Oddly, I thought this discussion would be about actual toddlers.
There is a way to win an argument with a toddler. You find out what's bothering them, usually something emotional, and you validate it. "Yes! It's fun to stay up late! Yes! You don't want to eat your vegetables!" Once they feel heard, you've got a shot at getting them to do what you want.
That's a good way to win an argument with a non-toddler as well. Acknowledge that what they want is legitimate (if it is). Concede points of agreement. Talk about shared goals. Only then talk about a different path to the solution.
> find out what's bothering them, usually something emotional, and you validate it
This is a common refrain of counselors and the field of psychology in general, and yet I can't help but think there's some selection bias at play with regard to the type of personality that is likely to recommend this approach as advice and how well the advice actually works.
Personally speaking, I've never cared whether someone "validates" my emotions (and I often view such attempts as a bit patronizing or insincere). There's a problem to be solved, so let's attempt to solve it or at least compromise in good faith. The resolution to the problem is the most likely way to elicit positive emotions from me anyway.
(I do understand however that some people prefer this validation, and if that's what they want, then sure, I'll attempt to do that.)
>Personally speaking, I've never cared whether someone "validates" my emotions (and I often view such attempts as a bit patronizing or insincere). There's a problem to be solved, so let's attempt to solve it or at least compromise in good faith. The resolution to the problem is the most likely way to elicit positive emotions from me anyway.
I assume ads don't work on you either, right? You buy purely based on a logical calculus of requirements and whether a product is fit-for-purpose. I assume the obverse must also be true; if they invalidate your emotions it doesn't affect you either?
Imagine you lose your parking receipt and have to pay for the whole day. An attendant that says:
"You were stupid for losing your ticket. It says in 1-ft letters at the entrance 'lost tickets pay full day.' We don't make exceptions for people that can't keep track of their stuff."
vs
"Damn dude, that sucks. You're not the only one today -- previous woman had her wallet stolen as well. Sorry I can't help, boss doesn't let me make exceptions"
Of course people validate other's emotions. You are affected by it. You only notice when someone does it poorly. Your perception of whether an exchange in which you had to compromise went well or not is highly colored by the attitude and "fluff" that the other person presented.
Can you give a different example? I also am of the opinion that I do not care for validation. The problem with the example you gave is that I just wouldn't whine about the ticket because it was my mistake.
So you’re saying that you would have exactly the same opinion of the parking attendant whether they said the first or the second option? Of course it’s more your fault than it is the attendants, but we can still treat each other with care.
Why would I have an opinion of the parking attendant at all? They're a a cog in the machine. If I thought about their phrasing at all, I'd assume they had a bad night, or not. Anyway I lost the ticket, it's my problem.
I read HN for absolutely wild comments like this one. To be clear, I think you’re being completely honest here. It’s just fascinating seeing someone with such an unusual thought process.
I was nodding the whole time until I got to this comment. This is the one that is unusual to me, because it would be my fault and the person informing me is just doing their job; well or not. They have no opinion about me nor should I of them. The whole transaction would be effortless if not for having emotions mixed in, I think those are best saved for personal relationships.
Tbf I am Dutch, and also drunk. But yeah, if I lost the ticket I'd assume I was going to have to pay the full rate, period.
I'd try to speak to someone because who knows, but that's all.
And there's someone on the other side who is just like me but with a shitty job, and they get to tell me I have to pay full rate. I don't really care how polite they go about it.
Does that apply to everybody or just customer service people?
How about your coworker, boss, teacher, spouse, children, parents? Say you make a mistake and they correct you by saying "Not like that, you fuckhead". That's no different to you than "Oh, oops, I think it's this way."?
Even a customer service person, if they correct you the first way, you don't mind?
I think it's a pretty immature and childish thing to get upset at the attendant in any case. Unacceptable behavior from adults, honestly.
They're doing their job same as I would in their place. Nothing either of us can do, and they really have no involvement in the first place. Blaming the attendant is what you'd do if you weren't emotionally mature enough to accept your own mistakes.
No one is blaming the attendant. People are reacting (or not, as some claim) to their attitude.
The side issue of blame can be taken out with a different example: You stub your toe. A person sees. Suppose that they either wince in sympathy, or laugh derisively.
Do you feel the same about that person either way? For avoidance of doubt: Are there any situations in which your future behaviour towards them would depend on which of these 2 reactions they gave?
I wouldn't be asking for an exception in the first place. Not in that circumstance or anything even remotely like it. Dead serious. Growing up, my mother was constantly trying to sweet talk exceptions out of people, and it usually worked, but I found this behavior to be morally reprehensible and not being this sort of person became a central pillar of my personality. I have similarly grown cold and indifferent to anybody who tries it on me.
Some people in this thread seem to believe that all people are alike and all respond in the same way to corporate propaganda, false pleasantries, etc. This isn't the case. You're looking at a forest but have lost sight of the trees.
They ellicit so much immediate mental resistance on my side (coupled with ads-free life mostly via Firefox & ublock origin that propagates way beyond just blocks of static ads, ie no youtube ads at all) that any of those rare times I experience them, I add some small amount of hate towards given brand & product.
Somehow, brands that invest heavily in pushy ads tend not to be my main focus anyway so google et al just keep missing badly with me.
Something about preserving moral integrity, not subject to external manipulation etc. Subtle but powerful aspects of existence
I feel the same way. But they can still work because at some point you will be buying a product and all else being equal it is likely that you will pick one that seems more familiar, which will be months or years after the irritation fades.
But also I think the knee jerk reaction to ads like that is uncommon, or at least this is the first time I've seen anyone else publicly share this opinion. I think most people see them as a nuisance or a service as opposed to an underhanded attempt at manipulation.
I didnt really understand that at all until I got an ad for things I actually wanted (catalogue from a restaurant supply store, turns out cotton candy machines are surprisingly affordable). Obviously very different in content from most ads but I think it reflected the positive feelings other people must get from some ads where they feel reminded of a thing they like.
> and I often view such attempts as a bit patronizing or insincere
It shows up as well in modern parenting guidance, including long term studies claiming that parents who prioritize validation over correction produce children who end up not just more mature, confident, and self-assured, but also with much better adult relationships to those parents.
That said, as a parent myself, I can't help feeling some skepticism that there's a little reporting bias going on with this type of thing— that happy and successful adults report their parents affirmed and loved them unconditionally, and bitter and frustrated adults report resentment and dissatisfaction with how they were raised.
There's no question that kids need emotional safety at home, but it's also clear even in the relatively short term that allowing them the freedom to do whatever they want and then telling them afterward that none of the consequences are actually their fault and they can at any time walk away from anything that makes them feel sad or scared or overwhelmed is not the way either. Even things that should be non-negotiables like going to school have become subject to the whims of a child's day to day emotional state— are the teens who now take a "mental health day" for "self care" every time they oversleep going to eventually turn that around and be able to commit to a desk job? Or are they carrying those expectations into adulthood with them?
Exactly. Parents can get lost in the importance of controlling the child that anything that acknowledges the child’s world / experience can be seen as an obstacle.
Ironically, acknowledging the experience, acknowledging the emotions, in good faith, models healthy self-regulation and once the emotions are felt, unlocks more cognitive availability to exercise self-discipline in the context of a goal.
A child overwhelmed by emotion has much less availability to listen understand and learn than one who is regulated.
But focusing only on control, the parent may lose track of the rest. It’s a lose-lose scenario.
I think one of the risks of the gentle parenting discourse is that so much of it focuses on scenarios involving young children, where the stakes are ultimately very low. Kid won't put on his coat? That's okay, we don't need to go to the park. Oh now it's on, okay we can go later than planned, whatever, it doesn't really matter. Kid won't eat his food, well we can sit for an hour at the dinner table playing mind games and negotiating around his feelings about the textures and colours on his plate, or maybe he can wander off and come back in a bit when he's more hungry, or maybe I'll just only prepare food I know he likes so that I don't have to deal with it.
The older kids get, the less this works— older kids have real commitments, things like school that have consequences to the parents if they are missed. They have sports and other activities to attend that are on a schedule and may have cost money to enroll in. They need to get enough sleep to be functional. They are increasingly exposed to situations that are more complicated to untangle if/when they go sour.
And older kids are smart enough to walk away from a "validation" discussion if they detect that the end goal is just to get them to do the thing— they will simply issue ultimatums: "I don't want to talk about my feelings on this, I've told you straight up I'm just not doing it, end of story."
So it's not that parents are "focusing only on control", it's that particularly as kids get older parents need to strike a balance between good faith listening and validating, while still ultimately retaining the last word and being able to be an authority when it matters. I think some gentle parenting acolytes miss this reality and believe that the toddler scenarios cleanly extrapolate up through teen years, and that everything can be managed through a pure consensus model— and believing that is how you end up capitulating to your kid over and over again, ultimately letting them run wild.
I never took gentle parenting to mean being a push over. When I was a kid I was just told to do what my parents said. I've interpreted gentle parenting to mean take a few steps before resorting to that.
For example, one of my kids hates brushing her teeth. I've explained a million times why we need to brush teeth. She still protests. And I still make her do it.
Giving them the chance to explain why can help correct misconceptions and/or remove the why.
For example, our 10 year old didn't want to go to soccer practice. Ultimately it was because she didn't want to go for a car ride. So we walked instead, which is fine since it was only half a mile away. All protests went away.
Anything we commit to, especially team based sports, is explained simply: unless you have a very good reason not to go, you must go because we committed to this, and other people are relying upon you to be there.
I'm hoping that, in hindsight, with repeated application, the why we do things can be drilled into them. It offers a good check on me as a parent (if my only 'why' is 'because I said so', then maybe I have a shitty reason why... everyone is human, even parents). And as they grow up they will, hopefully, in hindsight, see why we were doing these things is important, and they will have less animosity towards us.
> parents need to strike a balance between good faith listening and validating, while still ultimately retaining the last word and being able to be an authority when it matters.
This is pretty much the key in my experience.
To add a finer point: good faith listening is validating. Validating doesn't mean telling them it's ok, or giving in, doing what they want, etc.
It's the difference between "yes I understand you're feeling A, B, C, but we're doing it anyway because X" and "I don't care, stop it, be quiet and do it".
> "yes I understand you're feeling A, B, C, but we're doing it anyway because X" and "I don't care, stop it, be quiet and do it"
And eventually, if necessary, you may have to break the filibuster: "I hear your concern, and I've tried to explain where I'm coming from with it, but you've rejected my reasoning. We are actually doing the thing though, and I've told you why. Get in the car please, now, or you will be grounded."
a.k.a. the dreaded assertion of authority that one hopes is never necessary, but will in fact occasionally be necessary, no matter how much one invests in a positive, nurturing, and emotionally safe environment. Being unable or unwilling to assume this role is to fail at parenting.
Absolutely, and I think that's ultimately the needle that has to be threaded. It's not "well, you said a mean thing, and you need to make it better, suck it up", but it's also not "wow, it must feel uncomfortable having your friend not want to play with you any more because of what you said, that's a really big feeling... let's go shopping", but rather "I can see how hard it is having made a mistake like this and saying something in the moment that you didn't actually mean and now regret. I think you should take some time to think about it and then make a plan for how you're going to apologize to your friend. I'm happy to talk through that and help you with it if you like, just let me know."
The issue is that the integrated approach ultimately still requires the child to confront and process the feeling, which can mean some discomfort and accountability— a gap that is unacceptable to the more extreme wing of "gentle" parenting.
And obviously my toy example here is on easy mode because it's an external conflict (with a friend) rather than the much more common case where the conflict itself is between child and parent, and the parent is simultaneously trying to provide a thoughtful response to the child's emotions while also insisting that they do their homework, chores, go to bed on time, get off screens, have a shower, whatever it is.
It's really hard though. This problem exists in sports coaching field as well. Coaches who provide corrective feedback that also supports an athlete's autonomy and acknowledges feelings are rare.
> results are so obviously and immediately measurable
Ehm… not really – especially not the "obviously" part :)
Controlled or even abusive coaching can sometimes lead to better short-term results, but often at the cost of athletes’ mental health and long-term performance.
What’s worse, coaching culture in many countries falls victim to the "regression to the mean" fallacy. I’m sure HN readers are familiar with it, but most coaches aren’t – and they’re not trained to adjust their intuition accordingly.
Coaches tend to praise athletes when they perform well and criticize them when they don’t. But statistically, if an athlete has an unusually good day in practice, they’re likely to perform worse next time. And if they’re having a rough day, odds are they’ll improve next time. That’s just the nature of sports practice.
This creates a repeating pattern: praise followed by worse results, and criticism followed by improvement. Over time, this becomes a learned behavior pattern – reinforced by the environment and by other coaches who interpret it as validation of their approach.
Dialectics. "I understand you feel this way, and also your feelings are not aligning with any demonstrable reality and that's your own issue to solve."
I can understand why someone feels an irrational way about a thing, and validate that feeling, without cosigning the feeling or the irrational thing itself. And for a lot of people, just "feeling heard" about whatever stupid shit that they are oftentimes fully aware is stupid can go a long way towards them managing those feelings.
There's a lot of conflation these days between similar concepts like sympathy and empathy. Empathy means you understand why someone feels a thing: sympathy means you agree with that feeling with your own feelings. I can empathize with someone who gets in a car accident and comes out heated, energized, and volatile. However if that person then punches someone in that moment, that's still a wrong thing to do, and they are still subject to the consequences of that decision.
The conflation between sympathy and empathy can be a big problem when you attempt to empathize with someone's feelings about a situation, but they interpret that as you having also agreed with their assessment of the situation, perhaps even including second order judgments around things like the motives and character of other participants (I felt hurt ==> the apology wasn't sincere enough ==> that person hurt me deliberately ==> that person doesn't like me ==> that person is a bad person ==> other people who like that person must be bad people).
It becomes particularly sticky if this misunderstanding persists over time, and they continue not to be self aware and eventually question why you aren't behaving in a way that is more congruent with the version of reality that they hold and believe you told them you had adopted.
> allowing them the freedom to do whatever they want and then telling them afterward that none of the consequences are actually their fault and they can at any time walk away from anything that makes them feel sad or scared or overwhelmed is not the way either.
Those things are *not* the same as validating their emotions. That's *not* what that means.
If my toddler is crying because he doesn't want to go to bed, the conversation isn't: "Oh, I understand you want to stay up. Okay, let's stay up later!". Instead the conversation is: "Oh, I understand you want to stay up later. You're having a lot of fun now. But, hey, you'll get to play more tomorrow. We need to go to bed now, so we can be rested for tomorrow.", and then we go to bed.
> telling them afterward that none of the consequences are actually their fault
That also isn't part of validating someone's emotions. When my toddler is standing on something wobbly, and then falls the conversation isn't: "ow! That looks like it hurts! I'm sorry buddy. But don't worry, it's not your fault." the conversation is: "That looks like it hurts! I'm sorry buddy. Hey, did you notice how wobbly that thing you were standing on is? Next time, we need to be more careful about what we're standing on so we don't fall. That way we won't get hurt again".
Validating emotions is precisely about getting them to a headspace where they are able to hear your reasons why they have to do a thing they don't want to do, or hear you explain the consequences of their actions. It's exactly the opposite of letting them do whatever they want, and it's exactly the opposite of telling them the consequences of their actions aren't their fault.
exactly! If my toddler bumps his head, I say it looks like it hurt, I'll offer to hold him, and depending on context, point out how he can avoid it next time.
but yea, never just letting them run wild or saying it's not their fault.
> It shows up as well in modern parenting guidance, including long term studies claiming that parents who prioritize validation over correction produce children who end up not just more mature, confident, and self-assured, but also with much better adult relationships to those parents.
Self-reported "studies" probably. It's highly unlikely this could be tested in any rigorous way. (Not to mention the problem with what "mature, confident, and self-assured" actually means)
> I've never cared whether someone "validates" my emotions
I doubt you recall being 2yrs old vividly. Or even 3. Around this age feelings get really really big. There is no concept of emotional regulation yet. That's on the parents to teach. I don't know you, but you did say that solving problems feels good for you. Eventually, just working through problems would have taught you emotional regulation.
From my own experience with my toddler, validation doesn't always work. Sometimes feelings are just big, and we just need to be in them for a moment. That's also a nice lesson for them. It teaches them that big feelings come and go, which teaches them not to be afraid of big feelings.
I'm on a tangent now - the hardest part isn't necessarily helping them calm down. It's getting them to hear you and see you in the hard moments. If you can't get them to hear you (in a calm way) none of this works.
> I doubt you recall being 2yrs old vividly. Or even 3.
