, wasn't too illuminating on a skim. It might be interesting
to read for the narrative.

~~~
sillysaurus3
Sci-hub has it. Non-paywalled: [http://doi.org.https.sci-
hub.hk/10.1006/jrpe.1998.2240](http://doi.org.https.sci-
hub.hk/10.1006/jrpe.1998.2240)

------
stretchwithme
I wonder how technology could be used to enhance debate. What if each side of
an argument had a fixed percentage of talk time, enforced by software? Would
people ratchet down their arguments and stop interrupting each other? Would
they conserve their time so they can get a lengthy last word? What if you
actually LOST time when you interrupted the other side?

~~~
flycaliguy
You might enjoy poking around some of the links here
[https://wiki.lesswrong.com/wiki/Debate_tools](https://wiki.lesswrong.com/wiki/Debate_tools)

------
danielam
I would emphasize one background assumption, viz., the importance of the
respect for and appreciation of truth. Otherwise, we slip into sophistry where
we are less interested in truth and more interested in deploying words as
weapons and instruments of power.

------
joaomacp
The media always focuses on the negative: if kids were really fighting more
and being more aggressive, the titles wouldn't be "Kids are more corageous
than their parents were". They would be more like "Did we create a violent
world for our kids?"

It's been proven that humans focus more on the negatives than the positives,
so the media takes advantage of that with these type of headlines.

------
whatyoucantsay
I wouldn't encourage children to fight but when children are accompanied by
adults at all times and have _all_ their conflicts mediated for them, it
almost certainly stunts their social skills. Similarly, banning all physical
contact in primary schools is a poor way to encourage emotional health... for
any mammal.

[http://www.bbc.com/future/story/20131014-the-touching-
moment...](http://www.bbc.com/future/story/20131014-the-touching-moments-we-
all-need)

[https://stpauls.vxcommunity.com/Issue/Us-Experiment-On-
Infan...](https://stpauls.vxcommunity.com/Issue/Us-Experiment-On-Infants-
Withholding-Affection/13213)

------
spodek
Sam Harris impresses me in his podcasts when he has guests he disagrees with
that the disagreements can become intense, but when they reach the end, he's
back to friendly and cordial.

It's often hard to disagree on content without anger or other personal
emotions, but his doing it inspires me to improve my skill at it.

~~~
TimJYoung
Good example - I was also going to mention Sam Harris. Another thing he does
is state his guest's position in his own words, and then ask the guest if he
got the position correct. It's a good way to start a discussion and avoids the
occurrence of two people arguing about a caricature of each person's position,
instead of their _actual_ position.

------
hmwhy
I really don't want to say this in an uncivil way but can people please stop
spamming Hacker News with these articles full of cherry-picked scientific
studies from New York Times or can their posts be automatically weighted less
if their goal is to promote articles from NYT?

It's really frustrating having to spend a couple of minutes to read seemingly
interesting articles only to find out a few minutes later it's probably
someone writing for his own gain (well... popular media).

The first scientific journal article that is linked to appears to use the word
"parental" to refer to the relationship between a child and her/his parents
instead of, and as suggested in the article, between parents (see "parental
warmth" and "parental restrictiveness" in the abstract of the journal
article). The second scientific journal article that is linked to is used to
argue that "architects and scientists were compared with their technically
skilled but less original peers"—but the article that is linked to only
mentions architects (apologies, but not actually too sorry, if it's actually
because of the pay wall and that the authors did not mention scientist in the
abstract).

This is probably considered an emotional, and potentially uncivil, response.
But it's really, really frustrating. Just because some guy has a PhD doesn't
mean what they write is credible when they quote scientific journals—I know
plenty of people who have PhDs but what they say are far from credible.

I mean, is it even at all surprising that people who are subjected to an
environment with more conflicting views (both good and bad) of any kind are
probably less likely to comply and think more?

EDIT: expansion of why I think the interpretation of the first article I
mentioned is wrong and cherry-picked. Added emotional sentiment at the end.

~~~
quadcore
I agree.

I've submitted a Ask HN: ban nytimes lately - and got banned. Ive also sent an
email to moderator asking for a feature that allows the ban of domains per
user.

Note that I've actually enjoyed this post, but anyway, if someone wants to
read nytimes, he knows where to find it.

EDIT: what's my opinion precisely you may ask? I think those are not hacker
news per the guidelines. They are often general - good - but not really
surprising. Therefore they are kinda platitude.

