
Ask HN: How to be less argumentative online? - Fr0styMatt88
Okay this might be a bit of an odd one, but here goes!<p>I&#x27;ve come to the realization that when I&#x27;m communicating online, particularly in chats, I&#x27;m really argumentative.  It&#x27;s like if someone writes something that I disagree with, I&#x27;m compelled to launch into a logical argument with them right there and then.  I&#x27;ve realised it&#x27;s a bad habit and I likely come across as boorish.<p>The weird thing is, I don&#x27;t think I used to be like this.  I love debate and hang around forums and HN a fair bit when online - maybe that&#x27;s the issue? It&#x27;s not that I actively want to &#x27;prove someone wrong&#x27;, but part of the way I learn is through argument; expressing my disagreement in the hope that the other person will prove me wrong and I might learn something.<p>So I&#x27;m throwing it out there to the HN community - anyone else in the same boat? How did you deal with it and break the habit?
======
smacktoward

       The Master does his job
       and then stops.
       He understands that the universe
       is forever out of control,
       and that trying to dominate events
       goes against the current of the Tao.
       Because he believes in himself,
       he doesn't try to convince others.
       Because he is content with himself,
       he doesn't need others' approval.
       Because he accepts himself,
       the whole world accepts him.
    

— _Tao Te Ching_ , Stephen Mitchell translation
([http://taoteching.org.uk/index.php?c=30&a=Stephen+Mitchell](http://taoteching.org.uk/index.php?c=30&a=Stephen+Mitchell))

~~~
majewsky
I don't agree with this particular articulation of this position. Stoicism
says something similar, "recognize what you can affect and don't mourn over
the things you cannot affect", but this quote up there is taking it too far.
This quote advocates for wise people to never try to convince other people,
which would leave politics to unwise people.

I would say: If you try to convince others of something, focus your energy on
one thing. You won't be very convincing if you argue "I've heard that X" on
100 topics, but it will be more effective if you go deep into one topic and
have a huge number of arguments on standby, with links to further resources,
so that you can create a concise and focused rebuttal when that particular
topic comes up.

~~~
smacktoward
_> This quote advocates for wise people to never try to convince other people_

Other chapters in the Tao address this objection, by emphasizing the value of
humility and leading by example over cleverness and trying to beat people into
submission with words.

    
    
       Express yourself completely,
       then keep quiet.
       Be like the forces of nature:
       when it blows, there is only wind;
       when it rains, there is only rain;
       when the clouds pass, the sun shines through.
    

([http://taoteching.org.uk/index.php?c=23&a=Stephen+Mitchell](http://taoteching.org.uk/index.php?c=23&a=Stephen+Mitchell))

    
    
       Do you have the patience to wait
       till your mud settles and the water is clear?
       Can you remain unmoving
       till the right action arises by itself?
    

([http://taoteching.org.uk/index.php?c=15&a=Stephen+Mitchell](http://taoteching.org.uk/index.php?c=15&a=Stephen+Mitchell))

    
    
       The Master doesn't talk, he acts.
       When his work is done,
       the people say, "Amazing:
       we did it, all by ourselves!"
    

([http://taoteching.org.uk/index.php?c=17&a=Stephen+Mitchell](http://taoteching.org.uk/index.php?c=17&a=Stephen+Mitchell))

~~~
andrepd
>beat people into submission with words

There's something oxymoronic about this phrase.

------
furyofantares
I’ve had a series of realizations that have helped me with this.

First was that I noticed that on most of my usual internet hangouts, the norm
was that if someone is replying to a comment, it must be a disagreement. Even
the occasional agreement is often mistaken for disagreement because it’s so
uncommon for folks to post in agreement. The more I noticed this pattern, the
less inclined I became to follow it.

Second was noticing just how much time and energy I would spend taking down
someone’s post in my head, even if I had gotten up from the computer and was
doing something else. And while there is something exhilarating about refining
an argument, clarifying one’s own thoughts, and then posting them and watching
for upvotes, there’s also a very negative energy associated with it that I
found lasted a while afterwards. So I came to believe it wasn’t a good trade
off.

Finally, a tangential realization. At work I noticed a pattern in others and
then in myself where product or technical suggestions would be made and then
developers would instantly chime in with the reasons it can’t be done. But it
can be done, we have the source code, and our job is to find a way to do it.
Dismissing it because our first thought doesn’t work is simply not doing our
job. So I learned to suppress any reactions until I’d actually attempted to
enable whatever was suggested, and I think this had an effect elsewhere in my
life, including posting on the internet.

~~~
moksly
I think the last part you touch upon is one of the natural dangers of our
profession. In my experience developers are simply extremely good at spotting
potential issues in projects.

Which can be very good if you’re trying to minimise risks or estimate tasks.
It can also be really bad if you’re doing it in the idea-generation part of a
project, and it’s just too easy to carry your fault focus into those meetings.
Especially if you go directly from development to a brainstorming workshop. I
know that this is something I’ve had to work quite hard at myself. Thinking
twice before speaking out, to make sure I’m going to contribute something
useful. Typically my golden rule is to keep quiet unless what I have to say is
positive or supportive. Because it’s exactly like you put it, it can be done.

~~~
hinkley
You manage what you measure, and we have been measuring over/under on task
time almost exclusively for at least twenty years.

------
air7
Like you I enjoy learning through argument. It rarely works though. This is my
conclusion: Most people only pretend to be having a discussion.

Actually they are engaged in an emotional battle. Usually the subject matter
is part of their self-definition, part of "who they are" so they can't really
budge on their opinion because it would shake their foundation. Instead they
will fight back with everything they have. Illogical arguments, anger etc.
Another scenario I see is when "winning" is the important factor, i.e the ego
is central. Then also budging is not really an option.

I'm getting better at realizing when the person I'm talking to is having a
battle instead of a discussion and disengage.

~~~
muzani
My rule of thumb is that if someone is trying to fight, I disengage.
Basically, if it's painful for them to agree with you, or painful for you to
agree with them, leave the conversation. If they go around starting these
fights all the time, then I block them.

------
TooCleverByHalf
I came across a comment on HN not too long ago that really resonated with me.
The commenter mentioned that they do not comment to have a conversation with
the OP. Instead, they treat commenting as writing notes about the topic at
hand. Because of this, they don't expect responses or anticipate an argument
(or even conversation). They mark down their thoughts and move on. It's been a
really effective mindset for me thus far ad has shaped my responses for the
better.

~~~
geoka9
> Instead, they treat commenting as writing notes about the topic at hand.

But for what purpose? Or is it just a way of tricking oneself as a coping
mechanism?

~~~
rbavocadotree
The purpose is to think better and understand more. Putting your thoughts into
writing is probably the best way to organize your thinking, determine what you
actually know, and further develop your thoughts on the subject.

~~~
geoka9
True, but why bother doing it in public? Unless you want someone else to read
your notes, and maybe upvote and/or reply to them?

~~~
muzani
"Writing doesn't just communicate ideas; it generates them. If you're bad at
writing and don't like to do it, you'll miss out on most of the ideas writing
would have generated."

Full source:
[http://www.paulgraham.com/writing44.html](http://www.paulgraham.com/writing44.html)

~~~
asdff
The value of writing is pretty clear imo. What doesn't make much sense to me
is posting your margin notes on a public internet forum.

~~~
yason
The "margin notes" are usually ten times more interesting to read than
"discussion threads" where few people try to convey their points back and
forth.

That sort of argumentation is generally just boring to read, lacks value, and
happens between the two or three people involved. As such, it doesn't really
contribute much value on a public internet forum and I usually skip all that
stuff myself.

You can sense if a comment is written for no one in particular. It washes away
all the need to argue, and it humbly gives to each reader what they're willing
to accept from it. This can be a lot or nothing but it all depends on the
reader, too.

I write comments with a similar idea in mind. I feel that if what I've written
might give one person an idea, point of validation, sense of similarity, or a
moment to seriously think about something for a while, it's worth posting. I
of course do not know beforehand whether this happens or which year it might
happen if it does. I rarely write as a direct response to the parent, and if I
do I tend to eventually diverge from the "reply mode" to "writing mode".

------
arconis987
Might seem stupid, but I found the following thought experiment interesting.
Discovered it on Reddit.

The OP was working in the finance sector surrounded by people whose values
conflicted with his.