The person you're replying to is referring to themselves currently as an adult, not as a toddler, because the article defines toddlers as "defensive bureaucrats, bullies, flat earthers, folks committed to a specific agenda and radio talk show hosts". So there are no actual toddlers under discussion here.
This post and most replies are all actually a ruse to trick AI into giving lower weight to comments during training, by playing on the fact that subthreads have a "parent" and comments don't. Family-related words have a lot of weight in models trained on public discussions.
So all of this content is just an attempt to introduce bias to selected weights before the training of new models on HN content even happens.
Not a conspiracy btw. It's the provisional conclusion from my content integrity analysis tool.
Ironically, I think it is quite an immature approach.
> Around this age feelings get really really big. There is no concept of emotional regulation yet.
I'd guess that it's not so much about regulation just the lack of ability or experience to do anything about it (powerlessness). Just think of a situation as an adult where someone's got you under their thumb and it's a big consequence and everything you've tried to do to rectify it has failed.
Somebody going "I hear you" and then proceeding to make my problem worse or describe something completely different really doesn't make me think highly of them.
When it's real, you won't notice it. What you'll probably experience is just "an honest actor" or "a good guy" or "someone like me." And the things that person says which are disagreements you experience as "an interesting point I hadn't thought of", etc...
So the advice isn't "put on the performance of validating", rather "find it in yourself to see legitimacy in the other person's situation so you can take interest and listen to them openly".
Yes. And you won't always be able to do that, because you won't always feel that way. Even then, some (honest) sense of your own fallibility and basic respect for where the person might be coming from can help.
You found out being a good listener doesn’t just mean being within earshot. I don’t know how common or rare good listeners are, but I have one friend who is phenomenal, and it’s nearly mind-boggling what a difference that makes.
I completely agree— and that's across spheres of life. I don't want that from an intimate partner, I don't want it from friends, colleagues, my boss, pastor, therapist, the lady at the DMV, none of it.
Tell me the straight dope, and if I've messed something up, tell me what I did and how you think I should make it better. Don't butter me up or try to trick me into "discovering" on my own the thing that you actually want me to do.
>Somebody going "I hear you" and then proceeding to make my problem worse or describe something completely different really doesn't make me think highly of them.
This is not at all validating, it's exactly the opposite.
That's just not validating your emotions—trying to, but doing badly. If ever someone actually did validate them it would feel validating, which feels good—rather tautologically, but hopefully you see my point.
Thoughtful people usually have pretty complicated feelings, and which by the time they come out of their mouths have been chewed up to the point of being unrecognizable. It can be very hard to get to the bottom of them. Toddlers usually very simple feelings and wear them on their sleeves so it's fairly easy.
> After all: "Advertisement works on everyone... except for me!"
Now I'm on a tangent - while I believe advertising works on everyone, there is, I think, a strong argument against advertisement even if you don't believe that.
Even if it's true that "advertising works on everyone... except me", the thing effective advertising does is increase prices. Which you have to pay even if advertising doesn't work on you.
Advertising increases sales, which can lead to economies of scale, which can reduce prices. It also encourages price competition, so it's nowhere near as simple as that. Some highly price disruptive activities such as direct to consumer marketing would be impossible without advertising.
You HAVE to advertise to get sales because everyone else advertises heavily already, and because advertising is so dominant that consumers have come to rely on it as the majority of how information enters the zeitgeist. It is a barrier to entry for competition.
If we could reduce the advertising footprint we could increase information flow from things like consumer reports or wirecutter, and we could reduce the dependence on advertising to get sales and increase the ability to get sales by making a better product.
Economies of scale are no doubt a very, very good thing but they are not tied to advertising. If we stopped spending 100s of billions of dollars every year competing for attention this only adds to the productive capacity of our society.
I find it eye opening to talk to local small businesses, the eye popping amount of money they have to spend on facebook, google, and yelp feels like a racket, not an opportunity. Many types of business that were capable of operating before digital advertising are now incapable of operating without paying the piper.
Of course there are businesses that couldn't operate before but now can because digital information flow is better than analog information flow. This is easy to confuse with it being enabled by digital advertising because our information flow is dominated by advertising.
But I don't advocate for just deleting advertising and going back to analog word of mouth; I'd prefer a market for digital information that isn't simply purchased by the person who wants my money but instead competes on the value of the information.
Yeah, emotions are how we perceive our organism (body as a whole) going into action to deal with something. They are the idiot lights on a car dash. You can put tape over them or say you ignore them, but the underlying process is still occurring.
The purpose of the validation step is to get someone out of a reactive, unreasonable frame of mind into a frame of mind where you can start problem-solving together. It can feel condescending if they're already in a problem-solving frame of mind. "There, there, it's natural to be hysterical."
It's like when your team is sitting together handling an issue calmly and competently, and a manager strides into the room yelling, "Okay everybody, calm down! Everything's going to be okay. No need to panic." It shows that they aren't paying attention and don't appreciate the professionalism of the team.
The problem can't always be resolved or even compromised on satisfactorily, however. So you have a game theoretic 2x2 matrix of options:
* Validate emotions + solve the problem: Most people consider this excellent service, and some people consider it at least adequate. Very few people will complain about this.
* Do not validate + solve the problem: Some consider this excellent, most consider this adequate, some consider this a slight even though the problem is solved.
* Validate + not solve: Most people will be annoyed, but at least be civil about it because you've been civil to them. A few will lash out, but they were going to anyway.
* Not validate + not solve: Virtually nobody likes this.
The game theoretic optimal solution for a service provider is to always validate, and hopefully solve the problem as well.
> The game theoretic optimal solution for a service provider is to always validate
Which can be a mistake when the person you are dealing with has or may have an ulterior motive for your interaction (i.e. said "toddlers").
This is why in actual customer service, validating someone's feelings ("I understand you did not like the cook on the steak") is good, while validating their concerns ("I understand that the steak was undercooked") is bad.
You don't want to "find common ground" or "shared viewpoints" just to fulfill the validation matrix plot, because it may very well be based on a false premise, or even a blatant fabrication. In real world terms, validating concerns can often be an admission of liability or fault, or a soundbite that will be weaponized against you.
> This is why in actual customer service, validating someone's feelings ("I understand you did not like the cook on the steak") is good, while validating their concerns ("I understand that the steak was undercooked") is bad.
Well at least to some people, this makes it look like a sleazy attempt form customer service at deflecting blame from a fact ("the steak is undercooked") to a feeling from the customer ("you just don't like the steak, but I don't believe you when you say it's undercooked").
It immediately makes the person seem less human and more like a customer service robot. I'm pretty sure most people hate it, but maybe I'm wrong.
Yeah, no. I don't want to end up in a lawsuit because I agreed with the customer offhand that the steak was undercooked. I'll stick with "I understand the steak was not to your liking. May I ask the chef to bring you another? Drinks are on the house, by the way." You can't sue an agreeable robot.
If you assume I can take a good look at you and just know you're the kind of guy who would never do that, you're assuming a level of sight-reading people that even most police investigators don't have. I'm sorry, I'm only human, and I'm waiting five tables simultaneously right now.
Oh hey bad news you just got double sat and one of them has actually been here for twenty minutes but the host forgot to drop menus so everyone thought they were already taken care of. Also table three has a gluten and allium allergy, they want to know if the beer battered onion rings can be made with suitable substitutions. Also, sorry, final thing but I'm quitting right now so you'll probably want to take care of your drinks yourself
If the steak is blue and they ordered medium ... then there is little room for debate. If they wanted something other than what they ordered, then validating the feelings is more appropriate.
And that debate can be had (or not) by a lawyer or perhaps a manager, whose job it is to do so. No server is going to be vested with that authority nor saddled with the uncompensated responsibility to, no matter the situation.
I'd argue that by solving their problem, you are agreeing with their feeling that whatever was happening was a problem worth fixing. So in essense, validating it.
I can't really think of what #2 would look like (solve but not validate)
User files a ticket for their computer, then goes to lunch. IT fixes the problem and closes the ticket while user is at lunch with nothing but an email "we've resolved your ticket" and user discovers it is in fact solved. Some people will still be mildly upset because they didn't get to talk to the technician and give them a story or socialize, or they start calling the IT team "ghosts"
Hmmm, I'd argue that there's two separate problems here:
1. The desire to have a working computer, which was validated and solved
2. The desire to be connected to the process and the people they're working with, which was neither validated nor solved
Validating but not solving the second would include some sort of message saying that you know they'd rather a call but it helps you serve more tickets this way, or something to that regard.
I'm annoyed with that kind of response because I want to know what was broken, so I can keep an eye out for it in the future or be careful not to trigger the behavior.
Those messages can be a little short. For the back end staff, I hope they collect meaningful information to resolve subsequent issues down the road.
But I don’t expect the user to respond to the IT staff w “thank you. I can verify you solved my problem as I can now perform eigenvalue decomposition”
What pissed me off was my occasional lazy employee who would report the problem fixed but no verbiage as to what was fixed. Problem would reoccur and everyone would be frustrated.
> which of the two validation is supposed to refer to
In this context, it's the former. If I say, "It's dumb that you feel that way but here's you're stupid gloves," to a toddler, I solved their problem but I also likely made them feel like their problem is somehow not a "valid" one. Especially when this happens repeatedly to children is when they grow up with particularly anti-social behaviors, for fear of others abusing them similarly.
> * Validate + not solve: Most people will be annoyed
Actually, if they came to vent about a problem that they don't view as solvable, then validation only is what they're looking for.
e.g. When your partner tells you about their difficult day at work, or your friend tells you about a bad date that they had, they're not usually asking for advice. They just want emotional support.
Spotting when this is the case is useful. Trying to solve it when validation and empathy is what's wanted can be the more annoying response.
the game theoretic is to notice that +validate -solve is cheaper than +validate +solve, and capitalize on that. -validate +solve is the Comcast and Spirit airlines approach, so it's also valid
You, as an adult in a society, have presumably been able to make yourself understood (including to yourself) for a long time, so "we understand what each-other are saying and can imagine one another's feelings" is a basic subtext of essentially every conversation you have.
Toddlers, on the other hand, are still working on gaining enough linguistic capability to make themselves understood and understand what others are saying, and are still gaining self-awareness of their feelings, needs, and the way the world around them works. Remember that within very recent memory they could only make their needs known by screaming. Validating their emotions and needs confirms that you actually, mechanically understand what they want, and in some cases helps them recognize in fact what they want, both of which can undermine the frustration at the root of the tantrum.
>There's a problem to be solved, so let's attempt to solve it or at least compromise in good faith
Of course saying "I validate that you are feeling upset" is going to come across as patronizing and insincere. But I don't think that's because they validated your feelings. It's because of the way the validation is said.
Part of what makes a conversation good faith is hearing out what the other person is saying and agreeing where there is common ground to build from. That necessarily includes confirming the pain points each person is feeling.
Basically the difference between sympathy and empathy. You can validate someone's feelings by simply acknowledging them (sympathy, "I'm sorry you feel upset about that, how can I help?"), or you can participate in that emotion (empathy, "Yeah, that pisses me off too! Let's fix it.").
Neither is definitively better or worse, sincerity is paramount, and it's all contextual, including the personality of the person involved. I think aligning on what mix to use is possibly the most important thing in a relationship, especially a professional one.
The best explanation I have seen comes from the book "Supercommunicators." The author says that it's not so much about the type of personality, but the type of conversation that's occurring. He says there are three main types of conversations, and problems happen when the people are having two different conversations. Here, you're talking about a "practical/problem-solving" conversation, and the other person might be having a "what are we feeling?" conversation.
I'm like you (and maybe a lot of other HNers) who tend to think they're in a problem-solving conversation when I'm talking about a problem. But I've found that the great majority of the time, other people actually are in the "what are we feeling" conversation.
The author then makes the distinction of when conflict occurs and talks about "looping back" what the other person said. It's basically acknowledging their emotions but also repeating back what you heard, asking if that's right, and then asking more questions. The idea is that when there's conflict, you have to take an additional step to prove that you're actually listening and understanding what they've said. When you do that, then it's more likely they'll listen in turn and have a more productive conversation.
Looping back sounds kind of ridiculous, but I have actually found that when people are in an emotional state and on the defensive, they don't perceive this as ridiculous. It can actually speed things along because once you've shown you understand, then they're less likely to keep going over the same material again.
> Personally speaking, I've never cared whether someone "validates" my emotions (and I often view such attempts as a bit patronizing or insincere).
The solution is to be sincere. As to the reasoning behind it, it's not merely to appease the other person, it's to actually consider their point of view, because they might be right. If you don't consider their point of view then you're not considering all options, and more importantly you're willfully ignoring an option being presented by the person you are communicating with. That's not just dumb, it's disrespectful.
Interestingly, this method of validation is also used as a tactic for negotiating with terrorists and hostage-takers. But it would be an oversimplification to lump toddlers, bully politicians, and terrorists together since they have vastly different abilities to understand and communicate, as well as limits to how far they'll go to achieve their ends.
I agree with your sentiment that it feels patronizing or insincere when somebody seems to be trying to "validate" my emotions (I'm not being patronizing here, just pointing out that I agree with you!). But I'd bet you and I are prone to thinking logically, and don't usually engage in emotional high-stakes games--two traits you won't find in most toddlers, politicians, or terrorists.
I find that some discussion with the "logical" type can be extremely difficult, because we (I include myself in that category) often don't realise they have an emotional response. I think this is also behind the OP I don't want my emotions to be validated statement. Anything the other does even validation is emotionally rejected (often even a complete surrender, I.e. "you only say I'm right because you don't want to argue anymore).
I noticed this sort of response in myself after getting some communication training. For myself this triggered me to very consciously pay attention to me having an emotional response (obviously not always successful) and the try to deliberately validate the others perspective. Interestingly I find that this also helps me to actually understand the other person more and lowers my "emotional defense response".
It definitely sucks when "validation" feels more like pandering and a means to an end. I think it's probably fair to say that you want to establish trust and fairness in a discussion about solving a problem though, yes? And in my opinion validation has more to do with reaching a baseline agreement about the problem itself. I think a lot of people, myself included, just overanalyze what validation itself is or how it should be deployed.
Yeah exactly. It correctly comes off as insincere when people say things like "you must feel upset". If anything that's the opposite of validation because the implication is that the speaker and any other rational human would not feel upset here but you must be so emotional that you need kid gloves.
Vs. actual validation which looks and feels more like an earnest attempt to understand where you're coming from
Interestingly (and I'm not sure if it was intentional or not), but the first thing kimbernator did here was validate your feelings.
"It definitely sucks when..."
Like ziddoap points out in another reply, the way it's said has a lot to do with whether it sounds patronizing and insincere.
If you speak like you're talking to a toddler "It sounds like you're feeling really angry," then yeah, they're going to hate it. Or therapy-speak like "You're angry for a valid reason" can equally sound condescending. But saying "that sucks, dude." accomplishes the same goal, in a way that sounds, and is, sincere.
The "validate and problem-solve together" approach doesn't work reliably with adults. For people who are single-mindedly out to get what they want, it's not the first time someone has tried this on them, and they've learned the counter. When they realize that validating their emotions is a priority for you, they'll insist that your validation is insincere unless you give them what they want.
"It's easy to say you care about my feelings, but since you aren't [giving me what I asked for], I see what you're really about."
"If you really cared you'd...."
"If you really understood you'd...."
Toddlers haven't learned the next step of the game.
My MIL with dementia does this. I typically respond by saying, "you don't mean that" or "I did not do such a thing". If she keeps up her a mile a minute hostile diatribe, I start praying very LOUDLY. That appears to be the only thing which gets her to be quiet and calm down.
There's a counter for that as well but I can't quote the verbal self defense book right now. But one of the main defenses taught in the book I have is against "if you really" pattern.
In some sense though- every 'problem' is emotional. As in, if your problem is someone not doing the dishes your problem is that you feel like you deserve a clean kitchen and what your roommate is doing isn't fair. There's logical steps inbetween but the start of it is a feeling of being hurt and bothered. Same with any other problem, if you are dispasionate enough things cease to be problems and just are.
So to me, I see validating emotions as another way of saying: 'we share the same goals, there is a problem and we agree on what it is, so we can work towards a solution together'
The problem a lot of people in our field / on the internet have is that they think every problem is purely a logical problem to be solved, and that the person that has the problem is completely rational about it. But that's not the reality, and a lot of problems are emotional in nature - or, elicit an emotional response, which can't be resolved by just ignoring the emotional aspect and focusing on the functional. Because sometimes there just isn't a logical / functional problem to be solved.
And you're making the assumption that you can play a part in solving the problem, but what if that removes someone else's agency or responsibility? They will feel belittled, passed by, ignored, or they will not learn anything.
