
Arguing Is Pointless - acconrad
http://blogs.hbr.org/bregman/2011/02/arguing-is-pointless.html
======
Fargren
No, arguing is not pointless. But the point of arguing is rarely to convince
someone of anything. The point of arguing is learning the other persons
arguments and the flaws in your own. Arguing is platonic dialectic. The author
gets very close to the point of argumentation, and then misses it.

~~~
trickjarrett
In my mind, you're making the case for debate. Argument has an emotional
connotation, where as debate is more educational in connotation.

~~~
xenophanes
Arguing over minor differences in words when a person's intent is sufficiently
clear ... really is pointless.

~~~
Semiapies
Not a minor difference; debates happen in civil threads on this site.
Arguments involve situations like blowhards yelling at cops giving them
parking tickets.

TFA confuses the two to some extent.

------
filosofo
Some of the most heated, seemingly-intractable arguments I've participated in
have led me later upon reflection to change my mind. I'm thankful the other
party didn't take this viewpoint that arguing is pointless.

Also, a just society needs to operate by certain fictions: for example, that
people are innocent until proved guilty or that all men are created equal.
Among those should be the assumption that others can be persuaded through
logical means (as opposed to say force or habit). I think it's somewhat akin
to the principle of charity.

~~~
stcredzero
_Also, a just society needs to operate by certain fictions: for example, that
people are innocent until proved guilty or that all men are created equal.
Among those should be the assumption that others can be persuaded through
logical means_

This is good if you are using this as a filter to find exceptional people. The
exceptional people _can_ often be persuaded, because they actually listen and
consider unfamiliar ideas and ways of thinking. (Also note, that they aren't
_always_ persuaded.)

However, if you are playing the odds - odds are people aren't really listening
or devoting sufficient attention to a complex or genuinely novel idea.

------
dustingetz
One Christmas, at Mom's house, I walked by the Christmas tree, and--MEOOWRAAWR
--her monster of a cat jumps out from under the tree and claws my foot! At
this point, the reflex is to kick the cat, out of self-defense instinct.

TIMEOUT!

if i kick the cat, the cat will hate me, it will be a problem in the future as
he feels defensive, and my poor mother will expel me from the house. So i
swallowed my reflex, put neosporin and slippers on, then nicely petted the
darn cat.

My personal relationships sure got a lot better after realizing this.

------
msluyter
IMHO, some arguments can be highly productive, but I think it takes a certain
amount of rapport to effectively argue with someone. I've had discussions with
friends where we began with one set of positions, and by the end had swapped
positions! Those sorts of arguments are enlightening and memorable, but they
require a certain amount of openness and ease with the other person, where you
can feel free to toss around ideas without necessarily having to defend them.
If you don't have that, then indeed, confirmation bias will kick in.

In cases where I've felt that happening, I've found it helpful to try to
pinpoint fundamental assumptions or values that are (by definition)
inarguable. Unveil these, and you'll either resolve the debate with "well, you
value X and I value Y, and no amount of arguing will change that," or "we both
assume/value X but have reached different conclusions, Y and Z -- what would
it take to falsify Y or Z?" My girlfriend and I have somewhat opposing
political views, so I have some practice at this.

~~~
stcredzero
I'd phrase this as a rule: "Only argue if you feel close enough to the other
party to admit if you're wrong, and if they feel the same way."

------
thejash
Instead of emotionally arguing with someone, you should rationally consider
how to persuade the person, and whether it is worth it. That's a much better
suggestion than "doing nothing" as suggested in this pointless flame-bait
article*

*please think before replying to that sentence.

~~~
jerf
"Instead of emotionally arguing with someone, you should rationally consider
how to persuade the person,"

What is your evidence that this works any better than raw applications of
social power (which is the failure state described in the article)?

~~~
thejash
My statement would still be true in that case. You would just be proposing a
shortcut because "rationally consider how to persuade" would be a constant
function that always returned "apply raw social power".

However, as can be pretty clearly seen from psychological literature, neither
making emotional and oppositional statements (what I was saying) or "raw
application of social power" (whatever that means) is the most effective
method of persuading someone. Here is a list of 18 studies demonstrating the
subtleties of persuasion (3rd google result for "psychological studies on
persuasion")

[http://www.spring.org.uk/2011/01/the-psychology-of-
persuasio...](http://www.spring.org.uk/2011/01/the-psychology-of-
persuasion.php)

~~~
stcredzero
_"apply raw social power"_

This follows my experience of how decisions are made in corporate America.
It's all about animal dominance games. Logic is only an auxiliary weapon. It's
a grenade launcher beside the main cannon.

------
Semiapies
Depends on the argument. It helps _to not be flat wrong_ , as the author was
in the case of his parking ticket and his attempt at appealing it.

I thought that was funny, because he was essentially playing the part of the
guy trying to cut into line (from his later example), and the cop was the
person _not actually arguing with him_ while not letting him get away with it.

Mind, stopping yourself from arguing with people who call you on doing the
wrong things is probably a wise change to make.

------
wladimir
Defeatism at its worst. If arguing is pointless, why even have your own
opinion at all? And what point does democracy have?

~~~
stcredzero
_If arguing is pointless, why even have your own opinion at all?_

So you can live your life by it?

 _And what point does democracy have?_

Democracy involves artificial environments and contexts where there are rules
constructed to make arguments follow a certain structure so they can be
settled through voting.

------
Calamitous
NO IT'S NOT

------
Charuru
Arguments are necessary. There must be a way to intellectually resolve
disagreements without resorting to ignoring the other. If one think that the
other person is hopeless, then the relationship is in a terrible state. That's
how wars get started. Humans should be above that, we should be able to
communicate well, and resolve differences of opinion with ease.

Currently much of the frustration associated with arguing comes from the
terrible tools and methodology we use.

Sign up for ArgueX. Real communication in arguments. <http://arguex.com/>

I'm a co-founder of ArgueX.

~~~
thejash
I'd be interested in this--I tried building something like it a long time ago,
but it's a very difficult problem.

~~~
Charuru
We think we have 'the solution'. Please sign up for beta. Invites will be
going out soon.

~~~
brlewis
Excited to see your concept, but if you want to appeal to the HN crowd, don't
store/email me my plaintext password.

~~~
Charuru
We're using Drupal, and from what I understand the password is md5 encrypted
before it is saved into the database. However it sends you a one time email of
the password before encryption. This is so that you have a local copy of your
password.

------
bigwally
Politely discussing issues with people can be very productive.

Arguing on the internet is pointless.

~~~
pbhjpbhj
>Arguing on the internet is pointless.

Have you never been convinced by a counter-argument delivered via "the
internet"? Not even enough to alter your position even slightly, nor even your
approach to others in presenting your position?