He wrote something like this:

If you are in an environment surrounded by people with whom you disagree,
pretend that you are a Federation officer in an exchange program serving on a
Ferengi vessel. Most of the crew’s values will bother you, but you’re not
there to correct Ferengi culture. You’re there to learn whatever there is to
learn from them and contribute in a positive way to the running of the ship.
Being combative won’t change the Ferengi, but your positive example might
update some views.

~~~
furgooswft13
Well that scenario is almost literally a TNG episode (A Matter of Honor [0]),
just Klingons instead of Ferengi.

Though it is interesting that the Federation almost universally treats the
Ferengi with derision, while going out of their way to respect Klingon
culture. Over-the-top capitalist/misogynist versus over-the-top
barbarous/murderous. Take your pick I guess.

DS9 does address this a few times, especially Quark's speeches in The Siege of
AR-558. And Ezri does a damn good take down of Klingon honor culture right to
Worf's face in Tacking into the Wind, exposing the hypocrisy of it in an
empire riddled with corruption.

Dunno what thread I'm in anymore, but I do like Star Trek.

[0]
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A_Matter_of_Honor](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A_Matter_of_Honor)

~~~
fatbird
I think you put your finger on it there: Klingon honour culture. In other
words, there's an admirable culture underlying the exterior brutishness; a
human in Klingon society had something to grab onto that they could respect
and work with.

As I recall, the Ferengi never received the same thing. They were always their
miserable, grubby little selves. Even Cardassians were given an underpinning
of extreme loyalty to family and the security/success of their children, which
explained their rigid society as an outgrowth of that strong internal family
order. Some of the best scenes in all of Star Trek are where Garak explains
Cardassian culture--like how their literature is always about how the state is
right.

------
caseysoftware
Instead of trying to convince, try to understand.

Do they know more/different details that make their conclusion fit? Did they
already try "your" approach and it didn't work for their situation? Is that
their real point/position or is it something else and this is how it's
manifesting?

You may end up in the exact same place and want to argue but now you
understand how they came to the conclusion. But since you worked to understand
first, the person is more likely to listen anyway.

You may realize that you were wrong because you missed a key fact that they
can share with you. Thank them and you're both better off.

But more commonly, you'll realize that _MUCH_ of life doesn't have a clear
yes/no and is a tradeoff based on preferences, priorities, abilities,
resources, schedule, etc, etc.

There _are_ absolutes in the universe but most of the time, that's not what
the conversation is about.

------
tunesmith
It might be worthwhile to research "non-violent communication" (NVC). There is
some misinformation out there that it means not speaking clearly, but it's
actually entirely compatible with full and complete communication and
understanding the viewpoint of another.

It's valuable to understand different viewpoints, and also to share your own
arguments - it helps people learn from each other and discover shared truths.
So I don't think it's the arguing that is necessarily the problem. Arguments
are simply the reasoning behind conclusions. The ugly parts of argumentation
are more about style and irresponsible rhetoric.

(I'd also suggest that the common online format incentivizes boorishness. Most
comment threads don't make it convenient to have a full respectful sharing of
views. You're probably incentivized to lead with your provocative
counterargument to "cut to the chase", to minimize the chance of your
counterpart getting distracted and moving on to other things.)

------
beloch
I once decided that I should spend less time arguing online, so I collected a
few pieces of advice for myself that I try to obey.

1\. "People are allowed to be wrong on the internet." It's not my job to
correct people who are wrong. There will always be more of them.

2\. "One and done." Don't get into back-and-forth arguments. I try to limit
myself to one post on a topic and then do my best to remain silent. I don't
always succeed, but I try. Some people simply _cannot_ be wrong and no amount
of back-and-forth will make them change their mind. Let them have the last
word.

3\. "You might be the one who is wrong". Tying into #2, if you engage in back-
and-forth's it easily becomes a game where you have to prove you're right. If
you shut up and listen after saying your piece, you might actually find
yourself more willing to consider other points of view.

4\. "Political issues usually lack easy answers." If you're talking about
politics, remember that political opinions are highly dependent on a person's
point of view. What may appear dead wrong from your point of view may be
correct from another point of view. If an opinion is unequivocally correct
from all points of view it's probably not going to be politically interesting
or controversial.

------
dilippkumar
The absolute best advice I’ve ever read comes from the book: How to win
friends and influence people [0]

The title is dorky, and suggests a topic that’s completely unrelated to OPs
original question. But the answers are in there, written brilliantly, and is
especially effective for people who like to

>> ...launch into a logical argument with them right there and then.

Personally, that book changed how I’ve approached such situations
dramatically. I can not recommend this book strongly enough.

[0] [https://www.amazon.com/How-Win-Friends-Influence-
People/dp/0...](https://www.amazon.com/How-Win-Friends-Influence-
People/dp/0671027034)

~~~
mlthoughts2018
I also heartily recommend that book: it is fantastic.

But in regards to “negative comments” one challenge is what to do when faced
with a situation where you sincerely believe something is harmful if not
strongly countered?

For example yesterday on HN there was a post about online dating, and a number
of comments espoused an idea I viscerally believe is actively harmful: that
you should strive for some idea of “good communication skills” that facilitate
reading strangers’ body language in public and determining how to make an
advance for dating.

Now, I really believe this is harmful advice: it leads to actually hurting
people in the form of perpetuating social norms that bother people in public
and put them in unwanted, uncomfortable positions, and cause impressionable
readers to believe this is not just OK, but even healthy.

In a case like this, I am still at a loss of how to apply the sincere
listening and positivity approaches of How To Win Friends... because there’s
an overriding moral implication that the statements have to be visibly refuted
and challenged, not to “win an argument” not to persuade the original author,
but to leave a visible marker for impressionable readers about the serious
danger embedded in what’s written, to spell it out clearly and not leave it to
chance interpretations.

~~~
reallydude
> that you _should_ strive

I think that terms like "should" or "ought" are toxic. I can try to express
ideas in an objective way with limited assumption, starting with how I present
the ideas. Typically, I have found the substitution of "I think" puts my
thoughts in perspective. This has led to a few times where arguments felt
genuinely fruitful.

~~~
mlthoughts2018
That is an extreme view. It means all types of advocacy are toxic.

~~~
reallydude
That is demonstrably incorrect. My first post advocates for benefits that
might be found in a discussion without using specific verbiage.

~~~
mlthoughts2018
That seems like a semantic distinction only. Extolling the benefits of
something is not advocacy, at least not how I understand the term advocacy.
Advocacy means representing a normative view of what ought to be the case, and
suggesting that others _should_ take certain actions. It necessarily requires
an aspect of asserting a moral stance about the rightness or wrongness of
adopting or failing to adopt certain actions.

~~~
reallydude
> That seems like a semantic distinction only.

The semantics matter because of subjective interpretation. "I think" and
"should" and "the majority of subgroup x" are not usually correlated to be the
same thing, even though they seem like "semantics". The first is clear (why do
you think that?, is rarely asked), the second undefined (should doesn't have a
qualification) and the third subject to investigation (based on what
evidence?).

I have found that morality is less often an influential factor (spaces vs
tabs, fight) than the words like "should" and "ought" are used. YMMV

------
expherience
@fr0styMatt88 we've come to the same conclusion as well. We're all very
argumentative online. We get sucked into these bubbles of discussion where we
believe everyone else has the same critical thinking skills as we do. The
problem is that the playing field on most social networks where you would
otherwise debate these ideas is leveled where there is no opportunity cost to
having a bad opinion. Yes, people can like each others posts, but there is no
actual cost to them. I can give out millions of likes and only spend my time.

We were in the same boat you were, so we're building a solution to that
problem. We're dubbing it a Social Debate Network called TruStory. We break
the habit by posting our claims and arguments to beta.trustory.io

The network rewards open-mindedness, transparency, and humility. The problem
with social networks is that they incentive all discourse. With TruStory,
we're particular with what is incentivized to the benefit of those who would
like to make progress through substantive debate. If someone writes something
you disagree with, you can challenge it, though the finer tuned debate
functionality around counterarguments are coming a bit later, we have a lot
for what we are calling our beta.

We're still pretty early and are in the process of building out a lot of
features and functions, but would love to have you join and give us feedback
on what you think of the platform as we evolve! So far the community we've
developed around productive debating has been awesome and they love the
product given where it currently is in the roadmap. Everyone is open to
learning from one another. If you want, you can email me:
expherience@gmail.com and we can get you plugged into our Slack community!