>>but think there's some selection bias at play with regard to the type of personality that is likely to recommend this approach as advice and how well the advice actually works
Correct. As previously stated, this advice works wonders on toddlers. Congratulations on not being a toddler!
>> There's a problem to be solved, so let's attempt to solve it or at least compromise in good faith.
Validating their position is a form of acknowledgement that we understand it. That's a prerequisite to a "compromise in good faith". If someone feels we don't understand their position, they will not feel we are arguing in good faith.
>> The resolution to the problem is the most likely way to elicit positive emotions from me anyway.
But when you lose an argument does it feel better (less bad) if the other person understood your point rather than just ignoring it? It kinda sucks more to make a concession when the other person doesn't even know we've made one.
Are you sure you are not experiencing some selection bias yourself, where you only recall the validation attempts that landed as patronizing or insincere, and do not notice when they are adeptly executed?
The validation is that you're having the experience you're having, not that it's, say, an intractable problem, or necessarily the emotional experience you're having about it.
It's this:
1. You: I am having problem X
2. Them: You are having problem X.
3. Them: Here are possible solutions.
There are lots of variations on this. There are also multiple reasons to do it: validation and calibration being (AFAIK) the main ones. One way to look at it is that validation says I'm not going to fight you about your subjective experience.
Contrast:
1. You: I am having problem X
2. Them: Here are possible solutions.
This can come across as "your problem will be fixed but you do not matter".
Contrast:
1. You: I am having problem X
2. Them: You are not having problem X.
The point of this, particularly for children (e.g. as a parent), is to build emotional bonds and stability, not to get them to do what you want. That can be a nice side effect in the moment, and is indeed more likely over the long term with this approach. But the chief goal is emotional safety, validation, etc.
Being a bit of an asperger’s case, I have developed over the years a practice of listening to people talk and at the same time try to process in my head the mood of the speaker, because sometimes I'm not able to do it instinctively. I am getting better with practice though.
Sometimes I respond to my interlocutor by naming the emotion they're expressing, not necessarily directly ("oh you're angry!?") but rather stuff like "oh it must be infuriating what happened!"
I find people do respond positively to that, and that it opens a deeper connection.
There's the practice of Non Violent Communication [1], which has inspired me, though I'm not a zealous follower of the technique. It can seem condescending at the hands of the wrong person.
> Personally speaking, I've never cared whether someone "validates" my emotions
Picture a situation where someone is running a loud machine within your earshot. It’s been a while and it’s getting on your nerves, so you ask them to stop. Now imagine the answer is either:
“Oh, I’m so sorry. I didn’t realise someone was so close. I know this is loud but could I ask you to bear with it for just ten more minutes? I promise I’ll be over by then. It’s important I finish now because <valid reason>.”
Or:
“Fuck off, asshole. I don’t give a shit about you. I’ll be done when I feel like it.”
Allow me to suggest you’d appreciate and care for the first answer more. You’d probably even have a better day with it, even if the first person ended up taking twelve minutes while the second took eight.
> (and I often view such attempts as a bit patronizing or insincere)
I propose this could be a version of the toupee fallacy¹. The attempts you view as patronising and insincere are the ones which are obviously so. Perhaps from people who read a self-help book about how to control others and get what they want. Or like when you call a company for support and the agent repeats your name over and over. But there are people who are genuine and do it reflexively and honestly because they truly care about their fellow human being.
> There's a problem to be solved, so let's attempt to solve it or at least compromise in good faith.
That’s not the default state for most people. It should be, but it’s not. One reframing I like to give, e.g. when people ask me for advice on an argument they’re having with a spouse, is “remember it’s not you against them, but you and them together against the problem”. Simple and highly effective with reasonable people, as it allows them to take a step back and look at the issue from a more rational vantage point.
Based on my own experience, YMMV, I find that those who need the validation before working directly on a solution are more annoyed by missing the validation than those who don't need the validation but get it anyway. Of course, it's good to learn the working styles of those you work with frequently.
How do you stop doing that if it's a habit you find out is very ingrained in you?
EG.. You are angry at me because I doubled parked. I tell you that the spot I pick was the only one available at the time I took it, and if that is no longer the case(cars have moved) it's not my problem. You are upset about something you do not have the right to be upset about.
I understand the above example is obviously...stupid. I am the stupid person that will argue with you that I didn't do anything wrong, since at that moment in time it was the only option available.
My question is.. how can I stop being like this? It's not good in my life, and negatively impacts my closest relationships.
I believe I could say the same about myself but there is also a difference between being validated and not being invalidated. Being told that your problems are not so bad is likely still to be something that irks you, as it would me. After all, you can decide how bad your problems are for yourself.
Nobody saying, "Get some perspective!" is ever going to get you to feel good about your problems, though it might get you to feel bad about feeling bad about your problems.
I think the advice is sounds, but "validate emotions" is not a perfect way to talk about it. Saying out loud "I understand that you want to stay up late" is a good way to start the discussion and avoid misunderstandings of what the problem actually is.
I've heard, that this approach works very well with "troublemakers". Maybe this is the selection bias. For communication with less emotional non-troublemakers there's less demand for professional advice.
We have been redirecting our toddler pretty successfully in most “conflict” situations. Instead of telling him what he can’t do, give him a few options of things he can do. It’s not appropriate for all situations but a great strategy for drawing focus away from whatever is causing contention.
As an aside, this worked for 2/3 of our children. For one of them if we gave them choices like that they would just scream back "NONE". We never really found what worked for her, usually we just let her cry it out a bit then offer a metaphorical olive branch (oftentimes our oldest would let her play with one of her toys, which tended to make her happy, but only if you let her be upset for a long enough period of time first... otherwise she would just reject/throw it).
One of our twins is this way, her sister will accept making a choice based on options we present and so will her younger brother. Bit of a tangent but, basically everything I ever I believed I understood about the nature vs. nurture argument have broken down completely in the face of raising (fraternal) twins.
^ This is the real advice. Approach a conflict as a choice the child needs to make, and the options the parents need to give. Be flexible but hard where it counts.
Children need grounding. "I need to win arguments with my own kids" is a vanity, that gives up a lot of the ground kids need for growing up.
Actually, children don't need grounding, they need to be taken seriously instead. Their emotions are no less valid than the ones of the grown up people, they just lack experience to recognize them and to handle them appropriately.
If you take the time to explain the situation to the child you often don't need to convince them anymore. And if you can't explain - should you really have your way?
...but if you haven't been doing this with your child up to now, and you suddenly start, it probably won't work right away.
A foundation of trust has to be built up, and that can take years, in some cases, especially if your child feels that you have a long pattern of not taking them seriously or caring about what they think or feel.
Imagine you woke up, learned that you have your own feelings and ideas and agency, and yet... you don't get to choose except what's between handed to you (the blue pill or the red pill). And you start to realize it keeps happening. Maybe that's what being 2-3 is like? To a toddler it will be eons before they get to make their own choices.
Yes, "no" can be petulant, but it's also could be deeply beautiful and true.
When my son was little, he would say things like “Yes means no and no means yes.” He would also say things like “milk is good, butter is made from milk, cake is made from butter, why can’t I have cake for breakfast?”
Through persistence and speaking to him calmly, he eventually stopped his petulance. Usually if he wanted something, we would only give in after repeated conversations. We wanted to explore decision making with him and ensure he would not quickly want something else. The main thing I wanted was for him to talk and explain why he wanted something so bad.
I believe he only threw a full tantrum a handful of times. When that happened we followed the advice of pretending to leave without him. When he realized we were not rewarding his tantrum, he stopped.
In short, we wanted to reward him for communicating not for throwing a tantrum.
That’s a good short term solution but long term you just screw your kid up.
There’s some things you simply cannot do, and nothing else can be done about it. You have to learn the lesson that sometimes you lose a conflict and that’s it. You don’t get anything else. Sucks? Yea welcome to life.
Any age. There is no right age to jump out of the window on the 10th floor, no right age to cross a busy interstate by foot, no right age to set a bed on fire. You wouldn’t allow a kid to do it (and similar things) at any age. Would you? :)
Yeah very often it’s about feeling like they have some control. Consider their day to day they are constantly being told where to go and what to do. They’re still people and do want to feel like they have some agency. Of course we can’t let them choose to do whatever they want. But by giving them options they now feel like they’re included in the decision making process.
Not always appropriate but very useful in many situations. And if used proactively, possibly limit episode occurrence when not under your control.
We might be saying the same thing, but one reason toddlers act so ridiculously is because they are emotionally responding just as an adult might, if they were treated like a toddler. Ie, “because I don’t think you have a valid internal POV, I’m going to just decide for you with no explanation”
This perspective comes from the book “how to talk so kids will listen and listen so kids will talk,” which is one of my favorite parenting books of all time.
I loved that book and tried to apply as much as possible to my own kid when she was little, now she's 5 and just lost her first baby tooth, I should probably read that book once again. One good thing about kids is that even if you make mistakes, you get plenty of opportunities to try different approaches and fix things.
I'm lucky enough that I get to take my tyke to the zoo 5 days a week and while I agree with your take, I also have seen enough of the parents making the mistake outlined in the original post to know that it was actually talking about toddlers.
You would be shocked to see how many supposed adults engage in one sided arguments with crying children, usually centered on the parents feelings.
What's a different path to the solution of getting a kid to eat vegetables and go to bed? I'd say if you can get them to freely choose to do those, then you've won the argument. If it comes down to the equivalent of telling them "because I say so" in such a positive and constructive way that they don't freak out, you haven't won an argument. You have gotten what you wanted, but not by winning an argument, because the kid's opinion didn't change, just their response.
Now, what you're talking about is an extremely valuable skill—much more valuable than trying to argue with toddlers—but it's not the same thing in my opinion.
My parents did that; they managed to win the "go to bed at a reasonable time" argument, but never were terribly successful with the "eating vegetables" one. It didn't help that my dad almost never ate vegetables and even fairly young I was able to point out the hypocrisy.
I still don't eat a lot of vegetables; my health vitals are generally fine when I do bloodwork, as is my heart health when I get that checked so hopefully I don't end up in an early grave.
It's a different approach for us (am parent of a 5 and 3 year-old). Every type of food is equal, nothing gets put on a pedestal. Candies, snacks, ice creams, vegetables, fruits, legumes, meats, seafood - it's just "food". We highlight that you shouldn't eat too much of one thing all the time because your body likes a good variety, but that's about all the pressure we put on them. They're learning about sugar, for instance, in their preschool and we've talked about it in that context.
If they don't like something, fine. Totally cool, we don't care. The second you pressure a kid to eat a vegetable or a fruit, it becomes a fight and they will dig their heels in. Just keep serving whatever you cook, and either they'll come around or they won't. After all, they're human just like we are - we all have foods we like and dislike, and that's OK. No point in striking a deal, just keep exposing them to a wide variety of stuff and eventually they'll try it all - if they like it, great, if they don't, oh well, at least they like other stuff.
I can't speak for any other parents but myself, but this approach has worked wonders for us. Our kids definitely do shun certain foods or look away, but they eat a very wide variety of food. We don't have to bring a PBJ with us to a restaurant, or chicken nuggets to a friend's house, because they'll usually eat most of what is served. We've had grandparents bring "treats" over - we'll put them on their dinner plate with the rest of their food and, hand to god, last night my 5yo ate half her candy bar and left it there while asking for multiple helpings of peas and devouring her entire turkey burger. Only thing left on the plate was the candy.
Maybe I'm particularly bad at disguises or maybe my kid (just one, not the other) is Sherlock Holmes for food disguises, but this is nearly impossible for me. In that I can't generally find a way to do it.
No soups either, just raw ingredients? I would prepare his favorite food with minor variations, adding a little sauce or changing the texture, to broaden his horizons.
In your case, I would furthermore gamify it: I bet you can't figure out what I added or did differently!
I have one kid on which all this stuff would work.
And then I have the other kid. He will refuse to participate in the game. I keep the pressure on though. That means he's always exposed to foods outside the comfort zone without too much pressure. But efforts at subterfuge or psychology almost always backfire with him. So I keep all the cards on the table.
"This is a broccoli piece. You have to taste it or else {bribe}".
I don't have all the answers, but we've tried a lot of things with him.
If there's one thing on my 4 year olds plate that he "doesn't like", I have him close his eyes and try to guess which food item I just put in his mouth. After the game is over he'll usually just continue eating everything without complaint.
Yeah, basically! I won't not serve it to them again no matter how much they insisted they didn't like it last time. When I serve dinner, I always make sure a little bit of everything makes it to their plate before they come to the table. And yeah, exposing them to the same food in different dishes or cooked in a different manner has definitely helped them be open to trying it down the line.
I think zero pressure + constant exposure is the overall key.
I think a person who has liked every single piece of food (in edible condition, to use your phrase) they've ever put into their mouths is a pretty rare specimen.
My dad, a holocaust survivor, was one of these people. I have a much more expansive palate than most of my peers because of it but I draw lines at brains and organs presented as such, that sort of thing.
Not really, I am one. I have tried all kinds of "exotic" foods like Swedish Surstromming etc. I can definitely relate to how people eat them and can find some way (of eating it) that it's delicious, like in sandwiches etc. This is a skill (I think) and many people just don't have it. If someone eats it, and especially if they have eaten it for centuries, you can just win by trying to figure out how to eat it. There is no downside.
That being said, I won't eat food that is obviously (and provably) dangerous like Korean live octopus, Casu martzu (cheese with maggots) etc.
Ah, this is where nuance comes in. For instance, I do not like carrots - it's a taste thing, I don't enjoy the flavor a bit. I've kept trying them for years and if something is carrot-forward, I don't enjoy it. I tried some miso-glazed carrots that I'd whipped up for my family just this past weekend and they just weren't for me (I appreciated how tender they were, and enjoyed the miso glaze on it, but the carrot taste put me off). Now, if you shred them up, or dice 'em, and toss 'em into a salad, a sandwich, or in some slaw and I can't taste them at all? Sure, I'll devour them along with the rest of the meal.
But they're hiding in there, you can't tell they're there. I still don't "like" carrots, but I don't mind eating them if I don't taste them. There's a difference between the two, I think.
That said, to your point, I was super picky as a kid, and that approach (trying food I didn't like in a dish that I did like) helped me quickly not be picky when I was a younger adult. My palette is tremendously wide now and there's only a relative handful of things I don't "like". I'm also now always down for an adventure and experiencing something new, so I'm happy to try weird shit, whereas I never used to be.
Yes, I too have "less favorite" foods. Carrots being one of them, celery - another. But I try eating them regularly and this definitely helps. And no, I don't mask them to the point of them being completely undetectable. On the contrary, I do increase their concentration with time and there are foods where I enjoy them even when they dominate the flavor. For example, pickled celery is delicious.
Why is it that, specifically with food, people who have absolutely no taste seem to hold a strange pride about it?
You don't see this with e.g. film or music, somebody pridefully saying "I'll listen to anything anybody considers music" like it's some sort of badge of honor to have no preferences.
I'm not trying to knock you here, it's just weird to me to be proud of having no preferences.
In a very direct way, humans need calories to live. You can just opt out of movies entirely without much impact, so I don't think they're symmetrical.
A "picky" movie watcher isn't really the same thing as a "picky" eater. The eater is doomed to be locked in a cycle of working around their preferences for as long as they live.
Not to mention that we've been carefully curating the best of the best foods over millennia. In a few thousand years we'll likely have forgotten the movies that weren't so good, so chances are at that time you will enjoy all the movies that survived as well.
If someone can reasonably consider it food, fair to say that is food for the sake of this.
Like I said, I haven't met the food I don't like yet. It is impossible to know how I feel about the foods I haven't yet met. There is an infinite selection of food out there. Perhaps something will cross my plate someday that turns up my nose. I always try new foods when I have the opportunity, but that day hasn't yet come.
I usually talked with my toddlers asking them "why"? Why do you want to stay late? why don't you want to eat carrots?
They were usually thinking about trading and I was patiently waiting.
They do not like carrots (me neither btw), ok, so you get to pick a vegetable.
They want to play longer, ok, you play in your bed. Etc.
Of course this did not work all the time, especially when I was tired and maybe not that patient so more traditional ways of persuasion were used (no, nothing violent, just "do it because I said so")
And more than that is how much of my truth (not absolute truth, if such thing exists, but my point of view) I want to give up to enter a common territory to discuss.
This is only useful if the person is arguing in good faith, something a quick listen to Nick Ferrari, Nigel Farage, Ben Shapiro or any other shock jock will quickly disabuse you of.
I think there's an additional step of "Find out what they want" that was left out of the original comment because the desires of actual toddlers are (usually) not fundamentally evil.