EDIT2: currently, there is 2 newyorker.com, 2 nytimes.com, 2 economist.com on
the front page. And it's like that every day lately.

~~~
DoreenMichele
Probably a better practice than commenting here about is:

1\. Flag articles you don't want here.

2\. Don't participate in discussion of those articles, not even to talk about
how you don't want them here.

3\. Submit, upvote and comment on things you do want here.

I used to self post my own writing fairly regularly. I mostly have stopped. I
don't feel it really goes well even though I posted stuff for a time in part
because some people said they wanted to hear from me. I am still trying to
figure out what exactly to write about these days, having recently abandoned a
bunch of projects.

And I am saying that to try to make the point that what people say they want
or don't want in comments seems to have a poor signal to noise ratio. I
haven't personally found it to be a reliable indicator of what works on HN.

A much stronger indicator of interest or lack thereof boils down to "voting
with your feet" as a means to indicate what isn't wanted here and "voting with
your wallet (attention)" as to what is wanted here.

Give attention to things you want here. Starve other things of attention. Even
if it doesn't have a notable impact on what appears on the front page, it will
positively impact your experience of the site

~~~
DrScump

      Flag articles you don't want here.
    

This is how unexplained flagging (there are no categories to explain _why_ a
reader is flagging) becomes a problem. People then flag articles that they
simply disagree with, as opposed to using flags only to signal
inappropriateness (spam, language, duplication, self-promotion, etc.).

For example, Craigslist used to have different flags for different reasons,
e.g. Prohibited by policey, Spam, Illegal Content, Wrong Category, Sex for
Money, etc. Now it's a unary, generic flag only.

~~~
DoreenMichele
HN has a counter measure: vouching. So if something gets flagged, people who
think it doesn't deserve to be can counterweight it with a vouch.

I am old and cranky and at a point where I would rather see more of that than
more off topic pissing and moaning about what one or two individuals would
like to see or not see here. It's lots of sound and noise, but no real action.
I am suggesting they take action because my experience suggests that's both
more effective and more satisfying.

But, then, in some sense, I am being a hypocrite. I probably should have just
flagged and downvoted their off topic, annoying comments rather than trying to
make suggestions.

So, whatever.

~~~
quadcore
_I probably should have just flagged and downvoted their off topic_

You did the right thing.

------
lifeformed
A bit off-topic, but...

How come when I click and drag on text on this article, instead of
highlighting it, it goes to the next article?(!) What kind of UX is that?

------
muzani
This is sort of why me and my wife pick fights with our kids where we can. We
stress them to the point of snapping, then cool them down. It feels a little
like bullying, but we cut back and emphasize that we still love them.

My 5 year old daughter in particular inherits the stubbornness of both her
parents. She often she says something she regrets immediately (e.g "I hate
you!"), cries on realizing it, but refuses to take it back.

We teach them that disagreements are perfectly normal. Differences in opinion
should be embraced. And while you disagree with someone, you don't take it
personally and dislike the person.

Shows like My Little Pony are excellent at this. While these shows have a
villain and plot, the drama and conflict in most of the episodes revolve
around growing up and dealing with stark personality differences. Friends will
argue a lot, but the shows highlight that this doesn't end a friendship. And
even someone who was 'evil' can turn over a new leaf.

She had a rough first week of school. Was picked on by a classmate, admitted
she spent much of the day crying. But she goes home, opens up My Little Pony
for inspiration. Then she's excited to go to school again. A couple of weeks
later, she has solved the conflict with her classmate.

~~~
hmwhy
This is from someone on the receiving end and is probably slightly older than
your kids—I think it's great that you are teaching your kids how to deal with
conflicts and making them think, but I'm not sure that stressing them to the
point of snapping is a good thing.

My dad did that to me and he still does it occasionally even when I'm "in the
right"; I think he probably means well (he claims that he does when I confront
him about it), but it's still an awful feeling that doesn't make me thankful
of what he does or like him more. If you really do make your kids feel like
that you are bullying them, maybe you should consider cutting it back a
little.

~~~
muzani
Haha, my eldest child is 5. We kind of stress our kids since they're young
enough to communicate. They don't enjoy it in the moment, but bear no grudge.

We try to be very careful with damage control. We honestly talk it out. My
daughter is good with labeling her feelings. She would say things like "Mom
loves to pick on me for no reason, but I know she's just kidding," or "I was
really angry with you this morning, because you glued the wallpaper without
me, but I'm not angry anymore."

And when they do get angry, we talk it out, what they're pissed about, say
sorry, and how to fix it.

I think it's sort of like exercise. We take care to not go past the 'injury'
point, but sometimes it happens and we try to avoid it next time.

~~~
watwut
I do not pick on my kids without reason and they are able to express they are
angry about wallpaper too. There are plenty on naturally occurring points of
difference and topics, there is no need for me to go out of way to stress them
out to the point of breaking.

I teach them that if some kids do that to them, it is their right to defend
themselves or retaliate (otherwise they would end up submissive victims of
bullying, have seen that when I was child multiple times). I also teach then
that if someone do it to others, it is their right to defend that other person
too from bullying.