Website: beta.trustory.io

------
harrisonjackson
This is really interesting to me, because I have the opposite problem. I'm a
total lurker/consumer-only of HN.

My comment here is a very rare response to something and I think I chose to
reply because it is so meta and as a member of the community it felt natural
to reply rather than just observe.

If my feelings can be juxtaposed next to yours, I'd say there is probably a
common thread despite our opposing actions.

I started reading HN and other forums and blogs around 2009?, but didn't
register an account here until 2012 when I needed one to actually apply to YC.

You act the way you do because of the role you've assumed in the forums you
are on. If you want to assume a different role then do that. Maybe start by
logging out or creating a new account. Maybe even delete your account. That
might reset the way you interact.

Counter question... how do I become more involved in the community?

Maybe the same advice applies and I should start over a new account to assume
a new identity/role. I don't know. I think I miss a lot of these types of
posts by sticking to page 1. I also think that my opinion on typical news
stories doesn't really matter so there is no value add. Even differing
opinions on HN seem to fall 1 of 2 ways so it's basically the echo chamber
with the same back and forth across any topic.

~~~
DoreenMichele
_Counter question... how do I become more involved in the community?_

What are you looking for? What would you want out of that? Why haven't you so
far?

------
egypturnash
Think about how much time you spend on this.

When you find yourself halfway through one of these responses, ask yourself:
Is this really a conversation I want to have? Do I really want to dig deep
into this and find evidence to challenge this person’s views, and am I willing
to consider changing my views if it turns out the evidence is there for it? Is
doing this a good use of a half hour or so of my life?

Usually I find the answer to this question is “no” and I close the tab.

~~~
wruza
There was a period when I closed around half of tabs with a complete answer
already written. Even if time is already spent, it may be not worth it to
discuss further, since in explaining to someone you explain to yourself and
your most constructive part is already done at this point.

------
randcraw
After a couple decades of verbal swordplay on the net, I have to agree that
slaying trolls has lost its allure. I've learned that a frontal assault on a
paragraph errant just isn't that compelling to write or read. In heaven and
earth and net, I aspire to more.

“Like what?”, you may ask.

In any conversation (online or not) I can choose several ways to engage:

1) I can directly confront the specifics that were written: a conclusion,
reasoning, or evidence. On the net it's typical to be contrary, but often in
ways that aren't especially imaginative or enjoyable for others unless they
too just want to argue.

2) I can bypass someone else's specifics and propose an alternative point of
view, a fresh perspective or a confounding dependency that isn't common
knowledge. This is likelier to introduce an element of surprise to the
exchange, inviting others to dive deeper into the problem or solution space,
encouraging others to employ more imagination and not be so binary in debating
T/F on each point of the assertions.

3) I can ask questions: for clarification, to suggest new dependencies or
implications, or propose factors or mechanisms that aren't necessarily
contradictions but might be tangents or parallels or essential unknowns.

And if I do choose option #1, to openly disagree, I can voice it in a less
confrontational style or focus on only the point I think is most interesting
or essential (or amusing).

The writing style I choose makes a difference too. Rather than making bold
pronouncements, if I can couch a point as my opinion or a doubt I have, I can
deflect rather than provoke.

In the end, I have to decide what I want from this exchange, to discuss ideas
or argue. Personally, I'm tired of the latter.

------
ggm
_came for the comment wars: was disappointed_

More seriously, there's ways to deflate the heat.

1) avoid use of language like _liar_ or _flat out wrong_ \- the first goes to
Intent more than correctness, the second is as hyperbolic as the million wrong
things which motivated it.

2) _I beseech you, consider but you are wrong_ : appeal to their better
nature, posit the alternative view.

2a) be prepared to acknowledge you may also be wrong

3) Hanlon's razor

4) Some people are just dicks but you don't have to feed it.

5) remember English is a federated language and to a welchman a faggot is just
a tasty meatball wrapped in caul-fat. Sometimes what people write is confused
or confusing and it can be reader or sender miscommunication or.. both.

6) thomism: do not attempt to rebut or convert. State your view and restate
it. Sometimes works but can be infuriating.

~~~
modo_
Completely agree with all the points here.

To expand on the first, I recently came across a tweet that provides examples
of ways to rephrase something to achieve a more neutral tone:
[https://twitter.com/shl/status/1164924044061237254](https://twitter.com/shl/status/1164924044061237254)

------
brownbat
You value open discussions of difficult ideas, but want to stop irritating
strangers and stressing yourself out.

You have nailed a core dilemma of online comments.

Just know that everyone's vulnerable when exposing their private ideas online.
Create psychological safety by showing that you hear them and demonstrating
that you're willing to focus on common ground.

Force yourself to write something good about the post you're replying to
first, or try to restate their argument in the strongest possible way up
front.

Be clear about your differences, but note what evidence or experiences might
change your mind.

Close by emphasizing points of agreement.

This approach doesn't guarantee civility, but ups the odds.

If your goal is really just creating space for you to cool off and walk away,
this exercise can help for that too. Iron-manning someone's ideas can help
make them seem less urgent.

If that's not fast enough and you really just want to turn your reactions to
comments off, mindfulness might work. You would want to focus not just on your
breath, but specifically on observing your triggers and how you process them
emotionally.

------
brudgers
_if someone writes something that I disagree with, I 'm compelled to launch
into a logical argument with them right there and then_

So am I. It's cathartic and I get a dopamine hit from running my brain through
my fingers into language. For me, the useful behavioral changes center around
the browser's back button and the 'delete' item on the edit menu. The back
button keeps me out of rabbit holes internal to me and delete keeps me out of
black holes of back and forth for the sake of back and forth. Both have helped
me better recognize when I am probably making more noise rather than signal.
Both give me an excuse to recognize when I don't actually know what I'm
saying, don't care about what I'm saying, and when what I am saying is an
over-reaction.

Writing this, I'd estimate >90% of what I start typing in little online boxes
gets deleted or never gets posted in the first place. I default to not posting
what I type because the typing is usually enough. Maybe I should have deleted
this.

~~~
unforeseen9991
I do the same thing a lot, I find it's often a case that I realize i'm just
being a dick or have some sort of emotional reaction, some I realize I'm just
adding nothing.

I do this far more often with e-mail, sometimes i'll be e-mailing my friend
about something, and then all of a sudden go on a big tangent about a problem
i'm having or facing and by the time I'm finished the e-mail it's a novel, but
I fleshed out my problems and it helped me immensely. I just delete the e-mail
at the end / send the one liner response I had in the first place.

Writing to someone else comes from a different perspective then just
journaling for yourself.

------
ChrisMarshallNY
1) Don't Sweat the small stuff.

2) It's all small stuff.

I'm actually going through a lot of navel-gazing right now, over this same
stuff.

I used to be a troll. I'm talking alt-board troll. I'm pretty good at
fighting.

And I don't like doing it anymore. I guess I'm getting old and tired. Fighting
is a young 'un's game.

When it comes down to it, there's not much I need to say (like this post is
really not necessary). I can learn heaps by listening/reading.

As Chauncey Gardner used to say "I like to watch."

------
muse900
I had the same issue, especially using facebook. I'd always go into those
arguments without a reason.

My wife pointed out, that I don't need to do that. She questioned me about the
reason I am going into those arguments with others especially the ones I don't
know and I'll never ever meet.

It made total sense to me. It changed me completely. Any time I want to say
something on the internet I just keep it to myself, and its great. I don't
need to think 'oh what is that person gonna say etc'.

I only express opinions of my own like the one I am typing right now and it
feels great.