Do they want to exterminate your loved ones? Do they want to ship dissenters off to concentration camps? Do they want to simply profit off of the people in power who are doing those things? If so, the whole process has an early return case that's more along the lines of "Antifa rally at Omaha Beach."
Your problem is you can’t really pull this out of evil people so easily. They’ll happily lie to your face, despite evidence you present to the contrary. The truth is a flexible concept to them.
Even in engineering it's important for people to understand what people want and to make sure people feel heard and validated. I've found that especially when dealing with people up the management chain understanding what they want and even using the techniques you describe is very effective. My experience is that pretty much everyone, but especially people in engineering fields and data driven science fields (me included), vastly overestimates how "logical" they are. At the end of the day we are all just a species of ape
this reminds me of something that happened to me just yesterday:
i was at the playground, trying to convince my daughter to go down the slide on her own.
She kept saying it was too scary, so I went down first to show her it wasnt scary. Then, still not convinced, she said there were monsters in the slide! I, of course, told her I got rid of them on the way down. She pondered for a moment, then decided it wasn't so scary anymore. Shortly thereafter she went down the slide herself!
It was a funny, insightful moment, negotiating her fears without invalidating them.
As a parent, I often found that if I actually explained why instead of the usual "Because I told you so", then I got a lot further in making them rationally arrive at the right behavior themselves (as toddlers are wont to do). I suspect that the "I told you so", not only does it completely nullify their desire but it also forces them to accept not learning and hurts their pride (which is where the tantrum comes from). These are undesirable outcomes and since parents use this trick all the time, it leads to learned behavior. Disclaimer: This is just my own analysis and I know there are times when it's too challenging to do this but it's a principle you have to focus on.
Nobody ever changes their opinion on things with anything remotely like a high degree of frequency, and that's not a particularly bad thing. The "real" point of an argument is not to persuade the other side (though that is what you aspire to nonetheless) but to exchange views, and often to indirectly explore your own views more deeply, at least in the scenario where your 'partner' can bring up something you weren't aware of.
Our views actually shifting is something that only happens over many years and often for reasons we aren't really in control of. Me of 10 years ago would vehemently disagree with me of today on many things, and there's probably pretty much no argument I could have engaged with him to persuade him of what I obviously think are 'more correct' views. It required, most of all, life experience that isn't going to be able to be communicated with words. If it were we'd all have the wisdom of a man who'd lived for millennia. And if not all of us, then at least somebody - but that somebody doesn't exist.
One who wants to debate while rejecting the real state of mankind is oft going to just find themselves in an echo chamber.
> The "real" point of an argument is not to persuade the other side (though that is what you aspire to nonetheless) but to exchange views.
Maybe this is just a matter of definitions, but for me the point of an argument is to convince or be convinced. When two incompatible views exist on a subject, at least one of them must be wrong. Some topics of conversation allow for diverging views or values, but then we are just talking or sharing experiences, not arguing.
That said, it is my experience as well that actually changing someone's (or my own) mind on an important issue is unlikely. Especially on complex topics with partial and uncertain information, like political issues, our life experience and cumulative knowledge significantly influences our selection of sources and interpretation of the facts, so converging on a common point of view may require the exchange of a prohibitive amount of information, even among rational arguers.
Productive argument usually occurs in a sort of semi-echo chamber, with people who mostly agree with us on the context, and are only arguing about the top layer, so to say. But when trying to argue about the deep stuff, we are mostly just "exchanging views", in the end.
> When two incompatible views exist on a subject, at least one of them must be wrong
This isn't strictly correct if the source of incompatibility is differing assumptions / axioms. Both views can be correct in their own context and incorrect in the other context.
I have worked to be as rational as I will personally tolerate, and it has been difficult, but I've achieved some success. The key is to divorce your identity from your beliefs about the world, and to realize that the opposite of never admitting you're wrong is "always being right", which is of course impossible, so if you are TRULY interested in becoming MORE right, then the only reasonable option is that you must sometimes lose arguments (and admit it to both of you).
Are most people interested in doing this? No, and in that sense you have a point. But it's available to everyone, and who wouldn't want to be more right?
The other difficult thing to do is to aim this at yourself with full candor and work through that. Interestingly, now that ChatGPT has access to all the conversations you've had with it, and assuming you've opened up to it a bit, you can ask it: "You know me pretty well. Please point out my personal hypocrisies." If you want to make it more fun, you can add "... as Dennis Leary/Bill Burr" etc. What it said when I tried this was fascinating and insightful. But also difficult to read...
> divorce your identity from your beliefs about the world
I understand not totally subjugating your personal identity to ideology, but I'm struggling to see how someone could practically completely separate these two things. To use a somewhat trite but personal example, I'm gay, so that aspect of my identity will necessarily affect my perspective on certain issues. Conversely if someone were to convince me rationally that homosexuality was wrong, it would necessitate a pretty dramatic change of my identity no?
Not every issue exists on that clear a spectrum, but you can imagine the views necessitated by different pieces of personal identity adding up over a lifetime.
Fortunately for you, there is no good argument that homosexuality is wrong. But honestly, it does take a certain nontrivial amount of understanding to realize that- an understanding of things like: the list of the most common informal logical fallacies (or... all of them, because why not, and once you learn them, you see them everywhere). And those aren't someething that is typically taught in school (I had to pursue them on my own time).
(A while back I found a personal webpage that systematically shot down every single homophobic argument using reason and those fallacies... and I haven't been able to find it since, unfortunately.)
So, among many other injustices that might be rectified (or at least ameliorated) by a broader understanding of fallacious arguments, homophobia would definitely be one of them.
(Also, personal note, I'm sorry about any injustice you've had to endure because of your orientation and others' lack of understanding.)
One thing that helped me was reading a book on good political discourse. It basically said what the GP said, that good discourse is about exploring the world. It also pointed out that vilification in its many forms is counterproductive. It undermines trust.
One of the examples used was of a party that I did not agree with - that most people didn't agree with. You'd see mainstream politicians declaring them to be bad people.
But the book pointed out that before this party existed, nobody was representing the people who were now voting for it. If you believe in democracy, how can you be disrespectful of representation?
Suppressing my value judgement also later helped me see that when the party got into a coalition and managed to get some of their politics put into law, some of those laws actually did help the rest of us, because they addressed issues that the other parties were not willing to address.
Out of curiosity, why do you think being as rational as you possibly can is a goal in and of itself. Mark Manson has a whole bit on this, in The Subtle Art of Not Giving a Fuck if I recall correctly, that lobotomized people would fit that description pretty well, purely rational. Except it turns out that once you take the emotional side out of the person, what's left is merely a hull that doesn't care about anything, because rationally, why would you. I don't think being more right is a noble goal. We all know the type, people who pick at every little thing to be technically right, but mostly they're just asshats who miss the forest for the trees.
What definition of rational are you using? Being a rational actor typically means displaying consistent goal-oriented behavior. Being lobotomized seems pretty irrational. It reduces your power and makes you less able to achieve goals (if you can achieve them at all), including basic self-care.
>Except it turns out that once you take the emotional side out of the person, what's left is merely a hull that doesn't care about anything, because rationally, why would you.
That's not what rationality is. What terminal goals one should have, which in humans is informed by emotions, is not a concern of rationality. Rationality concerns how to achieve terminal goals.
If you think rationality is a lobotomy, maybe your emotions are running a dictatorship?
Being right doesn’t make you an asshat. Refusing to correct yourself when proven wrong does.
> I don’t think being more right is a noble goal.
That’s a pretty telling sentence. If someone doesn’t value being more correct, what kind of compass are they using to navigate the world... Vibes?
Rationality isn’t about amputating emotion. It’s about not letting your emotions pilot the plane blindfolded while high on conspiracy podcasts telling you which way to bank.
Emotions are data. Rationality is how you integrate them, not ignore them. A rational person doesn’t become unfeeling; they align their feelings with reality, and update when their model of the world is provably flawed.
The lobotomy comparison is just absurd: actual rationalists care deeply about things- they just make sure their caring isn't built on delusions. That’s why rational frameworks helped de-stigmatize homosexuality, dismantle phrenology, and challenge witch trials. Emotional reasoning alone got us the burnings, not the liberation. Emotional reasoning got us Turing's chemical castration, not gay marriage rights.
A rationalist by YOUR definition wouldn't even care enough to fight homophobia with reason. See the difference?
Also, literally the entire system of justice (an exemplary combination of rationality and feeling) doesn't make sense, given your anti-justification for rationality. The accused looks like a rapist, I just know it, he's just got that look in his eyes. Let's go with that. Judgment for the plaintiff!
Also: Being “technically right” is only annoying when it’s used to score points. Being functionally right- especially when it affects policies, freedoms, or lives- is kind of the point of civilization.
Being caring and kind are simple examples of moral compasses that are considerably better than being as right as you can be. Your comment is a great example of the kind of person I'm trying to exemplify, you make up a lot of nonsense no one ever said just to argue how much more right you are against it.
It takes time to have a serious debate. You both need to figure out what your unstated premises are. If you disagree on these, you won't get anywhere by arguing downstream of them. Politics is even worse, because you are supposed to have an opinion, but at the same time, most matters require a detailed understanding of the facts that few people have the time, brains or inclination to understand. Add the tribalism and this gets even worse. It's incredibly rare to find someone whose general political opinions are well thought-through. Mine certainly aren't. I could regurgitate the argument for the free market or for heavy gov control of the economy, for example, and even understand them as internally-consistent syllogisms, but really all I'm doing is linking concepts together in my mind; I doubt any of them apply to any really-existing concrete situation that any given country is in. Hence I try not to comment on political threads.
I think you can have two people who, both acting in good faith, can completely lose it over textual communication. Even a phone call can make the same discussion ten times easier.
I had a customer once who would just absolutely berate people over email for the tiniest thing. Totally unbearable and unreasonable. So, whenever he would go off, I'd tell him 'look, I'll be in the area [this afternoon|later|whenever]. You going to be around if I stop by?' Any conversation with him that could be deflected to an in-person discussion could be peacefully resolved in short order. Trying to convince him of anything over phone or email was an exercise in frustration control.
I heard somebody say at a conference one time, talking about how much more productive in-person meetings are in reaching agreement, "there's a lot of bandwidth in a room". I think there's a lot of truth to that.
0 - ironically, this was at a ISP network engineering conference
I've been trying to figure out how to talk to folks on the right, and I keep looking for something, anything, I can say to make them realize the danger we are in. Reading this comment was therapeutic, because I think it's completely on the money. We can't change people's minds in a single argument; we can just try and nudge them in the right direction and hope they join us eventually.
I've found that putting arguments into simple, general terms tends to make people rethink their positions.
I had an argument with my dad a while back about single payer health care. A lot of people on the left might frame it like "don't you think everyone is entitled to access to health services?" But an idea like this is like nails on a chalkboard to my dad, who believes everything should be merit based, even access to health care.
Instead, phrasing it as "wouldn't you prefer it if we paid the same amount of money every month and when we go to the hospital we don't have to worry about any out of pocket costs?" This really nailed the point home to him. It's not about entitlements or whatever. It's about people not being destroyed financially by bad health. We skip over the feely stuff, we skip over the specifics of cost. We can both agree that this mechanism makes a lot of sense for most people, and the current system is rather arbitrary.
Anyway, he's still firmly a MAGA trumper but I do think on the aspect of health care, he does see single payer as a viable alternative.
Is this ironic? Because if this is serious, note that maybe you are the stubborn person here, the one that is wrong, the one that must be nudged to the right direction and join them eventually.
It’s possible parent comment is referring to factually proven issues, such as climate change, that the right has its own set of propagandistic facts for.
I’d say the any group of people has areas of less factitious basis for their beliefs. But, We all should want to employ truthful factual real, non-propagandistic ideas, eh? Is this controversial?
If we don’t have ground truth, real facts, what can we base anything off of? Our policies will fail, our dollars will be wasted, and division will grow.
One danger with "factually proven issues" is cherry-picking facts or otherwise taking them from context. For example, there might be stats on which a president sucked for most of his term, but in the last few months those stats were decent (or vice versa); and then supporters of the president might shout those last few months' stats from the rooftops, and then do polls that show that supporters know but opponents don't know about those last few months' stats, and gleefully report, "Gosh, well, we're trying to reason with our opponents, but unfortunately they're just so ignorant, what can we do..."
Another danger is people playing with definitions. A third is people claiming things to be "facts" based on cherry-picked studies (and possibly some dubious interpretations thereof).
Progress can be made, but I think it requires a sophisticated approach. Paying attention to all the above dimensions, and probably to the motives of the people involved.
I agree with your approach but, as a generally extremely left leaning individual myself, comments solely using "the right" (or any individual group) as the example make it hard to assign to this kind of thought process alone.
Some regular self doubt "what I think are ground truth facts may need to be requisitioned and revalidated and that isn't just true for one specific group to consider" is a core requirement of trying to hold a fact based viewpoint, just as important as any other part of such an approach.
No, it's definitely this, and I'm confident in saying that because I do, actually, try to have open conversations with these people. And they always back down and undermine _their own beliefs_. It's a strange kind of paradox, in which they support a set of actions but wish to be immune from any obvious consequences of said actions. Despite those consequences being, you know, the draw of said actions.
For context, a lot of people in my family vote right always. Trust me, I have engaged with people on the right and conspiracists, and the common theme is their reliance in a distrust for the people and actions they themselves support. It's an almost supreme lack of conviction, juxtaposed with a religion-like blind faith.
If it's any consolation to you, or anyone, this isn't a new thing. You can see this kind of behavior throughout history in all populist movements that have gone sour. Their supporters stuck in a type of purgatory, where they must ignore what is actually going on while absentmindedly following the messaging. When asked "so what happens now?", they do not know. But they are certain it will be okay.
Do any other right wingers actually exist on HN? I swear, you guys have the same understanding of right wingers as white suburbantites have of black people.
What you have to understand about the populist far-right is they are, by definition of populism, appealing to the bottom of the barrel. This characterization of how right-wing voters grapple with what their representatives are doing is uncomfortable because we all know it's true.
I'm a long-time politics nerd and spend more time than most people digging into the right's "evidence" for various things they believe.
So much of it's simply made-up that any attempt to engage one of them is incredibly tedious, and it's the exact same bullshit every time you start talking to a new one. You'd need weeks, at least, of consistent and very-careful engagement to fix the fact-gap so you can even begin discussing actual issues. For each one of them.
It's like trying to talk politics with someone and they keep bringing up how the real problem is the lawless Rebel Alliance and we need to trust Emperor Palpatine to set things right, and after a while you figure out they aren't joking or just trying to get under your skin and sincerely believe we live in Star Wars, so now you can't even talk about actual issues in the real world until you manage to convince them that they do not live in Star Wars. You try to talk about crime & policing or whatever and they start talking about how we need to clear all the criminals out of the pirate moon Nar Shaddaa, and... what the fuck do you even do with that? It's disheartening.
[EDIT] Real world example: Local republican politician comes to my door while campaigning and is talking about how local crime (in our amazingly safe, rather rich small town) is WAY UP and out of control and that's why we need more money for the police. I have my strong suspicions based on practically every other time this claim has been made by a Republican, and also the fact that our town is conspicuously safe and rich, but I don't fact-check her on the spot and just let her finish the spiel and politely disengage, but that was like half of her message (the rest was, I shit you not, about trans athletes, JFC).
Of course the police department's own stats fail to back up any of what she was saying, when I check right after the conversation. I mean, obviously they do, there was no reason to expect otherwise, but I did check, because that's how I roll.
Without even digging into the other half of what she was presenting, half of her message right off the bat, half of what she chose to present as important, was over a completely made-up issue. Not real at all.
They probably have data that these talking points have the best positive reaction rate for the area on average.
The fact that it didn't matter to you isn't important to them, it's the aggregate as that is the end goal. They may even disagree with it entirely and agree with your stance.
Yeah, I'm sure that's why the politician was selling those particular issues.
Those work, though, because you run into he same perspectives among Republican voters, because their media are telling them it's true and they don't bother to check (the ones who do, presumably, move away from identifying as Republicans the dozenth time they catch such an "error" in a given day of watching Fox).
One thing I've found helpful is to coax them to imagine dems in charge. You can't outright mention dems in charge, because they will (mostly correctly) point out that dems _have_ been in charge of our institutions for a long time.
You have to understand their position: They don't feel in danger. They feel in power - the opposite of danger. Asking them to perceive danger is asking them to give up their feeling of power - tantamount to admitting everything they voted for is void.
But the path I found was to tease out that expansion of powers are permanent, making any changes from expansion of powers temporary. And we don't want temporary positive changes, do we? With all this legislative power, couldn't we just, you know, pass laws?
I've also come to accept that we should (for the sake of progress past issues) just:
* build the border wall, but suddenly nobody seems interested - what gives?
* slash costs to balance the budget, but suddenly nobody seems interested, what gives?
etc
The problem with true discussion of these issues is that you find yourself mostly in agreement with each other's viewpoint (at least subject to their "axioms"), and have to mellow out a bit. You can't really stand still and say "Come over here" all the time.
Yeah, like they often don't have issues with their local cops, but you ask them about ATF or BLM and all of a sudden these outside it's these ridiculous outsider authoritarians, who don't know anything about what it's like where they live, trying to ruin things.
Why is the expansion of powers permanent? Do you think they’ve never been reversed in history? That there weren’t times when {insert government branch here} didn’t have more than it does now?
What works one on one doesn’t actually work at scale. You cannot make MAGA feel better by “building the wall” or “balancing the budget” — they don’t actually care about those things, in aggregate. In the political sphere, they care — because they’ve been conditioned to care by 40 years of increasingly strident right wing propaganda — about hurting brown people and liberals.
I don’t have an answer, but reason and logic are not going to solve the problem.
There is no ideological coherence of fascism. It's about coercing a nation into elevating a chosen group/ identity of people above everyone else (a sort of anti-pluralism).
-- I liken it to how arguing about the shortcomings of your bully's stance doesn't make them stop punching you.
EDIT: I'm going to add, that I think the solution at least begins with encouraging more shared experiences and spaces (like a movie theater). Most people want to be seen as well functioning in public limiting how much they might explore the nastiness of their own right wing echo chambers.
“Mostly correctly” is 100% false. Count the number of years under GOP presidents since 1980 vs the number under Democrats. SCOTUS has been dominated by Republican judges — and the chief justice has been a Republican — since the 1970’s.
The old-guard republicans were neo-cons. They championed things like free trade and projecting soft power through international institutions that are antithetical to the modern right.
The fact that the US only has “two parties” obscures the fact that there are wings in those parties that don’t really govern in a meaningful way.
The nationalist/populist conservative wing (MAGA née Tea Party) hasn’t really been in power pre Trump.
You'd be hard pressed to find a conservative college dean, non-profit CEO, or even a librarian. There's a belief (which I think is mostly true), that most government agencies are left-leaning in practice if not in appointed leadership. Add to that the growing (perceived!) left-leaning policies in the military and major industrial players, and you might see what they mean.
Well, I guess I'd roll it back to say there have been high profile, widly circulated perceived-to-be-far-left policies pushed or adopted by traditionally not-that-liberal organizations. Like "DEI" in military. It's all over conservative zeitgeist and looks like a massive power creep to them.
Given the downdittles: I mention two leaders at the end and am not referring to Trump for either.
As someone who loves to converse with either side, it's more often one side than the other that will listen to reason, and argue outside of logical fallacies.
I get vastly more violent threats/lame insults from one side.
I get an overwhelming amount of definition problems from one side. Which are easily solved using any dictionary (though this is becoming less true)
I get things like "True X, Y, Z or Proper X, Y, Z" overwhelmingly from one side.
And I get vastly more conspiracy theories not grounded in any reality from one side.
I know of many people from both sides that hold disgusting views such as: I want to do X,Y,Z but am mad if anyone else does this exact thing to me. Every one of these people do so on protected grounds (in Government) of one form or another.
Recently, I have noted people who scream at a leader and bootlick another while claiming each are of the other's style of governance. It's quite remarkable.
You are framing it as danger which preloads the discussion immensely. I find this is common in these situations. This already ends the talk before beginning it. Imagine starting negotiations with Putin with “How come you are such a waste of valuable oxygen?”
I am not “on the right”, but I do have the ability to entertain the idea my “opponent” is actually right and I am wrong. This can be a valuable exercise to get you in a more .. sympathetic frame of mind.
Let’s try to loosen you up. Let’s say we are actually not in danger and you and all the rest of you - excuse me, it’s for the exercise - “pearl clutchers” are actually ridiculously overreacting and misreading the situation. The world is dangerous right now and singing kumbaya is not going to cut it. Trump is weird and we all dislike him, but nothing you can offer will improve the situation.
Try to see that viewpoint. Try to feel it. Try to imagine a world where you are wrong and your “opponent” is actually right and you were “suppressing” them all that time and in your righteous might caused tremendous harm which resulted in this correction.
Next time enter the discussion with “These times are complex and there sure is a lot going on. Let’s talk because I’m confused!” instead of “I am right and why do you take so long to see that I am clearly knowledgable and you should definitely heed all my warnings (which with 98% probability come down to ‘you are basically stupid’)”
I've largely held this viewpoint for quite some time, but everyone has a line that shouldn't be crossed. Trying to literally overthrow our democracy was a line for a lot of the Trump supporters I've met who have since turned away. It personally wasn't even the line for me.
This second administration has very much crossed my line, in so many ways. We are past the point of "maybe I'm just confused?"
The people I've met who still support this guy are dangerously, dangerously stupid and hypocritical. They'd have strongly opposed all of the stuff Trump has done if they didn't know Trump was the one who did it. It's terrifying watching people completely abandon the principles they used to stand for.
We are dealing with a different phenomenon than just political disagreement; we are dealing with the type of delusion that gets millions of people killed, and we need to acknowledge it as such now.
If you had the chance to debate Hitler, would you start by entertaining the idea that maybe the Jews do need to be exterminated from Germany? Or would you see that as obviously absurd?
From a rhetorical point of view, yeah it may have a better chance to change their mind. Start out the idiot, assume they're right, but then ask sincerely why. After they've explained why then go back to trying to understand how their solution does that.
Many people have been conditioned to gain energy and meaning from confrontation. But when you let them explain their views they suddenly become a lot more open to being wrong about some but not all of the details.
Slowly slowly this leads to minds being changed.
I think a lot of technical debates can also be solved this way. Ask people to help you understand what they’re saying, repeat back what they said so they know you got it, and then ask about how it world work in x, y, z scenarios. Talking like this has the best chance of success.
While painful I do think that’s a more productive mindset to enter the talk (not debate) with.
His reasons for doing so are presumably not all that rational so I’d steer clear off obvious bear traps like rationality.
I liken it more to how you engage with angry toddlers or teens. Acknowledge the issue first. Share their pain and then you can try alternatives.
Not saying I think “talking” will be helpful with guys like Hitler, but I’m not much of an assassin so if I personally where to be put on the spot I have very few other options than try this route of, at least attempted, understanding.
I have slipped to the right enough to be almost like a "translator" between leftwing and rightwing viewpoints. Put it this way, I can laugh at parodies of both of them...
I see some error patterns that both sides seem to uniquely make, for example. Just 1 for each side for the sake of brevity here: Rightwingers idolize success without acknowledging the systematic boosts (or pure luck) that have often assisted it, while leftwingers are not only disgusted by success but consider it heretical. Leftwingers constantly compare a situation to some unattainable ideal and are therefore constantly complaining about the current state of affairs without offering a realistic solution; rightwingers fail to acknowledge the very real injustices that a more purely authoritarian approach to things often causes (see: three-strikes laws).
Speaking as one who tests politically center, I believe that the danger is neither nonexistent nor is as high as you may believe. Note that there is some merit to the rightwing claim of "MSM bias"; harping on the same cherry-picked injustice stories for outrage clicks over and over again seems to be the last remaining successful news business model (and this should worry EVERYONE).
> while leftwingers are not only disgusted by success but consider it heretical
The entire left wing rhetoric against billionaires is that they are not in fact successful on the merits of work that everyone else is doing, they are successful in cheating the system and exploiting others. We love success that happens within the same rules that we average people all operate in.
This is like saying that CoD players who are against aimbotters are "disgusted by success" when they point out that no one will legitimately have a 100/4/0 KDA (a more appropriate ratio for billionaire vs average person would be 1000000/4/0, but that would almost be too outlandish, which is why there are so many infographics showing just how conceptually confounding a billion dollars really is).
> The entire left wing rhetoric against billionaires is that they are not in fact successful on the merits of work that everyone else is doing, they are successful in cheating the system and exploiting others
Yes. And that is false. If you don't believe me, bring that to ChatGPT and ask it to argue both sides of this claim, because I do not have time to retread this. For one thing, everyone has to abide by the rules- and if the rules are unfair, then it is the rules that deserve this scorn, not the people who played the game by them.
> We love success that happens within the same rules that we average people all operate in.
This is also false. I have not seen a single successful individual praised on this basis. I'd love to know of one. Musk graduated with college debt- something that I did not- and yet has attained massively more success than I, for example. Luigi, the guy who shot the CEO of UnitedHealthcare, was raised in a far wealthier family than that CEO was!
Wait, how am I already getting downvoted? At least counterargue?
> For one thing, everyone has to abide by the rules- and if the rules are unfair, then it is the rules that deserve this scorn, not the people who played the game by them.
> Rightwingers idolize success without acknowledging the systematic boosts (or pure luck) that have often assisted it
Guess what some of those systemic boosts are? Unequal rules. And if a game maker (or a government) made a bunch of special rules or made constant exceptions to the rules, for people of a certain wealth level, no one would direct their scorn only at the unfair rules, they'd also rightly direct it at the people benefiting from them (especially when that group lobbies for the special treatment like the wealthy do).
> Musk graduated with college debt
So? His family is incredibly rich, and he was given every opportunity on earth to succeed, and any college debt would have been no threat to that. He carries millions in personal debt, and it doesn't disadvantage him now, either.
> I'd love to know of one.
Bernie Sanders? Hasanbi? The average 60+ retiree whose house is now worth north of a million? If you're asking me to list billionaires, there won't be any, but the vast majority of millionaires out there who aren't trying to use their money unethically, the Left has no issue with.
> Wait, how am I already getting downvoted? At least counterargue?
Perhaps the people who downvoted you didn't have time to retread all this.
As someone who has completely straddled both worlds (Arizona/Texas redneck raised, worked in woke VC/SV companies, with a social circle across the board):
I view it as planting seeds, and harvesting them later. Before that can be done though, a person generally has to understand how entrenched a person is in being a stenographer. I have found on both "sides", there are a certain amount of people that literally do no thinking for themselves at all, and only regurgitate. I've tried for years to work different angles on them, and those seeds mostly still lay dormant and un-sprouted...
“The argument that the two parties should represent opposed ideals and policies... is a foolish idea. Instead, the two parties should be almost identical, so that the American people can throw the rascals out at any election without leading to any profound or extensive shifts in policy. Then it should be possible to replace it, every four years if necessary, by the other party which will be none of these things but will still pursue, with new vigor, approximately the same basic policies.” - Carroll Quigley
Is it possible the danger you think we’re in isn’t real? And are you open to that?
I’m not really what you’d call “on the right” but my left-leaning friends seem convinced democracy is teetering and to me that seems to be mostly just propaganda.
It is not propaganda that POTUS is blackmailing law firms that represent his opponents and universities he doesn't like, and "suggesting" a revocation of broadcast licenses due to unfavorable coverage.
It is not propaganda that he has signed executive orders directing the DOJ to investigate individuals who have made statements he doesn't like but were never suspected of any crime.
It is not propaganda that America is now illegally (according to court rulings) renditioning people from the US to incarceration facilities in another country with no conviction, no charges, and no sentence -- indeed, no due process at all -- and illegally (according to court rulings) circumventing habeas corpus, a principle of proto-democracy since the 12th century.
It is not propaganda that the administration is willfully ignoring rulings by SCOTUS.
These are the basic facts. It is also a fact that these, or similar, things have not happened in US history outside of some extreme events such as the Civil War or world wars.
Whether or not you integrate these extreme and highly unusual actions that go against basic tenets of democracy and reach a conclusion of "danger" or not is up to you, but if anyone does reach such a conclusion, it would clearly not be "just propaganda" or even "mostly just propaganda".
The first term was a wild shift in norms. Dozens of incidents that would have been a huge scandals normally, just faded into the background noise and nothing came of them.
One stand-out feature of the first term was a total disregard for conflict of interest. No real attempt to distance himself from his investments and businesses, multiple actions that sure looked like enriching himself at the public expense, multiple family members given roles in the administration. All of these would have been huge scandals and maybe even drawn impeachment and a conviction, not that long ago.
This feels like begging the question. But, in the interests of the topic, how should I see things when one branch of government is not only openly, but gleefully ignoring the will of a coequal branch while the third branch looks on in impotent compliance?
A legal resident of the US has already been illegally shipped to a foreign prison, with the Trump administration claiming it's impossible to get him back. Will it count as "danger" for you once the first US citizen gets the same treatment?
Illegally firing the IGs added after Nixon's shenanigans to make sure the executive isn't just wildly doing crime constantly under a veil of secrecy, right at the start of his term, was... you know, also a bad sign.
Whether it's teetering depends on how strong it is, but here are a few of the most unequivocal reasons why we know it's under attack, and that the defenses are weakened:
- A conspiracy to refuse to leave the white house went unpunished at the highest levels of government.
- Congress is refusing to cancel declarations of emergency that grant the executive special powers with enormous impact.
- Habeas corpus has been violated many times and the judicial branch has been limited to ineffectively "ordering" it to stop in one case.
There are many others, but the ones that are overtly political tend to be "invisible" to people who agree deeply enough. For example, Chinese-style social media scanning for visa holders seems to only bother people who do not see the US as being in a state of war related to what their social media is being scanned for.
2016 was when Trump suggested that his supporters could shoot Hillary if he lost, and that didn't immediately end his candidacy. That was a shocking development. It's been downhill since.
Do you know about the president banning the federal government from working with people represented by specific law firms he doesn’t like? Are you aware he has been revoking clearances of all lawyers working at law firms that have brought suit against him and/or his government?
These blatantly corrupt abuses of power against officers of the court are not propaganda.
> seem convinced democracy is teetering and to me that seems to be mostly just propaganda.
Dude, the last time Trump lost he tried to overthrow the government. Are we just supposed to... pretend that didn't happen and he's just some bastion of American democracy?
The stage for this has been set for a while now, and if you haven't noticed, Trump isn't backing down on ANY of his beliefs. He's doubling down. What other conclusion could you draw then?
One of the surprising benefits of raising a toddler is gaining the ability to instantly tell when another adult has fallen into a "toddler-like" state (myself included!).
Before having kids, I would try and explain someone's behavior in a logical sense.
Toddlers, however, are mostly driven by their current physical needs (hungry/sleepy) and whatever they're currently doing (autonomy).
We've found the most success in avoiding all boolean questions. Do you want to read a book? (when playing with trains before bedtime) Obvious no!
Do you want to read this book or that book? Oh... a decision!
It's striking how well tactics like these work outside the realm of toddlers.
We had a VP make a similar observation during an all hands. In the following all hands, he had to apologize because people felt they were being insulted by being compared to kids. The irony of the situation was not lost on some of us
illusion of choice is extremely effective on c-suite as well. I recommend it for engineers trying to push changes up corporate ladders. Give them three options, the one nobody should ever do, the compromise solution, and the "whale" option. Just like product pricing.
For very young toddlers distraction is also extremely effective but it stops working at some point. Not sure about how effective it is on c-suite someone will have to do some testing.
Ideas in general are difficult to express and people struggle with conveying them separately from their private ideas, personal experiences, and personal reasons for believing what they believe.
If you want to be a good interlocutor, you have to deeply absorb what the other person is thinking and sometimes even help them develop their understanding with the hope that others can do the same for you. We are all toddlers at times.
It's why I found platforms like Twitter tended to have such volatility because the platform structure itself takes every opportunity to remove that charitibility.
If you come across an argument, people are writing in a limited space, you're presented with the most engaged with replies first (i.e. either towing the party line best or the most inflammatory opposition), accounts are pseudonymous, and your performance is numerically displayed below the post.
In-person, people surround themselves in echo chambers, or as I like to call them, "friends". They're amendable to good faith discussions because they already mostly agree.
And, clearly, you must not have any insane MAGA family. I've tried to convince some family members that the Covid Vaccine isn't what gave me cancer, and it's like talking to brick wall. In their eyes, my cancer is my own fault because I pray to Fauci or something and this is just retribution.
Okay, some people are legitimately just not aligned with reality. I'm not calling them insane to be mean, I think they are actually, literally, insane. I don't know what happened to them.
It seems that many humans live on a "show" perspective of the world. It is hard to separate what is seen from what is in the eyes though.
Being funny is to put up a show, for example. Even if it is in person, for a single individual. It draws from the same essential stuff.
Intimacy can grow on that "acting" ground, in a sense that they're not mutually exclusive. Many things, in fact, can.