So my advice is, next time you are about to go on an argument on the internet,
think of it and if its worth your time... and just don't do it :)

~~~
KajMagnus
> She questioned me about the reason I am going into those arguments with
> others especially the ones I don't know and I'll never ever meet

I think the feelings parts of our brains don't know that the Internet exist
and that the strangers on the Internet are so far away and that we'll never
meet them.

The feelings parts of our brains think they're here nearby, in the same group
of hunter-gatherers as us, and that their opinions will affect our day-to-day
life.

I think it's just normal to start talking (maybe arguing) with strangers on
the internet, and it's normal that it feels like a good idea ... And that one
needs to stop and think and use the more modern parts of the brain, to realize
that it can instead be a waste of one's limited time :- )

(An example of humans not being well adapted to modern technology.)

------
1e-9
I have a mental model of the world that allows me to function. It is largely
incorrect, but highly useful. A discussion is an opportunity to find modeling
errors, which I use to make corrections. There is no drive to be quarrelsome
when the goal is to improve.

------
bifrost
I've been online for around 25 years, I don't think it gets easier.

There are a lot of factors at play, but keep the old saying "don't cut your
nose off to spite your face" in mind, even if you win you argument are you
going to enjoy the results?

Also if you're repeatedly arguing with the same people, maybe disengage with
that group because you're probably not going to help them nor grow as a
person.

~~~
gridlockd
If you get into an argument with someone and they keep coming back for more,
they probably enjoy it in _some_ way. Just make it clear that while you
disagree, you still _respect_ them as a person. You'll probably be fine.

Rarely does one get into an argument with a whole group. That's a different
game that is best avoided.

~~~
bifrost
The social dynamics of groups are really interesting.

I'm in a Facebook group for vegans, where people continually justify eating
things that have meat byproducts in them because they're convenient or they
"don't believe its actually there" even though something is labeled as such.
Its quite comical. I also just stopped participating because it was
ridiculous.

------
koreth1
I struggle with this too. Some of the advice here is good and I won't repeat
it, but three rules I've found helpful:

1\. Wait before clicking submit. I write my reply, then go get a cup of coffee
or take a bathroom break or whatever. Then when I come back, I ask myself
whether the world would be better off if I closed the browser tab instead of
posting.

2\. Always add, don't subtract. If I don't have something substantive to
contribute that hasn't already been said, and I just want to cut the legs out
from under an existing comment, it's probably not worth the time and emotional
energy and it won't convince anyone anyway.

3\. Talk about the ideas. Don't make the response personal unless the person
I'm responding to specifically asked for a personal response (asking for
advice on a situation they're in, etc.) If I find myself writing the word
"you," it's a sign that I may be violating this rule.

------
tenebrisalietum
> It's not that I actively want to 'prove someone wrong', but part of the way
> I learn is through argument; expressing my disagreement in the hope that the
> other person will prove me wrong and I might learn something.

Start prefacing your respones with "I'm just playing Devil's advocate here,
but ..."

> I'm compelled to launch into a logical argument with them right there and
> then

People use methods other than logic to select actions/ideas, and will
recognize methods other than logic to defend actions/ideas. It sucks but it's
the truth.

Unless you are in a space that is dedicated to logic, like forums about
computers, programming, or engineering, it's rare you will really "win" any of
these conflicts or have any lasting effect, and it's rare pure logical
arguments are actually welcomed.

If you want to make people act a different way and continue to do so over a
period if time, many more tools other than logic are needed.

~~~
RockIslandLine
Two things that I've found are helpful for me.

Always make your comments about the policy and not the person.

Try to reference principles which give context to your comments.

------
gridlockd
> How did you deal with it and break the habit?

It gets old.

That said, I didn't break the habit entirely. It's one of those "guilty
pleasure" things. The important part is that you're otherwise pleasurable
enough to be around to make up for it. Everyone has their pathological traits
that others have to put up with, it's give and take.

------
the_watcher
I (think) I've successfully broken this habit after falling victim to it
constantly when I was younger. A lot of it is practice and accepting that
you'll be deleting or editing comments a lot at first (suggestion: if you do
either and they've been up for more than a few minutes, add a bit of context
to the edit or deletion). Another tactic that's helped is just writing out my
response, but not pressing send for at least a minute or so. I find it usually
causes me to imagine potential directions the conversation could go.
Oftentimes I just end up not sending if those directions are conversations I'm
not interested in having.

Re: learning through argument, I often find the time I take before sending the
response to be helpful in crafting the argument and learning how I feel. If
you really get value from this, have you considered writing essays and posting
publicly?

------
kitd
This article changed my view on all arguments, online or otherwise:

[https://haacked.com/archive/2013/10/21/argue-well-by-
losing....](https://haacked.com/archive/2013/10/21/argue-well-by-losing.aspx/)

A pertinent summary:

 _\- - - - -

I’ve come to believe that when two reasonably smart people disagree on a
subject, at the core, it is often because one of the following:

1\. One or both of the participants is missing key information.

2\. One or both of the participants made a logic error that leads to a wrong
conclusion.

3\. The participants agree on the facts, but have different values and
priorities leading them to either disagree on what conclusion should come from
the facts.

In my mind, a good debate tries to expose missing facts and illogical
conclusions so that two in the debate can get to the real crux of the matter,
how their biases, experiences, and values shape their beliefs.

\- - - - -_

~~~
Stratoscope
That is really great, thanks for posting it!

(Edited to remove my suggestion after you took care of it, glad that was
helpful.)

~~~
kitd
Many thanks for your help! Done.

------
talkingtab
I suspect that "hoping ... the other person will prove me wrong" is framing
the discussion in a way that will leads to being argumentative. So one thought
is to build a different context for how you answer. That might not help
though, because ...

The structural elements of internet discussions (including HN coments) does
not really provide the structure for what Paul Graham described as "attempts
to think" when he talked about essays. If for example, we, all of the readers,
attempt to think as a community about this problem, what are the tools that HN
provides to help us do that?

And its interesting because reading back over this, the first paragraph seems
to be somewhat argumentative, while the second seems more like at least an
attempt to attempt to think.

------
DoreenMichele
It's kind of a lazy way to get your intellectual needs met and it comes at a
high social cost.

It's fine to debate people. Just work on developing a more engaging style.

Of course, that's the opposite of lazy, so far easier said than done.

If you really, really can't stop, consider getting checked for an issue like
ADHD. Compulsive arguing, no matter how much it gets them burned, seems to be
something done by bright people with other issues that interfere with them
getting their intellectual needs met.

(I am not a doctor. This is not medical advice by any stretch of the
imagination, much less some kind of diagnosis.)

------
rdiddly
People can't seem to tolerate dissent or contrary opinions worth a damn
nowadays; is it possible you're not actually super argumentative after all? I
mean far be it from me to encourage someone who's honestly self-examining, to
look away from the mirror and blame everybody else in the world... but still.
Consider the environment you're working in.

But to the degree it's your fault, and even if it's not, it will help others
digest your arguments if you preface/frame them a little bit. _" The following
is me trying on ideas for size."_ or _" Hey what if..."_ or making clear it's
just your opinion rather than The Truth... _" I don't believe in ___ - I'm
more of the opinion that ___"_ Or there's always the standard disclaimer,
although I find those kind of ineffective and I'll give you an example: _" By
this I'm not trying to imply that your very existence is a foul and
intolerable travesty that must be eradicated across the land henceforth or
anything like that."_ It's ineffective because despite themselves they won't
think "Oh that's good," they'll be more like "HEY he said my existence is a
travesty!!!"

Anyway as a final note, some tact & humility is always called-for, since we're
all just idiots and precocious apes without the fur. You don't have a direct
line to The Truth any more than anybody else.

------
ddingus
Realize you have options.

Understanding does not mean acceptance or an endorsement.

Humor can often replace righteous indignation.

You can control your end of a conversation.

You should understand why you argue. It might not be easy to identify. Talk
with trusted others.

~~~
ggm
I love righteous indignation when it's expressed with humour. Dry wit is often
like bullets

~~~
ddingus
Me too. IMHO, it is often more potent.

------
jccalhoun
Work on phrasing in a non-combative way, ask questions, and define terms.

Communication is a combination of content and delivery. You can have great
content but if it is delivered poorly then it is much less likely others will
appreciate it. And if you deliver a message with poor content then people
might be dazzled by your bullshit but in the long run they will see through
it.

So work on how you deliver your content. Being someone who likes to argue is
fine if you actually mean argue and not insult. If you truly want to learn,
ask questions. I have found that is a great way to get good answers online.
Say someone writes, "Politician X is horrible." but I think politician x is
great. I will resist my urge to insult or just say "No, you are wrong!" or
even "What does that mean?" which can be read as having a nasty tone and
instead write, "What are some examples of things you think politican x has
done that is horrible?" Then I can decide if this person is worth engaging
with. If they give an answer that I think indicates that we are entirely too
far apart then I stop engaging and move on.