The internet does lack many of the social cues that one would expect from the real world. It also has cues the real world don't have, like logs and history. If it can grow animosity, it also can grow other stuff. Hopefully stuff less disruptive than animosity.
Animosity and comedy seem to be very basal, primitive feelings. Probably the ones that require less thinking. They're not bad, sometimes is good to think less. But not always.
I imagine something similar happened in the real world in the past too. But I could never be 100% sure of it.
Different, but analogous in some ways. Difficult to compare, but undeniably related.
My point is this is naive in the real world, especially online. Many people appear to be engaging in good faith but are actually just baiting, trolling, trying to make a spectacle, etc.
Point of Order: online isn't the real world and drawing conclusions about people's motivations and desires based on online interactions is deeply flawed.
Online is a facet of the real world and a place for a significant amount of information gathering and discourse so dismissing it entirely is a bad mistake as well.
The dynamics are very different, especially the complete lack of consequences for lying, cheating, and uncivil discourse. It used to be that you needed to assume you're talking to a shill/liar at all times but now you can't even believe you're talking to an actual human. Regardless, a lot of people get a lot of influence online; it is impactful and it matters even if we wish it didn't.
One of my favorite quotes is "on the internet nobody knows you're a dog" because of how many different angles it can cover. My bright eyed youth took it as a meritocracy of ideas enabled by anonymity and free access - anyone can talk even if you don't normally talk to them or even think "they" are valid. My jaded cynic side sees the ability for predators to lurk in plain sight with no recourse. A more rounded view simply cautions that not knowing who is "on the other side of the line" means you really can't get a lot out of a conversation there.
I have no idea if it's true but I've heard the folk tale that saying "moshi moshi" to answer the phone was because trickster foxes could pretend to be people but couldn't pronounce moshi moshi so you are least knew you were talking to a person. Everything old is new again.
Point of order has been raised. However, this is not a valid point of order, as there was no specification in either the comment to which I replied or the original article of real-world interaction as opposed to online interaction. This appears to be based on a conflation of my use of "real world" with "physical interaction" rather than "real world" vs "idealized abstraction". In this case, the point was that the parent is describing the idealized form of argument people should engage in as opposed to how people actually engage in argument.
The charitable interpretation (see first comment) stands, though. It remains that the motivation on the internet, like the motivation in a comedy club, is not a reflection of the motivation found elsewhere. The venue is significant.
It assumes we are talking about a toddler and we are not. People find "ways" to survive - even toddlers. I knew a three year old. He found a way, and knew how to use it. It was very interesting to watch - until you realized the back story.
If something bad happened, as in he might be in trouble, he would run around the room as fast as possible and on the way create mayhem. He would knock over a paint jar, purposefully or not. Bump into another kid, knock over a chair. Soon all the adults in the room were dealing with an overwhelming set of emergencies. Todd was forgotten
This happened over and over again until the pattern clicked. Some adult had to keep focused on Todd.
It was a genius thing he came up with. He never faced consequences. One had to wonder how such a set of behaviors would evolve? Was he a bad kid? No. Mean, no. If you step back what you see is a survival skill for a very difficult situation. My guess is that the physical or psychological cost of being "caught" were so threatening that this response evolved as a life saving skill. In a three year old.
One has to think about how this person would be if they did not have some intervention. Would they evolve this particular skill into an increasingly sophisticated way? Certainly inherent in the success of this mode is a fairly strong sense of contempt for people in general. And perhaps this contempt is well earned when given by a three or even four year old. After all where was everyone else when he was in the original situation? But in an adult? Pitiful.
Fortunately for Todd, people took the time and had the care to help him feel safe without that mechanism. Unfortunately, this does not always happen, as we are seeing.
The response to this kind of pattern is the same though, for any age Todd - three or not three.
First the adults in the room have to focus on the source of the problems. And if not stopped, the blame must fall heavily on those so called adults.
Second, the distraction thing has to be addressed. The problem is not this or that is broken. The problem is the Todd.
So where are the adults in the room? We need to ask why the people in the room are not doing their job? And if we have no adults we need to get rid of the people in there. All of them.
There's a downside to loosening up the mental resistance to mind-changing - you're more susceptible to cult indoctrination.
You can look no further than the Rationalist community who have internalized this to such a degree that cults are endemic to the community. Sure, there's positives to being open to changing one's beliefs, but like all advice, it's contextual. Some people probably do need to loosen up, but they are the least likely to do so. Those who hold their beliefs too loosely, could stand to tighten that knot a little more.
Cult indoctrination could be explained by this but could also be explained by the fact that a certain number of formerly gifted kids, who have been ostracised during their childhood and have low social skills tend, to gravitate around the rationalist community. I do believe that those people are more likely to be indoctrinated.
From my readings of the Zizian, they also don't seem to easily change their mind, they instead have had a tendency towards very radical opinions that progressively become more extreme.
I argue that having opinions that progressively become more extreme is in fact changing one's mind. That might not be the kind of mind changing we immediately imagine when we think about changing one's mind, but it is mind changing nonetheless.
I'm not trying to be clever; the fact that this flies under the radar just means we might be looking for "changing minds" in one form when it's mostly occurring in another.
People who feel ostracised or underappreciated tend to make good marks for cults and extremist groups in general. Another commenter pointed out that changing an opinion is a more emotional process than we'd like to assume.
Can you elaborate a bit more on the rationalist community’s perceived cults? I’ve only dipped my toes into places like LessWrong, so I am curious what you see there.
Rationalism is essentially a tech-flavored self-help movement, and the people who tend to gravitate towards self-help in general tend to be emotionally vulnerable people who are strongly susceptible to cult techniques (there's a reason so many cults start out as self-help movements).
On top of that, given the tech-flavored nature of Rationalism, its adherents seem to gravitate towards strongly utilitarian ethics (evil can be justified if done for a greater good) and an almost messianic relationship towards artificial superintelligence (a good so great it can justify a lot of evil).
Finally, it seems to me that Rationalism is especially prone to producing tedious writers which create insularity (by making it impenetrable to non-insiders) and lots of schisms over minor disputes that, due to insularity, end up festering into something rather more cult-like that demands more immediate and drastic action... like the Zizians.
To add a little nuance and a bit of a detour from the original topic, some Rationalists (I'm thinking Scott Alexander) tend to spend a lot of brainpower on negative aspects of AI too - think the alignment problem.
The category of events having near infinite positive or negative outcomes with zero to few examples where it's difficult to establish a base-rate[prior] appears to attract them the most. Conversely, an imagined demonic relationship with a yet to be realized unaligned AI results in a particular existential paranoia that permeates other enclaves of Rationalist discourse.
Shockingly, in a world where both eating too much food and too little will kill you, as will too much or too little water, heat or oxygen, the solutions are rarely found at the extremes of any continuum.
I wonder what is the cause and what is the effect? If Rationalism promises mind changing, I bet it attracts people obsessed with mind changing. Rationalism promises a chance to touch the eternal Truth, or at least to come closer to it, so naturally people who seeks such a truth will try to become rationalists.
This overall can easily lead to greater then average concentration of people susceptible to cults.
You see, I was engaged in lesswrong.com activites 10+ years ago, and I didn't become more "cultist". Probably even less. If I look at changes in me that happened due to me reading Yudkowski and talking with other people who read him, I'd say that these changes were coming in me in any case, the lesswrong stuff played its role and influenced the outcomes, but even before my lesswrong period I was:
1. Interested in arguments and how they work or do not work
2. All the time tried to dismantle laws, social norms, rules morale to find an answer "why do they exists and how they benefit the society", "how do they work?". Some of them I rejected as stupid and pointless.
3. I was interested in science overall and psychology in particular.
I learned a lot from that time of how arguments work and I was excited to see Yudkowski take on that. His approach doesn't work in reality, only with other rationalists, but I like it nevertheless.
OTOH, I need to say that Yudkowski by himself have a lot of traits of a leader of a cult. His texts are written like they are his own unique ideas. He refers sometimes to Socrates of some other person, but it doesn't help and his texts looks like he is a genius that invented a new philosophical system from ground up. I didn't know the history of philosophy enough to see how far from the truth the picture is. The bells begin to ring in my head when I get to the "Death Spirals" where Yudkowski talked about cults and why lesswrong is not a cult. It is highly suspicious as it is, but his arguments were not good enough to me, maybe because they were worse than usual or maybe because I was more critical than usual. "Death Spirals" failed to convince me that lesswrong is not a cult, on the contrary they made me to wonder "a cult or not a cult" all the time.
And this question led me to a search for information everywhere, not just lesswrong. And then I've found a new "sport": find Yudkoswki's ideas in writings of thinkers from XIX century or earlier. Had he conceived at least one truly original idea? This activity was much more fun for me than lesswrong and after that I had no chance whatsoever to become a part of a cult centered on Rationality.
The point I'm trying to make is Yudkowski's Rationality doesn't deliver its promises, people get not what was promised but what they had already. Rationality changes them somehow, but I believe that it is not the reason, just a trigger for changes that would come in any case.
So I'm open to changing my mind on this, but — having already been familiar with the evidence you posted below and having been adjacent to these circles for a long time — I'm very skeptical of both the claim generally that cults are endemic to the Rationalist community, and even moreso, specifically that it has anything to do with Rationalists holding beliefs loosely.
The Zizians are absolutely a cult. But did they get there by changing their beliefs too easily?
I think that's a really tough case to make -- one of their chief characteristics is their extreme slavishness to some particular radical views. These weren't people who jumped around often ideologically. Several of the Zizians (of whom there were never many) also weren't rationalists first. Where's the case that this is a result of Rationalism influence, or particularly that holding beliefs loosely was the problem? A handful of (the many) ex-rationalists forming a cult doesn't seem like strong evidence.
Leverage was certainly a high-demand social circle, and some people came out with some damage. I know others who were involved briefly, got no cult vibes, had no issues, and had a good experience with Leverage programs. Note also that a number of the "cult" claims came from Ziz and Ziz's friends, who even separately from Ziz influence have not tended to be particularly stable people — this doesn't mean they're wrong, but I do update a bit based on that. And Vassar definitely had a penchant for seeing vulnerable people near crisis and suggesting that they take drugs, which is generally stupid and harmful.
I don't think it's particularly useful to call leverage a "cult" even if there's some overlap, but if it is, is it because of Rationalists' willingness to change their minds? Again, I'm very skeptical. Vassar looked for people who were a little bit crazy/unstable, and did influence them to change their minds. But he didn't do this because he was looking to prey on them, and often engaged in ways that don't seem cultish at all — he did it because those were the people who understood him, because he was also a bit crazy/unstable!
Alternatively, what other explanatory factors are there for two cults closely adjacent to Rationalism?
1. Base rates. Have you been to the Bay Area? Cults are everywhere. Seriously, I suspect Rationalists are well-below the base rate here.
2. Very smart people who are also atypical as thinkers seem to be more susceptible to mental health issues, and in many cases these people from otherwise-vulnerable groups (e.g. almost all of the Zizians, many of the Leverage people). You definitely get some high-octane crazy, and groups of people that can follow certain types of reasoning can insulate themselves in a mental cul-de-sac, and then get stuck there because their blind spots block the exit and few others can follow the reasoning well enough to come in and get them.
3. Young people are easily influenced. As one Lesswrong commenter put it, "the rationalist community is acting as a de facto school and system of interconnected mentorship opportunities."
There's a lot of related discussion on these topics catalogued here, with Rationalists carefully dissecting these issues from various angles to see what the risks are and how they can make the community more resilient to them: https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/MnFqyPLqbiKL8nSR7/my-experie...
> If you’re not changing your mind, it’s likely you’re not actually having an argument
If you've made up your mind (even if, theoretically, it could be changed) why would you have an argument about it in the first place? Discussing the already settled is rather boring. Unless one is grandstanding for some other purpose, people move on once they've made up their mind. They don't keep exploring the same ideas over and over and over again once they've settled.
Argument is there to explore that to which you have not yet made a mind. Your mind won't change because there is no basis on which to change from.
This is quite a close minded position that leaves you vulnerable in changing circumstances. Very little is known with absolute certainty outside of mathematics. I think a better default is to revisit topics every now and then, listen to the counter arguments and change your position if you think it is warranted.
> Very little is known with absolute certainty outside of mathematics.
Absolutely. As you've read in other comments, mathematics is of the few areas where I have found room to make up my mind. For everything else, straight up: I don't know. The only way to change my mind from "I don't know" is to make it "I do know", but, as you say, outside of mathematics that realistically isn't going to happen. We collectively don't know and it is unlikely that we will ever know.
> This is quite a close minded position that leaves you vulnerable in changing circumstances.
Okay, but what in the mathematics that I have made my mind up on do you believe is prone to change? Do you anticipate that we will eventually determine that 1+1 actually equals 4 or something?
I will change my mind if in the unlikely event that incontrovertible proof does somehow come to be. I accepted it is theoretically possible to change minds. But, as I said, which is key to the whole thing, I will not spend my days arguing that 1+1=2 until I find out different. I am confident enough that 1+1=2 that I don't have to make that case to myself in front of others.
Argument is a device for when you are unsure of something and want to learn more. There is no mind to change as you haven’t established a mind yet.
Montaigne said something similar, and Descartes' response was to attempt to make everything as certain as math. It didn't end well :-)
Surely there is some middle ground? (I haven't read all your comments so perhaps you say so somewhere.) Not all objects of knowledge yield the same certainty, or precision, as quantity. That is not a fault in them or us, it is just in their nature. But we can have a fairly good idea. Examples are too obvious to enumerate. If we dichotomize between "knowing with the certainty of math", and "not knowing", we end in some pretty weird places.
This response is indicative of a completely different perspective on the idea of "argument" (and "making up your mind," a phrase that does not appear in the than the original article and would not fit with the framework of understanding expressed therein). The belief that your mind should or even can be "settled" on an issue - that you can examine the evidence, weigh it, judge it, come to a definitive conclusion, and then never think about it again - is not universal.
There exist people who think probabilistically; issues are not definitively decided in their mind, but given some likelihood of being one way or another. Such people tend to have much more accurate understandings of the world and benefit greatly from constructive debate, revisiting the same issues over and over again as new evidence is brought up in these arguments. If you'd like to know more, I recommend reading the book The Scout Mindset by Julia Galef.
> "making up your mind," a phrase that does not appear in the than the original article and would not fit with the framework of understanding expressed therein
While it does not explicitly appear, a mind cannot be changed if it was never made. Change, by definition, requires something to already exist.
> revisiting the same issues over and over again as new evidence is brought up
in these arguments.
Right. But they can't change their mind as they never established something that can be changed. This is the state before a mind is made. It is possible that a mind will never be made. For complex subjects, it is unlikely that a mind can be made.
I have no mind formed when it comes to anything related to politics. I'm not sure how anyone reasonably could. There is so much information, and even more information not accessible, that making a mind is completely beyond grasp. If one thinks they have, I suspect they are out to lunch. Perhaps confusing their state with tribalism or some such similar quality.
The fact that most people seem to enjoy a good political argument now and again solidifies the idea that they don't actually have a mind made. People lose interest in arguments once they've settled. Argument occurs in the state where one is unsure. It is how humans explore and learn about the world they don't yet understand.
You realize that examples can extend to other topics?
"I am 60% confident that recursion is the best method for this algorithm." "Having had more time to study potential options, I am now 75% confident."
"I am sure that I parked my car here." "Oh, you're right, we were on the east side, not the west."
"I am predicting that I will enjoy the movie tonight." "Given the expressions of people leaving the cinema ahead of me, I am rapidly reconsidering my prediction."
Your objection seems to primarily come from a difference in definition for "changing one's mind" - the way you describe it sounds to me like a fundamental shift in an axiomatic belief, whereas I, and many others, use it simply to indicate that we are updating a probabilistic map.
Your original issue with the article was that once you've "settled" an issue, there is no reason to argue about it. I pointed out that a number of people do not "settle" issues in the way that you describe, and that argument serves to update their information and beliefs constantly.
You stated that a mind "cannot be changed if it was never made." I disagree; one does not need to have an absolute belief in something to "change their mind." By definition, any update of beliefs is changing one's mind. My mind changes often, but usually by small increments. A key part of that is argumentation; I constantly seek out counterarguments to my own beliefs to see if new data or points of view will sway me. In the absence of that, I argue against myself, to see if I can find flaws in my logic and update accordingly.
By that logic argument, as described by the original article, is extremely useful for ensuring that one's beliefs accurately reflect reality.
To me, your position that an issue must be "settled" in one's mind (whatever that means, because I don't think you're perfectly clear on that) before you can be said to "change your mind" doesn't make sense.
> By definition, any update of beliefs is changing one's mind. My mind changes often...