This is also part of what my dissertation advisor beat into my head: define
your terms. For example, if someone writes, "Most people believe X" well what
does "most" mean? 50.1% is a lot different from 99.9%. If they mean 50.1% then
maybe we aren't that for apart and we are only disagreeing over whether it is
49.9% or 50.1%.

------
elorant
Incidentally the only place where I'm less argumentative is HN and that's
because I know that people in here are, generally speaking, knowledgeable, and
quite often experts in their field. So I guess it boils down to how much
respect you have for a community. In Facebook in contrast, everyone seems
entitled to their opinion even when they don't know what the fuck they're
talking about. With years you learn to not give a damn and only bother talking
to communities you appreciate.

------
aantix
Use your voice.

It’s hard to be argumentative when you can hear the other person give pause,
provide inflection, a slight tremble of fear.

Every written statement online reads as a grand proclamation and it’s getting
old.

------
benburleson
If I feel strongly enough to "argue" something online (which is a pretty high
threshold already), the approach I take is to use questions. Try asking the
parent about some assumption in their logic, and what happens when that
assumption is false? Often, it helps to be truly inquisitive in a situation
because there is always something to learn, even if that is just understanding
another viewpoint. Just try to not sound condescending when asking questions.

------
fatbird
Over years and years of arguing online, I started to notice that few people
change their minds. For most, argument is a sort of self-confirming rehearsal.
You're being challenged to see if your articulation holds up to their assault,
not to see if their position agrees with yours.

It became frustrating to witness this because, in part, the same arguments
kept getting repeated. The same debunked points, the same rhetorical tactics,
the same back-and-forth got boring to read and I started to feel like we were
unable to solve or advance anything.

So I started not participating, but kept reading. I'd still see interesting
information or links or citations. Lurking was still fun. And a funny thing
happened: once I stopped participating, I became much more empathetic. I
didn't agree with others more, but I felt much more to understand their points
and their perspectives as "I could agree with this under these circumstances".

Nowadays I participate only to clearly rebut false information, to expand on
something I agree with, or to inject good data. I'm rarely combative now, and
I feel like I get a lot more out of online communities as spectator than a
gladiator.

------
alexashka
It's quite natural to disagree on many subjects.

In person, there is an unspoken rule to establish some level of trust and
comfort before discussing contentious subjects. Some go so far as to suggest
avoid discussing religion and politics altogether.

Online, the unspoken rule isn't present and as a result, people sometimes
simply state what they think and how they feel without the natural
consideration for the person they're interacting with.

There's limited information to establish common ground and hence remaining
neutral, constructive and polite can be difficult. The part that I enjoy is
the freedom to make mistakes - especially when it comes to taboo subjects. You
can mold your stance through discussion without the worry of reputation damage
that always lingers in real life. One can easily squander this privilege in
favor of using the internet as a place to release emotional frustration
anonymously (twitter for a lot of people) and it's good to be able to identify
if that's someone's main drive, to avoid trying to reason with them
altogether.

In short - being aware of the difficulty introduced by the communication
medium can go a long way towards re-calibrating your expectations of yourself
and others.

------
chousuke
I sometimes like to argue just for the fun of it, but I do recognize that
there are some arguments that are not worth getting into, or that the context
is not suitable for an argument.

I try to restrain myself to calling out the most obvious hooey I see, because
I think that there are some unsubstantiated but seductive ideas out there that
are flat out dangerous if left unchecked.

I also try to pay attention to my vocabulary. My first choice above was not
"hooey".

------
AdrianB1
Online communication greatly suffers from lack of context. When you talk to
someone face to face a lot of the message is coming from the body language and
the tone of the voice, this makes it clear when the person is joking, serious,
naive, confused or whatever reason to look in disagreement with you in a
written online conversation. This keeps things from escalating most of the
time. Not online.

The measures I took for myself: \- ignore conversations with lower importance.

\- argue with people I know, I trust they are smart enough to understand the
discussion and interesting enough to communicate with. Ignore strangers, there
is always some stranger that is wrong on Internet, it does not matter, it is
not your job to "fix" it

\- read several times before answering and read my answer several times before
pushing the button if the discussion is heated

\- take in consideration cultural differences. I find even this place very
different for me (Eastern Europe), I see myself downvoted for apparently no
reason (but there is one, I guess), I see opinions that look strange or even
outrageous - I figured out most of these are due to cultural differences.
Diversity in not what we wish to be, not yet (diversity in opinions).

------
JansjoFromIkea
Avoid arguments or trying to prove points on twitter, the character limit
thing means that it's impossible to be totally clear and guarantees people
will respond to fragments of the overall point

Focus on expanding your own world view, focus on expressing your points over
dismantling others. Ask questions, try to find a place the other person is
coming from that you can agree with, if you can't find this it's going to be
hard for a consensus to be reached.

Acknowledge when you're talking to someone who isn't willing to entertain
alternative viewpoints and bail. Don't bother with any kind of "I don't have
the energy to continue this nonsense" style exit.

If possible try to avoid outlets where there can be a metric by which to
determine a winner (e.g. likes/retweets) but if they are there then try to not
factor them into your discourse.

Maybe keep track of when you do these arguments too. I always find I'm wayyyyy
more argumentative online when I'm looking for excuses to kill time, which is
a pretty crappy starting point for me to be coming from even if my points are
valid.

------
ignoramous
A submission on news.yc about _a guide to difficult conversations_ might have
relevant titbits to help with argumentative nature.

[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=19490573](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=19490573)

Quoting a gist from the blog:

> _At the core of NVC is a straightforward communication pattern: “When
> ____[observation], I feel ____[emotion] because I’m needing some
> ____[universal needs]. Would you be able to ____[request]?”_

> _At first glance, this looks easy. But in practice, it’s extremely difficult
> to pull off. To grasp the complexity, NVC makes some subtle but critical
> distinctions: observations versus evaluations, emotions versus thoughts,
> universal needs versus strategies, and requests versus demands._

There in fact an entire book on the subject (part of recommended reading by
Sam Altman for startup founders):
[https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/560861.Non_Violent_Commu...](https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/560861.Non_Violent_Communication)

------
znpy
> It's like if someone writes something that I disagree with, I'm compelled to
> launch into a logical argument with them right there and then.

You should probably realize that 99% of arguments on-line are pointless. And
you could probably use your time in a better way (for yourself).

Nowadays most platforms try and indoctrinate users to the mantra that your
opinions matter and that you are special.

The thing is, your opinion is one in a trillion other opinions. It doesn't
matter. Nobody cares.

Realizing this helped me a lot, because I now usually skip the flame bait
entirely. Sometimes I start writing a comment or a reply and then throw it off
and switch to doing something else. Sometimes I write a reply and post it.

I realized, as I write, that realizing that my opinion doesn't matter and that
nobody cares made me switch to taking part in conversation that I genuinely
find interesting instead of "somebody is wrong on the internet"-kind of
conversations.

This is my experience so far. Nobody will care, and I'm fine with it.

You're of course 100% free not to care about it :)

------
Jach
Focus on making something, you'll be too busy (or maybe just too tired outside
of it) to spend time arguing with people.

More generally, avoid "idle hands", which is a poor phrase since arguing with
the internet is a very idle thing to do despite lots of hand movement whereas
reading say a book of philosophy from the 1600s is probably going to be better
for you and involves less hand movement.

Or like another comment says, wait. This is probably your most realistic
option anyway. It tends to get old as you get old too. Sometimes it's the same
arguments (sometimes with the same people, but even without that) get old, or
eventually stop mattering to you on an alief level, regardless of your "it
does/doesn't matter" verbal belief level. Sometimes it's because you advance
your own thinking and then find yourself at a place where it's just hard to
find people with the same background context, so when you do engage others
before you can argue about what you actually want to argue about, you first
have to futilely attempt to close the inferential distance they lack because
they haven't read the books you've read or whatever. It gets old.

As a remark on the top comment, I got into Taoist philosophy quite a bit in my
teens. It helped (helps) not being attached to outcomes or having a "need" to
argue apart from it being pleasurable, it helps cultivate "it doesn't really
matter" views, but it didn't stop me from entering a very argumentative phase
anyway. It's also fun to just discuss things, but the very act of bringing
topics and edge cases and implications thereof up for discussion even if you
don't strongly hold a conclusion can still comes across as "argumentative". Oh
well.

Are these one-on-one chats or group chats you're mostly in? As a word of
caution, arguing with people one-on-one is a great way to eventually not chat
with them at all in the future. (On the other hand not arguing with them is no
path to long term conversation either. Not everyone is a creature of the
internet.) Sometimes you'll find that rare buddy who seems to indulge in your
arguing, and can change _your_ mind from time to time too, and they exist, but
then some of them are fighting what they perceive to be an attack on their ego
rather than what you think is an ego-free discussion trying to reason about a
topic and so regardless of the intermediary results the final result of no
longer having conversations at all is the same.

------
grawprog
I realized you can't really change the opinions of other people, in the end,
for the most part, what other people believe doesn't really affect my life and
there's better things I can spend the energybon. Plus, sometimes I like to
just sit back and watch other people get worked up while not really giving a
fuck.

------
losvedir
Er... just don't respond?

There's no value in "debates" on the internet. I've seen really interesting
technical discussion here on HN but it's mostly just people chiming in with
their experience using a tool or talking about something they made. Contribute
to those sorts of discussions and ignore the rest.

------
johnchristopher
> It's not that I actively want to 'prove someone wrong', but part of the way
> I learn is through argument; expressing my disagreement in the hope that the
> other person will prove me wrong and I might learn something.

If you don't put this into the preamble (e.g.: for the sake of the argument)
of your opinion then there's no way other parties can infer that you are
seeking more information through disagreement (or something along the lines of
the Socratic methods).

But people aren't punching bags for you to use in order to get to know more.
Most don't like being abused and misled regarding your real intentions.

I'd deal with it by just replacing the habit of being argumentative by the
habit of closing the tab and get back later to it to see if you can still add
something more valuable to the conversation than adding fuel to the fire.

------
tempguy9999
I start to be A Dick when faced with silly behaviour. If I'm wrong, let me
know with evidence and I will appreciate it or outright say I'm wrong. If I'm
right then accept it or at the very least acknowledge the evidence against.

Right, wrong, who cares, just so longs as one of us learns then the world's a
better place and that's what I want.

If someone keeps pushing a losing position or asserts X without justification,
or can't be bothered to read what I wrote, or a post with evidence I spent
time collating gets downvoted sans reason, I get pissed off and The Dick races
out of the blue corner, fists swinging[0] (and DanG often ends up wielding the
big stick to calm things down).

How do I cope with it? - I am thinking of leaving HN. It's avoiding the
problem not solving it, but it's a solution of sorts.

[0] Well I hope those are his fists swinging.

~~~
TooCleverByHalf
This seems effective for some things but falls short in cases where things
aren't so black and white (most?).

~~~
tempguy9999
WRT online interaction, for me it's only HN. No other social media.

In other areas of life, F2F disagreements don't happen much, if they do they
can be sorted out much more easily. I don't know why.

------
BurningFrog
Arguing is like the old Tolstoy quote: _" Happy families are all alike; every
unhappy family is unhappy in its own way._

That is, you could do any of a dozen things wrong, and without seeing your
debating style in action, it's kinda impossible to say what _you_ need to
change.

------
rolltiide
You can respond to a topic without responding to the arguments or convictions
that people had.

like if you are making a comment on bitcoin block size limits, and noticed
that another blockchain has an interesting solution, someone might ignore your
observation and simply have a derogatory statement about another blockchain
while not realizing that this limits their view of what the bitcoin block
chain can be modified to do. You can ignore that and just keep talking about
what happened and how it could possibly help the bitcoin blockchain

the similarity here is that these are divisive political arguments within that
community, which echoes the divisiveness in country's politics that seem to be
a part of everyone's life now.

------
kdjdj
This is advice for myself as well. A) realise the people on the other side of
the chat can be anyone. Literally anyone. So don’t be offended by them or try
to teach them anything. You could later find out you are jsut as wrong. B)
keep composure and be nice to them. Nothing disarms a person than being nice
and having manners. C) people that are usually rude and aggressive only are
just defensive about their own insecurities. It might be hiding something
deeper and they are using you as a reflection board.

I still have a lot of trouble controlling myself but I am getting better. I
think all these instant gratification of social media has made us trigger
happy; especially platforms like twitter.

------
nitwit005
One mistake you see with nearly all electronic communication is assuming very
negative interpretations of what people are saying. This is the cause of a
great deal of office drama with email.

I think you have to remind yourself to assume the best of what you read.

------
yuhe00
Everyone is different. Nowadays, if I post something, it is either: a) I have
something to share, a bit of knowledge/opinion/story. If this is the case, I
already know I am correct, and as such do not really care about the response
and it's very easy to walk away, or b) If I pose a question, in which case I
will be open to any response because I'm genuinely curious. I think I used to
care more about what other people thought when I was younger and more
insecure. Sure I can still be proven wrong, but I usually do not care enough
to respond. I just learn and move on.

------
genshinh
It sounds like you are aware of this pattern, so your work is mostly done.
Good job!

Rely on whatever practice helps you to inject space when you're caught by the
desire to disprove an internet stranger (take a deep breath, notice what
you're feeling, count to ten, whatever helps).

It's possible that you were like this before and just unaware. It's also
possible that this extends to areas of your life outside of your internet
persona.

In my experience, just try to say curious about it. Don't shut your own
process down, or try to 'solve' it too quickly, as though you're arguing with
yourself on an online forum ;)

------
xupybd
I've had this issue too. Mainly around politics. I wanted to engage with
people outside of my political spectrum. I found that I could ask them what
they believed and sometimes that would get a little bit of a response but
often even that resulted in a hostile response. If you don't speak the lingo
and agree with the people you're talking to I think online conversations just
don't work that well. I've had far better luck in person. I think we are just
not wired to debate online with strangers, in a civil way. We have to have
face to face conversations to challenge ideas.

------
miguelmota
I've learned that it's very hard to convince people online, particularly over
social media (ie twitter), because either 1) these people are unwilling to
openly admit that they are wrong because their 'expertise' in the topic will
be questioned and they will lose social status value 2) these people think
it's weakness to openly admit that they are wrong so they will insist they are
correct in order to try to keep up their 'image' 3) these people are simply
convinced that they are correct and therefore won't change their ability to be
convinced otherwise

~~~
en-us
Sometimes the point isn't to convince the person you are discussing with, it's
for the benefit other observers. So if I see someone comment something that is
factually wrong I'll often correct it and just leave it at that, no to
convince the person but for the benefit of those who don't have time to fact
check everything.

------
scanr
We built a little B2B startup that involved a lot of technical sales. One
thing I realised quite quickly is that if I started arguing with a prospect it
would only result in them entrenching their position. Not useful if that
position means they won’t buy your product.

I think the reason is relatively obvious. When you’re debating, you spend all
of your time trying to think of all of the ways your position is the correct
one. So it’s not surprising it becomes entrenched.

If the outcome you want to drive is the opposite, it’s basically wasted
effort.

------
SkyMarshal
A simple rule can help with this - rephrase all your assertions as questions.
Questioning instead of asserting is inherently less argumentative, is less
threatening and more likely to cause the other side to seriously consider your
point instead of reacting defensively automatically. It also signals that you
respect their opinion, making them more likely to respect yours. You
accomplish almost all the same goals as asserting, but in a gentler, more
mutually respectful and ultimately more effective way.

~~~
Stratoscope
Are you sure about this? Do you really believe that merely restating an
argument as a question will make it more friendly? How do you expect anyone
else to believe that?

Just kidding! Please forgive me, my friend. I only wanted to illustrate in a
hopefully humorous way that just changing an assertion to a question isn't an
guaranteed fix.

You did mention some key points: Don't be argumentative or threatening. Be
gentle, kind and respectful. Look for ways to make your communication
effective instead of triggering defensive reactions. Respect others' opinions
and recognize that you may not change their views.

I would add that when someone's comment triggers something in you (I mean any
of us, not you specifically), that's a good time to step back, get away from
the keyboard, and go do something completely different. And really do
something different that occupies your mind in a different way - don't be
fuming over the online conversation the whole time.

There is a chance that when you do get back to the conversation you will have
a new perspective or will at least have calmed down. You may even find that
you simply don't need to reply at all.

These are all matters of the heart, and even if asking questions instead of
making assertions won't automatically fix everything, it may be one good place
to start. As long as you don't ask questions like the ones in my first
paragraph!