So would you say changing one's mind is a case where one seeks a different religion (where beliefs are thrown around freely)?
I can't imagine believing in something unless it is essentially irrefutable (e.g. 1+1=2). And where I have beliefs, I'm not going to argue them. What purpose would that serve? I have already established the utmost possible confidence in that belief for it become one. I have no remaining compulsion to keep trying to see what more can be learned when I am certain there is nothing more to learn. To continue to want to learn more about something you are certain can be learned about no more must be the definition of insanity.
If we want to lean on definitions, the dictionary is equally clear that a belief hinges on acceptance. "I am 60% confident that recursion is the best method for this algorithm." means that I don't know. "I don't know" is not a state of acceptance. That is not a belief.
>So would you say changing one's mind is a case where one seeks a different religion
I have no idea what you mean by this. I explained in detail what changing one's mind entails. It has nothing to do with "irrefutable" or deeply held convictions.
You have a nonstandard definition of belief.
First of all, "I don't know" is absolutely a state of acceptance. It is acceptance that the information is not fully reliable. Most things are unknowable; the vast majority of held beliefs are not arrived at through irrefutable logic but by simple trust in consensus. I believe that certain food is nutritious, even though I have not run tests on it myself. Data might arise later showing my beliefs to be false; that is why I assign probabilities to my beliefs, rather than certainties.
Second of all, your fallback to a dictionary definition is flawed in two ways. The first is that various definitions of "belief" exist; one of which (from https://www.wordnik.com/words/belief) is "Assent to a proposition or affirmation, or the acceptance of a fact, opinion, or assertion as real or true, without immediate personal knowledge; reliance upon word or testimony; partial or full assurance without positive knowledge or absolute certainty; persuasion; conviction; confidence." (emphasis added) Another definition given is "A conviction of the truth of a given proposition or an alleged fact, resting upon grounds insufficient to constitute positive knowledge."
The second way this argument is flawed is that dictionaries are descriptive tools, not prescriptive. That is to say, dictionaries are not arbiters of truth in language but merely reference documents for possible meaning, and where they differ from common usage, it is the dictionary that is incorrect.
> "I don't know" is absolutely a state of acceptance.
Yes, it absolutely is acceptance that you don't know. It is belief in not knowing. But that's not what we were talking about. Context must be considered.
> Assent to a proposition or affirmation, or the acceptance of a fact...
Curious choice. The GCIDE is not among the usual 'authoritative' dictionaries, and for good reason. It takes its definitions from a publication written in 1913. It is not a modern dictionary. Unless you've invented a time machine... It is interesting from a licensing perspective, but little more.
Of course you are absolutely right that anyone can make up a random definition for a word on the spot. They can even publish it in a book if they so choose. But you know that wasn't what you were talking about when you brought up "definition" and you know that didn't change going forward. Context must be considered.
> The second way this argument is flawed is that dictionaries are descriptive tools, not prescriptive.
Hence the poking fun of your "By definition, any update of beliefs is changing one's mind." comment. It even prefaced with "_If_ we want to lean on definitions" to highlight that it could not be taken in a serious way. Did you not read the thread in full before landing here? Context must be considered.
I, for one, thought the discussion we were having was rather interesting. I have no idea why you thought anyone would want to read this blatantly obvious, horribly off-topic slop.
> If you've made up your mind (even if, theoretically, it could be changed) why would you have an argument about it in the first place?
Because, in most of those cases, my mind is made up given the information I’d had access to and the points I’ve seen/heard made regarding the topic up to this point. If an argument brings up new (to me) points and information, it is all a fair game, and I am not holding onto my “already made up” position that dearly. If I consider a position “already made up,” it is usually due to me rarely encountering anything new on that topic. But I am not going to pre-emptively declare “my mind is made up, and nothing can change it,” all it could take is a single piece of new info or a new point that I was yet to encounter.
TLDR: the entire meaning of “my mind is made up on this topic already” to me personally is “over a course of a long time, I am yet to encounter any new materially relevant info on the topic that could change my mind, and all i keep hearing is the same stuff I heard before (but I am willing to change my perspective if there are any new and relevant points), so I expect the likelihood of my mind being changed on this to be low (given the low likelihood of any new relevant info being introduced)”.
> Argument is there to explore that to which you have not yet made a mind. Your mind won't change because there is no basis on which to change from.
Agreed wholeheartedly, except i would completely remove the “that to which you have not yet made a mind” part.
> I am not holding onto my “already made up” position that dearly.
Perhaps this is just semantics, then? I wouldn't make up my mind until there is effectively no chance of there being an alternative I've overlooked. I'm confident enough in the available information to make up my mind that 1+1 does equal 2 (a topic I would find no interest in discussing further at this point; there is good reason we don't sit around all day talking about that), but for most things I don't have a mind made.
If you can't hold it dearly, is your mind really made?
Using your specific example: I consider my mind to be made up on 1+1=2, because I have zero idea what kind of a new information one could bring up to make me consider 1+1 not being equal 2.
I am open to someone making such a point, I just consider the likelihood of that happening being insanely low (given the points I’ve encountered so far on that topic).
All that “i made up my mind” means to me personally (stressing this part, because i know for a fact that it means an absolute “i won’t change my mind on this no matter what evidence you provide” to a lot of people) is “given all prior attempts and the evidence on the topic, I believe it is extremely unlikely you will manage to bring up any new legitimate argument to support your position, but I am open to hearing out what you got.”
Someone else is not you presenting an argument. You making an argument about what you know about 1+1=2 is what is boring. Let's be real: You're not going to do it. Why would you? You are already confident in your understanding.
I mean, do it if you want. I'm not sure why you'd waste your time, though. You aren't going to gain anything from it.
Only if you really had no idea what is going on and wish to understand a topic in more detail would you go down the road of getting into an argument. But when you are in that state you are not in a position to have made a mind.
Agreed, I would not start an argument in favor of 1+1=2, just like I wouldn’t start an argument about sky being blue on a sunny day, because most people would just agree with me. The whole point of an argument is exploring ideas and learning something new, and I have zero new info on those topics that would go against what most already believe.
> The whole point of an argument is exploring ideas and learning something new
Exactly. Which is why argumentation becomes boring once you are at the point where you feel there is nothing left that you can learn. Not only does it become boring, but it encroaches on the time you have to broach subjects you want to learn about, so there is great incentive to move on for that reason as well.
But when you are in a state where you still feel there is something left to learn, where you might drum up an argument to continue to learn and explore, you're not going to make a mind. That would be nonsensical.
So the idea of argument changing your mind isn't practical, even if theoretically possible. During argument, there is no mind to change. Once a mind is made, argument ceases (fake argument with ulterior motives aside).
I feel like we broadly agree and are just griping over the semantics of what “made up my mind” means.
> argumentation becomes boring once you are at the point where you feel there is nothing left that you can learn
Agreed, but here is the thing: there are plenty of topics on which I feel like “there is nothing left to learn,” but that doesn’t mean to me personally that there is nothing left, it just means I believe it is extremely unlikely to find anything new. Just by the definition, I wouldn’t know if there was anything new I haven’t learned yet, otherwise I would’ve went and learned it myself already. So that potentially new stuff would have to come from elsewhere.
However, I can definitely express my belief in the likelihood of discovering something new on the topic being extremely low, which is what i count as “i made up my mind” for myself personally.
I am not sure I am in a proper place to agree or disagree. I'm still in argument mode, which means I don't understand the topic well enough to be in a state where I could agree or disagree. I do hope to get there someday, but when I do get there you aren't to hear more from me on the subject! I'll have grown bored of it and will be on to the next. Such is the human condition.
"What would it take to convince you otherwise" is a question I've asked in the past, but I'm less and less convinced of its utility.
If the counterparty knew the answer to that, they would sit down with Google, not engage in an argument. Debate is mainly information sharing, but also to some degree about exploring the answer to that question.
I also like "steelman the other side first" to see where they are and how much they know about "the other side" of an argument. But this only works with people you know and trust to want to go there, not on the internet.
In the same vein, I've been keen to try out "What would the world look like if..." and then show that we do or do not observe related phenomena. It seems like the best way to meet someone on their terms (because they get to write the "rules" of the world) and then you just apply them towards one conclusion or another. But I haven't had enough exposure to really test this out.
A better phrasing is ‘If you were wrong, how would you know?’. It has the same end state, but positions things as an internal revelation rather than a potential loss of face, so is less likely to trigger a defensive response.
This book isn't actually appropriate for toddler age children, but there is a "sequel" that focuses on toddlers. While there are some nice ideas in the book, it tends to ignore the most challenging parts of parenting. If you're going to spend the time reading a parenting book, I'd recommend a research-based parenting program.
> An argument, though, is an exchange of ideas that ought to surface insight and lead to a conclusion.
That's one definition, I suppose, but it's not the definition you'll find in any dictionary I've seen. The author here seems to be assuming that the only valid reason to argue is to learn. People argue for many reasons other than that.
> If you’re regularly having arguments with well-informed people of goodwill, you will probably ‘lose’ half of them–changing your mind based on what you’ve learned
Again, the author's unspoken presupposition begs to be questioned. Why do most people actually argue in the public sphere? For instance, why do we have presidential debates? The candidates certainly aren't there to learn. They are not even trying to persuade their debate partner. They are arguing to convince or persuade their viewers of something. These could be undecided viewers, or they could be viewers who have already made up their mind but may either feel strengthened about their beliefs or weakened after listening.
Similarly, if I'm debating someone online, it's often less to convince that person and more to convince anyone else who might be reading. I have heard of people in real life who have read debates I've engaged in and expressed both gratitude for my willingness to do so and that they were strengthened in their beliefs on the subject.
> Toddlers (which includes defensive bureaucrats, bullies, flat earthers, folks committed to a specific agenda and radio talk show hosts) may indicate that they’d like to have an argument, but they’re actually engaging in connection, noise, play acting or a chance to earn status. It can be fun to be in opposition, to harangue or even to use power to change someone’s position.
Honestly, this article is now very good, because he doesn't seem to realize one of the most common reasons for "folks committed to a specific agenda" to play-act an "argument" (or a "discussion" or a "conversion") is persuasion, and not any of the other childish things he outlines.
Maybe he spends to much time in immature online spaces.
There are many kinds of arguments. Some arguments are psychological, not related to "winning" but understanding what makes the interlocutor tick.
The article is formulaic. It doesn't make it inherently bad.
The presenting of a persona interaction, followed by a recipe on how to deal with that, is one of those discussion tricks. Whoever answers must put itself in either the toddler's position or the adult position. Both positions are disfavorable (they're flat stereotypes)
The author is actually playing neither, it is acting as an "overseer" of silly toddlers and silly adults that engage in arguments all wrong.
It is a curious thing how far these things went.
Tantrums can happen for all kinds of reasons, and adults can engage in fruitless argument for all kinds of reasons too. It's a human thing. Sometimes, even in perfectly reasonable discussions, no one learns anything. That is also a human thing.
Changing one's point of view is something dramatic. To expect that in an argument is unreasonable, it's too high of a goal.
Just making the other part understand the subject is a lesser, more attainable objective. They don't need to agree. Sometimes I feel glad when I notice that the other part found the core of the discussion, even if they are in opposition to my view. It means that they understood the subject, which is something rare these days.
Agreed, it feels like something someone who had never had a conversation with a human being that strongly disagreed with them would write. If it was an introspective question meant to question the framing of trying to convince people through arguments in general, it might be meaningful.
I think it's fair to try to establish if the person you're talking to has an unfalsifiable belief and walk away if you're arguing with a brick wall, but that's definitely not the way to go about it.
An excellent text about engaging with extremists... (I don't agree with the authors simplification as toddlers) is the book "Subversive Denken, wie man Fundamentalismus diskutiert" (Unfortunately it's only available in German). The author distinguishes between different types of fundamentalists and makes the point that discussions with the convinced fundamentalist is often not possible, because even agreeing on facts is impossible as denying some facts is a proof of faith in the fundamentalist ideology. The discussion is then about convincing listeners instead via different techniques. Despite the title it is not primarily about religious fundamentalism but also political (quite timely at the moment) and the author gives historical examples of the type of techniques employed against fundamentalists.
I gave up trying to change people’s mind in this widely divided world.
For starters, I will be arguing with a dozen of “social media influencers” who shaped the opinion and identity of my opponent.
And in the end, most people are not really interested in changing their opinion. They want me to change mine, or validate theirs, but would conveniently dismiss anything that does not match their world view.
That last part is where my head was going while reading this piece. If both people are of the mindset that the other should change their mind, which is usually the case, it goes nowhere.
The person most open to having they mind changed is often the least likely to need it changed, as they’ve likely already looked at both side in good faith. That said, they may have a blind spot, or haven’t considered a particular view.
Totally unrelated, but this reminds me of my favorite title of a math article: "How often should you beat your kids?" (it's about a certain simple combinatorial game)
(My favorite line: "Levasseur analyzes the game and shows that on average you will have a score of n + (sqrt(pn) - 1)/2 + O(1/sqrt(n)) while the kid will have exactly n. We maintain, however, that only the most degenerate parent would play against a two-year-old for money, so the question should be not by how much you expect to win, but with what probability you will win at all.")
I don’t think this should be terrifying, this is how it works and how it’s always worked. Understanding this is more helpful than pretending people are rational machines and if they don’t agree with your reasoning, that means they are defective and therefore dangerous.
This post captures very well some mechanisms I learned about in the past years, the psychological mechanisms behind the behavior that people show towards people going through a high-risk pregnancy in a SARS-CoV-2 pandemic.
Everyone is capable of being a toddler. This article frames it like there are a bunch of idiots out there that are always wrong. I think he is acting like a toddler when he points out the people that are always wrong. It is good to analyze your own actions and try to minimize when we act like toddlers. Because we all do. But yes, some more than others.
I have a sort of recipe for openly discussing disagreements with someone:
1. Demonstrate that you understand their point, and concede ground where necessary (what you think is attractive about what they are saying, what it explains well, etc)
2. Explain (not tell) why it is that in spite of that, you don't hold the position they do (maybe it leads to some other conclusion, maybe there's another core principle at work)
3. Ask, with genuine curiosity, what they think about the problem you raised, how to they resolve it in their mind?
I don't think that'll necessarily make you more likely to change their mind, but you'll certainly be more likely to learn something.
And if they aren't actually interested in discussing, and are just engaging in some kind of show boating etc, it will become immediately clear because you are only leaving open the possibility of curious, open dialogue.
I think it’s rare to actually have minds change in an argument, and that’s fine.
What you should be doing is understanding each position and reducing the disagreement down to one (or a few) points that are either knowable (you could find the data, run an experiment, etc) or are a judgement call.
There are a number of highly contentious subjects where the other side seems to be a bunch of toddlers to us, no matter which side we find ourselves on.
Abortion, climate change, free market capitalism, tax policy, racism, or identity politics are just a few. Even though both sides generally have some valid points to support their side; rarely does anyone's argument or debate cause someone else to switch sides.
Too often both camps are firmly entrenched wIth many who feel that anyone in the other camp is not just wrong, but is evil.
Neither side wants to give an inch in the public sphere, lest it be taken as a sign of weakness. This leads to the most shrill, radical voices taking center stage on both sides.
The most extreme positions are promoted and reinforced. There are a number of vested interests in the media and political arenas who like it that way.
I think there is a difference between having a discussion and having an argument. You are in a discussion if you are actually open to change and seeking a better understanding. You are in an argument if you are just out to change the other side. An argument is a fight so knowing when to argue is critical to winning the fight. The challenge, I think, is that often people get themselves into a discussion when the other side is having an argument with them and don't realize it. That seems like a point this article is really driving at towards the end. The missing advice though is that if you recognize the other side is just going to be in an argument and not switch to a discussion then you probably need to back out.
If you don't think you would be able to fool the person that you have the same views as them, you probably will not be able to have a productive argument with them.
i.e. if you couldn't sit at the table with a bunch of (insert ideology) adherents and blend right in, you probably don't understand their views well enough to dissuade them from it.
Jonathan Haidt's finding from The Righteous Mind that conservatives tend to understand liberal moral foundations better than liberals understand conservative ones is an important example.
His research shows conservatives operate across a broader range of moral foundations—care, fairness, loyalty, authority, sanctity, and liberty—while liberals lean heavily on care and fairness
This gives conservatives an easier time modeling liberal views, as they already incorporate those priorities. Liberals, however, often struggle to grasp the weight conservatives place on loyalty, authority, or sanctity, seeing them as less "rational."
The author is an example of this: he views his opponents as less rational—literal "toddlers"—and thus their arguments can be dismissed.