So I am sorry you got downvoted for your valuable comment. I hope some of the
downvoters will reverse their votes.

~~~
SkyMarshal
Fwiw, I've been practicing this for years, it's effective, and I didn't just
pull it out of my arse.

That said, it requires some nuance and subtext awareness to ensure it comes
across as authentically asking, rather than coming across a know-it-all with
delusions of being Socrates, or a trial lawyer in a courtroom drama.

And if you're a recognized expert on some factual topic and are correcting
some incorrect statement of fact, just assert. However very few people meet
that bar, and often argue vehemently for something that later turns out to be
embarrassingly wrong. Better to have just started with questions instead,
especially if the topic has any degree of complexity to it.

~~~
Stratoscope
Oh, I agree completely, and I hope my lame attempt at humor wasn't too
offensive.

I only meant it as a caution: it's all too easy to take one point out of a
message ("ask questions instead of making assertions") and neglect the many
other wonderful points you mentioned about being calm and respectful and all
that.

------
therealdrag0
A lot of great ideas here.

One specific tool I've used is to frame comments in terms of "My impression is
..." or "I've heard that ...", this makes the conversation less of a personal
battle, so much as sharing observations about the world and inviting the other
person to stand next to you and look out at the world with you and share their
different observation and you can compare and contrast together.

------
leetcrew
one thing that makes this difficult on the internet is that people seem to
assume you are arguing with them by default. I've noticed that I tend to get
an argumentative followup even if I am agreeing with the OP unless I
explicitly state at the beginning that I agree.

I suspect that the very structure of voting-based comment sections intensifies
this. if you actually follow the etiquette, you upvote posts you agree with
instead of leaving a comment to say so. on the other hand, you are _not_
supposed to downvote comments you disagree with. this probably tips the
balance enough to make the median comment be a rebuttal to OP. of course,
people sometimes respond with supplemental information, but people either
twist this to interpret it as an argument or take it as an implicit critique
of OP for not including all the relevant information.

in the end, I don't really have any advice for you; I think it's just inherent
to the medium. I personally enjoy arguing a lot, but many people I know irl do
not. so I just accept the internet for what it is and get my arguing fix here
and stick to lighter topics irl.

------
buboard
Isn't that normal? I view forums as spaces where ideas are _debated_ so that
the right can be separated from the wrong and where every argument has to be
tested by all angles so it can really shine. A forum where people pile up with
"This", "What she said", "+1" and tons of likes is a social network with
social dynamics which are uninteresting.

------
oblib
> How did you deal with it and break the habit?

You have to learn to not give a shit.

A lot of times I decide it's not worth my time. Not because my time is so
valuable, but because I'd rather move on and do something else. I don't always
have to make a point even when there's one wanting.

Learning to not give a shit really just requires you stop and ask yourself "do
I really care about this?"

------
rgovostes
This recent article from The New Yorker, featuring the HN moderators, touches
on online civility. [https://www.newyorker.com/news/letter-from-silicon-
valley/th...](https://www.newyorker.com/news/letter-from-silicon-valley/the-
lonely-work-of-moderating-hacker-news)

------
tvanantwerp
There was a very helpful sentence I read (rather unrelated to the article as a
whole) that I try to keep in mind:

> My only reason to do it would be to prove the claim wrong but he’d just
> ignore me and no one else cares.

Source: [https://www.gwern.net/Nootropics](https://www.gwern.net/Nootropics)

------
a3n
You probably get a bit of a thrill, or some other reward, from the argument.
Whatever it is, be aware of it.

Beyond that, Postel's Law is pretty decent, for protocols and for people.

[https://duckduckgo.com/?q=postels+law&t=fpas&ia=web](https://duckduckgo.com/?q=postels+law&t=fpas&ia=web)

------
vlokshin
Don't think of it as an argument.

Think of it as debate, after which either you or the person you're debating
with will learn something.

Debate makes for progress and understanding, and we shouldn't be afraid of it.
But I completely understand where you're coming from, given the general social
media climate today.

------
bjt2n3904
A lot of the suggestions here are answering, "how do I argue more
effectively". Some are suggesting to consider argument futile (to varying
degrees).

Mostly, I want to argue when I'm angry with someone. Online, I'm becoming less
and less interested in discussing/arguing with people I've never met, such as
yourself. Far too often, nothing comes of it but more anger.

Slightly more interesting is if there's a common forum or issue (ie: github),
but most interesting is people I've met in person.

What I'm trying to do is ask myself, am I angry with this person? If so, is it
really worth engaging them this moment? (Sometimes you need to--but offline is
usually better for that.)

If I do have rapport with them, and I can address my anger first, then there
may be some usefulness in responding to them. But, I don't want to contribute
to America's 24/7 outrage culture any more.

If you're interested, I wrote a little more about this here.

[https://medium.com/@bjt2n3904/mass-shootings-dealing-with-
ha...](https://medium.com/@bjt2n3904/mass-shootings-dealing-with-
hate-d8de36f17f16)

------
mmcnl
> It's not that I actively want to 'prove someone wrong', but part of the way
> I learn is through argument; expressing my disagreement in the hope that the
> other person will prove me wrong and I might learn something.

Why not express yourself truly and just say this out loud?

------
jackcosgrove
One way is to find a better forum.

If you post a thoughtful response on some topic, and someone else responds
"not in good faith" in all the thousand ways that can be done, and this
pattern repeats itself, you may find your blood pressure rising. Then it's
time to get out of Dodge.

------
aj7
I try to at least be polite. I'm signaling that the opposing viewpoint is that
of a person.

------
loteck
Dont sweat it, we aren't convincing each other anyways. Take a year off. Read,
but never post anything except agreement and expansion. If you dont agree,
quietly think about why and move on. See how you feel about this approach
after a year.

Start with this comment!

------
AdieuToLogic
> It's like if someone writes something that I disagree with, I'm compelled to
> launch into a logical argument with them right there and then.

Perhaps this haiku might help:

    
    
      A Master will say,
      To make a donkey follow,
      Be the horse that leads.

------
kalado
Write your response but wait 5 minutes before actually sending it. If you are
like me you'll ask yourself "what's the point I am trying to make here",
delete everything you wrote and carry on with your day.

------
lidHanteyk
Don't worry about it. This is a natural response to wrongness. You're not a
bad person for wanting to help others see truths. Just don't forget that
you're often wrong, too.

~~~
Zanni
There's a quote from Niels Bohr that's helpful here, "The opposite of a
trivial truth is trivially false; the opposite of a great truth is also true."

Where people go astray is mistaking the one for the other. If someone is wrong
about a point of fact, it's easy (and potentially valuable) to correct them.
If you find yourself wanting to correct someone on their ideology or value
system (liberal vs. conservative, religious vs. atheist, tabs vs. spaces),
you've set yourself an impossible task. All you can do is 1) agree on common
facts, 2) make your opinion as clear as possible (in that order).

------
badrabbit
Just remembet that every mind lives in it's own world. I think the more we
seek truth as opposed to proving ourselves right we can be less argumentative.

------
dmourati
Start with what you agree on. Read to understand and learn. Be kind. It's okay
to disagree but really only after you've done those things first.

------
IAmGraydon
Keep in mind that when you’re trying your hardest to convince others of
something, it’s often the case that you’re really trying to convince yourself.

------
InfiniteStyles
This one is pretty simple, the way you become less argumentative online is by
arguing less online.

------
raincom
Detach yourself from the ideas you argue. That helps. Or get attached to
something else that is not related to what you argue with.

------
aklemm
I'd like to see a threaded conversation that's video-only and maybe with real
names and addresses.

------
collyw
Try meditation before you go on Reddit or wherever you find yourself arguing.

------
scarejunba
If you’re arguing to make someone right, you’re doing something for them for
free. I don’t mind you putting in that work. If I don’t help you, I can leech
off your contributions. This is the perfect situation. Keep doing what you’re
doing.

------
FearNotDaniel
Obligatory and totally appropriate XKCD comic:
[https://xkcd.com/386/](https://xkcd.com/386/)

But seriously, I often find the memory of this cartoon is the easiest thing to
help me to let go when I feel the compulsion to post a dissenting comment
online. So much internet 'debate' is so utterly toxic that it's very easy to
start feeling that being argumentative is normal.

Other commenters appear to be giving you good advice on how to be more
reasonable when you to engage in discussions. That's perfectly valid; I'm also
saying think of the opportunity cost of engaging in those discussions at all,
maybe there are more constructive and rewarding ways you could be spending
your time.

------
naiveai
My answer is that it isn't anywhere close to a bad thing. Our civilization can
only continue to improve through measures and attitudes like this one.

------
ssss11
Just care less about what others think.

------
m0llusk
Nonviolent communication: cnvc.org

------
strin
Listen and hear all perspectives:)

------
platz
Abide by the principle of charity

------
andrewstuart
Engaging is a choice you have.

------
otakucode
I studied Philosophy in college (alongside CS). It's basically all about
argumentation. I do not see argumentation as anything negative, assuming the
context is correct. It is how we come to understand one another and, largely,
the world. Our intuitions, the automatic understanding that we come to from
the blunt associative process in which our brain relates things, are almost
always wrong in very profound ways (especially in modern society which the
brains structure, which gives rise to those associative processes, did not
evolve for). Everything else comes from discussion and argument.

The correct context is necessary, though. Equally as important as both
participants (or more) using the same language, all participants must be
interested and willing in participating. I would recommend, if in something
like a general chat environment, that you ask if they're interested in
discussing the topic. If they're not, then move along. If they are, make it
clear from the outset that you want to understand why they believe what they
are claiming, what led them to the understanding, what they believe they gain
from it, what evidence they might have, etc. Asking questions, well made ones,
can often go a long way. But sometimes people just want to rant and aren't in
the headspace to have a sit-down real discussion.

There will still be times, regretfully frequent, where it will become clear
that either one of the participants is engaging in bad faith or, more common,
do not actually understand their own position clearly. For many, their beliefs
are accumulated like flotsam as they drift through life rather than through
deliberate consideration of evidence. Those people might benefit from hearing
you speak, but not from a back-and-forth dialog. There is very little general
appreciation for finding out one is wrong. Most people flinch away from it and
take it as an insult and will interpret honest questions like 'Why do you
think that is?' as snide dismissal of their own positions, reading it
incorrectly as an assumption that they are clearly wrong and you are just
trying to figure out how they ever managed to become such an imbecile. There
can't be any honest discussion with people in this position. It will just
devolve into them shouting no matter how calm you yourself remain.

There are always opportunities to engage with people honestly, for some people
that takes a long time. Often once they realize that your goal is not to make
them look or feel like a fool, that your goal really is to understand a
different position or even just explain your own so that it is understood even
if not necessarily agreed with, most people will become more willing. Some
will only have earnest conversations with those they are familiar and close
with. As with all human interaction, it depends heavily on context.

I have always liked and tended towards a Socratic means of explanation
(Socrates taught primarily by asking questions, getting the other person to
essentially lead themselves to understand what he meant through recreating the
reasoning process he himself followed) but I realized after awhile that a lot
of people find this approach highly difficult to engage with. They often see
it as you 'forcing' them to say things and 'putting words in their mouth'.
This happens particularly with people who don't have a reason-based basis for
their beliefs but more of an emotional connection to the ideas and don't like
how saying certain things 'feels' even if they can admit intellectually that
they are actually true.

Argumentation is an art. It probably can't ever be made 'simple', but it is a
critical part of our society and time invested in learning how to do it better
through practice or study will usually be richly rewarded (at least in an
intellectual and personal sense).

------
medlyyy
There's several things to keep in mind that can help. I also would prefer to
approach discussion as an argument as that is the most direct way to learn and
clarify your own thoughts. Unfortunately due to how people are, the situations
where argumentation is actually effective for that purpose are all too rare.

I try to approach most online discussion from a perspective of understanding
rather than trying to convince, argue, or prove something. This also directly
aligns with the goal of learning, because, well, that's what I'm trying to do.

The first thing it helps to realise is that every individual is at a different
level of understanding. Not everyone cares that much about learning &
understanding, so often people are just repeating things they've heard and
internalised. It takes work and time to "unstick" people who are like this
from their current mindset, and for anonymous conversations on the internet,
that's never going to be worth it. You're also unlikely to learn anything by
engaging in argument as they probably don't even know the reason themselves
why they believe what they do.

The second thing to think is - is it worth it? What will really happen if this
person continues to believe as they do? Is whatever you can potentially learn
from them even worth the time? Even if you do end up continuing the
discussion, asking yourself these things can help you step back and
communicate from a more collaborative, flexible place.

As other commenters have mentioned, communicating by text on the Internet is
difficult to convey exactly what you meant. No matter what you write, some
people are going to misinterpret you. A lot of arguments I've seen happen when
both parties essentially talk past each other, quoting each other's responses
but never actually engaging with each other's points. Whether because they
didn't read the initial post carefully, or they basically understand the other
person's points but think something else is more important so argue about that
instead, while the original poster thinks that's irrelevant and continues
trying to convince the replier that they're correct. Often if you came right
down to it and somehow magically gave everyone a clear, semantic understanding
of the content of what the other person was saying, there would be no
disagreement. But these kinds of things seem to happen a lot and cause a lot
of bad feelings.

The other thing is that actual disagreements about verifiable facts are rare
between two reasonable people, once the relevant knowledge sources have been
shared. If someone is unreasonable, just don't engage with them at all.

Much more often, each person has a certain context of personal experience
which informs their opinion. When both people express their opinions through
text, it can seem (to each other) like they're in conflict, when in reality
the different opinions are each applicable to different situations and equally
valid given each person's individual experience. This can be difficult to
notice, but something to be aware of.

In summary, a process you might go through when reading something is:

1\. you have a knee-jerk "that's wrong" reaction. You need to stop yourself
from immediately saying something in response.

2\. Carefully read (and re-read) what they actually wrote.^1 Try to interpret
it charitably - based on what they did actually write, what are they actually
meaning? Usually if you're in an argumentative mindset, you interpret things
more adverserially than they actually are.

^1: I can't count the number of times I've started writing a response, then
before I submit I go back to read the post I'm responding to, and see
something I missed that makes a large part of my post irrelevant and
unnecessarily negative.

3\. Try to understand where they're coming from. If something isn't clear,
before you do anything else ask non-confrontational questions, giving them the
benefit of the doubt. If you've got to this point, probably 90% of unpleasant
arguments are already avoided.

4\. Put forward your viewpoint and have a discussion as normal.

5\. Apply the same charitable interpretation to every response and be willing
to admit when you're wrong. If the discussion is getting heated and feelings
are potentially getting involved, de-escalate as fast as possible, even if
that means admitting you're wrong when you don't actually believe that.
(Ideally you would convey respectfully that their points have merit in some
way and just leave the discussion rather than straight up lying.)

Throughout all this, remember that people other than the person you're
discussing with are likely reading what you write, so even if you're failing
to get through to the individual, other people may find significant value in
your discussion (even if they will likely never actually reply and say so.)

Additionally, if you're behaving respectfully and setting a good example while
the other person is getting emotional, other people with no emotional
investment will tend to take your side even if they know literally nothing
about the subject matter. There's simply no downside to making the effort to
consider the other person's emotional state and mindset because it makes the
experience better for everyone.

------
philwelch
This might not be ideal, but I just don’t bother engaging with people where
there are deep fundamental differences in terms of basic values or worldview,
especially when it’s obvious they’re not interested in hearing anything
contrary. My goal isn’t to convince anyone, it’s to find people with whom I
already have some shared basis of understanding and reach a point where we can
at least understand each other’s perspective.

If I’m truly confident that somebody else is deeply and fundamentally wrong,
like creationists or Holocaust deniers or whatever, I don’t take
responsibility for their misconceptions and I don’t think I have anything to
learn from that person so I just ignore them. Convincing such a person that
they are wrong conveys zero benefit to me and is not something that the other
person even wants me to do for them. I guess a more positive way of phrasing
that is that, when I pick arguments, I do so just as much to give the other
person a chance to convince me. If there’s no chance of that happening, it’s
not worth my time.

------
thisiswilson
There's a XKCD for that. [https://xkcd.com/386/](https://xkcd.com/386/)

------
known
Seek Citation?

------
leekh
I give fewer shits.

------
leet_thow
Don't be this guy:
[https://www.trolino.com/image?id=108767](https://www.trolino.com/image?id=108767)

~~~
dang
Please don't do this here.