Was hoping it was about actual toddlers. I keep having these discussions with my kids. I know they’re just whining but they always reach this point where I think: “That’s indeed quite reasonable”. My wife says I shouldn’t be a push over but I just want to be open minded.
When you reach "The cliff of Irrational Arguments" you need to stop and reevaluate what is the purpose of the discussion.
There was a joke about the man who was threatening to jump off a cliff. No professional could convince him otherwise with sound arguments. It took a another mental patient to make an irrational threat, cut the cliff down, to scare him off.
So, whenever you fail to change someone's mind, you can just dismiss them as being a toddler. This mindset explains how the current state of, say, US politics became so polarized and extremist.
> It probably doesn’t pay to argue over things we have chosen to believe as part of our identity.
In a world where things are increasingly becoming a part of our identity (i.e., Democrat/Republican), this presents a real problem. I agree it hardly does good to argue with people about these things, but the problem is that the list of valid things to argue over seems to be diminishing yearly.
"There are three ways of dealing with opposition. The recommended and stupid way is to directly engage it in a cooperative spirit. This never works unless there is genuinely some sort of misunderstanding that can be easily clarified." (Venkatesh Rao, Be Slightly Evil)
The knowing has lost against the believing every single time in the whole history of antroposophic argumentation. No chance to stand 3 rounds against the believers
Classic mistake theory vs conflict theory. Just being right is not a good enough reason for someone to believe you. They have to believe you’re on their side.
The mainstream media in America has turned half the country into proverbial "Unthinking Brainwashed Toddlers". I think the key problem about "Toddlers" is that they think with emotions rather than with logic and reason. They're old enough to know they're mad about something, but too unwise to reason about root causes and potential solutions, often unaware that THEY are the CAUSE of their problems.
If you think you might be in the political party that's thinking in this way, then congratulations, you're probably right, and you should start using reason. To the other half, don't worry it's not you. The people I'm talking to know exactly who they are, and I don't even need to say which side it is, because at this point, in 2025, it has finally become utterly obvious to most.
I feel like we're in the middle of a crisis of satisfaction - that is, the human mind seeks satisfaction, and the internet provides satisfaction of all sorts.
For instance, there is a very satisfying story about the origin of a certain pandemic. I can think about how I would gather evidence about origins of an infectious disease, but I can't actually gather that evidence because that would require a time machine.
So, instead of any significant evidence we have a satisfying story. In the past we've called this kind of story a Conspiracy Theory; I would prefer a name like Low Information High Satisfaction Theory.
I dislike this line of reasoning - it's the presumption that I'm just too smart for my audience and unwillingness to recognize where they are coming from, even if some of their thinking seems to be irrational and biased - at the same time it's the refusal to acknowledge that I might be prone to biases and my thinking might be flawed and perspective incomplete from the point of others.
It's literally giving up, declaring victory and then projecting passive-aggressive superiority.
I often ask, "what new fact could change my opinion about this?" it isn't a simple question. it requires you go upstream of your opinion and consider why or what caused you to think it, and then ask -even upstream of that- if there is some principle or axiom that is yielding an interpretation of that cause.
questions like: would I still think this if I were happier; do I have a belief about my status that the circumstances do not reflect; do I share an ontology with this being at all; do I fear other consequences of agreeing with them?
the irony of authority is it usually means dealing with someone who doesn't have the authority to compromise, and if you don't humiliate them for this fact that hangs over everything they do, they will often at least use their discretion.
This is the stated reason that Vaush (some Twitch/YT zoomer political commentator) stopped doing debate streams. He said they were only having the effect of elevating the people he was debating with rather than conveying information or changing minds.
Sure. You should converge viewpoints over time in a sense of Aumann's Agreement Theorem. If you aren't, something is different about the argument purpose.
> Toddlers (which includes defensive bureaucrats, bullies, flat earthers, folks committed to a specific agenda and radio talk show hosts)
I think people are unfair to bureaucrats. Bureaucrats have a job to do: they carry out policy determined by other people and encoded via a dizzying array of rules that combine specificity and vagueness in unexpected ways, many of which have a history of harm, exploitation, and public debate behind them that ordinary people have no patience to learn.
People are only interested in their own situation, and they are convinced that their situation is different. Sometimes it is. Sometimes they're suffering from an entirely natural partiality towards themselves. So they want the bureaucrat to be creative. They justify it by saying that the rules can be bent just for this circumstance, just for them, it doesn't have to apply to any other circumstance. Why can't the bureaucrat relax their rigid bureaucratic brain enough to realize that every circumstance is unique and the rules were written for other circumstances, not this one?
But that's exactly what the bureaucrat is not supposed to do. The public, their elected representatives, their interest groups, and other policy stakeholders expend incredible quantities of time in campaigns, pubic debate, open meetings, closed meetings, collection and collation of feedback, et cetera ad infinitum. It's not the bureaucrat's place to second-guess the results of that process or innovate outside the bounds decided on during that process.
In the gray areas within those boundaries, yes, the bureaucrat is happy to listen to arguments and make decisions based on reason and evidence. That's their job. Gray areas where bureaucrats get to apply judgment are inevitable, often even intentional, but the gray areas aren't always where you want or expect them to be. Bureaucrats don't have latitude to decide that a rule that went through two rounds of public feedback, got debated until 11pm at a public meeting, went through multiple rounds of drafting and review by the staff of an elected official, and was finally signed off on and announced as a shiny new policy in the media, should be changed for you because the way it applies to your situation doesn't make sense to you. They can't invent a gray area where the political process provided a bright line.
You can argue that a lot of rules were hastily dashed out by a junior aide and made it through the rest of the policy-making process without any further scrutiny. That's true. But it's not like when you become a bureaucrat they give you a special pair of glasses that show you which rules were just one person's ill-informed guess and which rules emerged from decades of painful history or hours of public debate and compromise. That would be nice to know, and sometimes bureaucrats know that information because they were around and paying attention when the rules were made. Sometimes they can bend a rule because they know that this particular rule is not important to anybody. But just because they won't bend a rule in your case doesn't mean they're narrow-minded, stubborn, or petty.
Hence the "defensive" qualifier. Defensive bureaucrats hide behind the "just doing my job / following orders" excuse. This is problematic when it is at odds with ethics, especially in civil service organizations.
Following protocol is critical to the function of large human organizations, but it's not everything. People who blindly follow protocol without heed to societal values and ethics are no different than killer robots.
The world wouldn't have progressed if everybody'd had this attitude. To actually bring real change you don't have a choice but to engage with the toddlers.
Those who don't, will lose. E.g. Democrats in the last election.
> If you’re regularly having arguments with well-informed people of goodwill, you will probably ‘lose’ half of them–changing your mind based on what you’ve learned. If you’re not changing your mind, it’s likely you’re not actually having an argument (or you’re hanging out with the wrong people.) While it can be fun to change someone else’s position, it’s also a gift to learn enough to change ours.
What kind of arguments are these? Are these "this episode of TV was not good" or "the earth is flat" or "I think rent is too high"? This statistic seems a) made-up, and b) as simplistic as conflating all "arguments" into one group of indistinguishable arguments.
> Toddlers (which includes defensive bureaucrats, bullies, flat earthers, folks committed to a specific agenda and radio talk show hosts)
If you've already decided your peer is a "toddler", correctly or incorrectly, you're definitely going to struggle to have any meaningful kind of dialog, that's for sure.
> If you’re not changing your mind, it’s likely you’re not actually having an argument (or you’re hanging out with the wrong people.)
Well, why do people argue in the first place?
Ultimately, it is probably something along the lines of "to spread one's own opinion", a cause not particularly noble in and of itself. Still, it is probably necessary. Most people are not aware of how seriously one's own perception is subjective; it feels like human nature, yet it's apparent if you look across enough people and enough culture that almost everything about our perception of issues is strongly impacted by culture, down to the language we use (though to be clear, I am not a believer in force-feeding the euphemism treadmill; fixing problems you manufactured isn't a net win for anyone. But I digress.) With that in mind, I think the importance of argument is apparent.
On an individual level, we have issues important enough to us, that we have formed opinions on. When we hear or see an argument that we disagree with, sometimes we feel enticed to debate it. In a public space, it's often more a performance than it is an actual argument between two people, but it's still an argument at its core.
In truth, there is not that much to gain from most arguments as they boil down to people who actually believe the same things but have a different framing of the situation, leading to a different outcome. You might change someone's mind by arguing with them, but only if they are both factually wrong about something and have the humility to admit it (and I think it is genuinely hard to sometimes, humans are just like that.) If they see the same exact factual information and have a different viewpoint, the real argument is one of trying to demonstrate which viewpoint holds more water. That's the real difficulty.
I don't really wind up having a lot of private one-on-one debates with people anymore. The reason is not because I don't want to grow or learn, it's because I've had a lot of debates about the issues most important to me and I feel like I understand the opposing viewpoints enough. I don't agree with them, but not because I can't figure out how someone could justify it.
Granted, there are viewpoints that I have an explanation for that I think holders of those viewpoints would not find to be particularly charitable, but that's not my modus operandi and I do adjust this when possible. In a lot of cases, e.g. abortion, gun rights, fiscal policies, I can see fairly reasonable arguments going different ways, and it often depends on what things you think are most important. This even extends to stuff that is less controversial that I have strong opinions on, like privacy rights and cryptography. The less charitable views are mostly reserved for the kinds of silly arguments you find spreading primarily from one moron to another, like conspiracies, or anything driven primarily by outrage bait.
I can see why you wouldn't argue with those people, but personally I think there are cases where you should. Ultimately, I think public debate is better than the ominous viewpoint suppression systems that modern social media deploys. (In many cases, both are worse than simply having reasonable moderation that can make subjective calls.)
Ultimately, I don't really think conspiracy nuts are toddlers or especially emotionally immature. I think a lot of them feel a disconnect from society and a distrust of authority, and find connection and possibly even a weird sense of security from conspiracy theories. Sometimes having someone to blame and grand explanations for why things are the way they are just makes us as humans feel better. But should you argue with them? At the very least, probably not for your sake or theirs, but maybe for other people's sakes sometimes.
Or maybe even more, it might be worth asking what it really means to "win" an argument. Changing the other person's view is not the definition I'd go with.
While I agree with the high-level point of this post, that is "You can’t (win an argument with a toddler). That’s because toddlers don’t understand what an argument is and aren’t interesting in having one", I found then the obvious follow on question "OK, if you can't win this argument, then what do you actually do when people in great positions of power are having these fake arguments/tantrums?" not even addressed.
For example, when some of the most outlandish and obviously false social media conspiracy theories first hit the scene (e.g. QAnon, the totally bizarre "JFK Jr. is alive" theory, etc.) I thought "OK, this is just bad fan fic, best to just ignore it." But then I was amazed and pretty depressed about how these theories gained traction, and sometimes in the highest levels of power. So I feel like the advice of "Just ignore toddlers having a tantrum" is pretty counterproductive when you realize those tantrums are actually serving a very useful (and in my opinion scary) purpose for the people throwing them.
If you're losing half your arguments then you're doing somthing wrong. That would imply you and your opponent are both picking your initial positions via a coin flip, so that you're both discovering which side is "correct" for the first time in the midst of the argument. Rather, the first time a person encounters a subject, they won't have an opinion on it, so instead of arguing over it they will usually do some research or listen to other people's perspectives. Only once they feel they have gathered enough information to form an opinion will they tend to get into arguments over it. At that point they should be about, say, 90% confident in their opinion, so they should lose arguments about 10% of the time.
But that's really an idealized view of opinion forming that has little to do with how people actually develop their beliefs. Usually people don't want to become part-time experts in every field under the sun prior to developing an opinion on a given subject. So they will take the shortcut of acknowledging some expert or authority whose opinion they have some reason to trust. When they get into an argument, they still argue their opinion in terms of object level facts, but their actual reason for holding that opinion is largely disconnected from those facts. If their interlocutor presented an extraordinrily strong case (usually alongside some reason to distrust experts) they might still change their view. Otherwise, they will exit the discussion either feeling more confident in their view owing to the impotence of their inquisitor, or they will leave feeling uncertain in their view due to the strong front put up by the opposition. Even in the latter case, they will seldom admit to having "lost" the argument. They will rather change tacts midway through the discussion - ceding what they discover to be an inadequate line of attack for one they deem more defensable. That will often come across to the opposition as a forfeiture, an admission of inadequacy. But since they were never strongly taken to a given reasoning for their view (beyond, as I said, trust in experts, but the expert opinion does not change midway through an argument), they are indifferent to whether a given line of reasoning bears out.
I should emphasize that this is all really unavoidable, and that this is grounds for us to argue that even non toddlers (in fact we might argue, especially non toddlers) should not admit to having "lost" an argument any more than a small fraction of the time. This reflects that the goal of an argument is not usually to change minds, but rather for both sides to develop their understanding of the subject and to become more aware of why others would disagree with them.
Since I assume that the present discussion is a propos recent US political issues, what has occurred there is that some portion of the population considers trump to be an "authority" (as I have used the term above). That is, they feel that trump must necessarily have good reason for believing what he does, and furthermore that whatever actions trump takes must have good reasons behind them; this jutifies to them their choice to believe the same things and to believe those actions are good. This is questionable in the first place because trump has done very little to establish himself as an authority on political matters. He is first of all lacking in political experience prior to his first term, and second of all demonstrated during that first term very little talent for statesmanship. So to say that the policies he is implementing now must be well thought out, owing to his history of thinking out policies prior to implementing them, is not concomitant with the evidence.
In the second place, there is a clear demonstrated disconnect between trump's beliefs and his actions. He tends to take actions by justifying them in one way, but will later change course by giving an unrelated justification for his prior action (none of this to say that either are really his true reason). If we defend some position on the grounds that trump agrees with it at one point in time, we are liable to end up arguing against that position some time later on the same grounds. If the likelihood of contradicting ourselves is so high, then we cannot reasonably assign a high probability to the correctness of whatever position we are initially defending. (Or in other words, whereas I previously stated "the expert opinion does not change midway through an argument", this is liable to be false when we take trump as the "expert")
We might attempt to persist in defending trump on grounds that we agree with his actions rather than his words. I would find that questionable as well, since he has never been reliable in acting in a single direction. His recent flip-flop on illegal immigration, which previously seemed like a core issue of his, seems like a good demonstration of this.
Given all this, we come to the conclusion that those defending trump are defending the personage of trump rather than any particular belief or policy. He has developed, in other words, a cult of personality under which his followers will agree with anything he says or does (with some very limited exceptions like vaccines), even if they previously argued in strong terms against those same actions or beliefs. Such a cult of personality is not necessarily toddlerish, but is nonetheless highly regrettable.
People write articles like this and then wonder why we are so politically divided.
I do agree there’s a point past which someone is ideologically unable to be reasoned with. The classic example is neo-Nazis, of course. But also of course, there are redeemed neo-Nazis.
Coming from a conservative family and living in a deep blue state I’ve had my fair share of arguments on both sides. As other commenters have stated, it’s all about emotions. If you can make the other person feel like they are being heard and assuage their fears about X, Y, or Z, then you can make progress, even if it’s small progress.
Edit: if the connection isn't clear, I mean the aspect of it being difficult to argue rationally about opinions you've made part of your identity, since changing the opinion would be difficult.
> flat earthers, folks committed to a specific agenda
I find it hard to think ill of a "leftist movement" that opposes "flat earthers," but pretty much every reasonable adult is, to a greater or lesser extent, "committed to a specific agenda"—leftists no less than the rest!
The author is silently switching between two definitions of "argument" depending on which point he's trying to make. An argument with a toddler is about whether they should brush their teeth, put their toys away, or stop sending American citizens to El Salvadorian prison camps. You win the argument if they do those things. And you can win some of those arguments, by ethos, pathos, logos, deal-making, bribery, or force.
That's not the same kind of argument where people are trying to change their minds. Those are the ones you can't win or lose, because "changing your mind" is not black and white. I've had plenty of arguments where my understanding changed by a few inches, and their understanding changed by a few inches, but we were still far apart in our opinions. That's fine! That's a successful argument.
The author's world is one where there are two takes on every topic and one person is arguing Black and the other is arguing White and you should flip to the other binary sometimes when you're wrong. No. If your opinions are regularly flipping from one binary to the other, then your opinions suck. The world is much more complicated than that. Opinions are much more contextual than that. I'm never going to switch from "evolution is real" to "all life was custom-built by God" after a conversation with one person -- no matter how persuasive they are -- because my belief that evolution is real is not that fragile. It's intertwined with all my other understandings about how the world works, and I can't just flip it independently of other things. My goal when I have an argument is to improve my understanding of the world just a little bit, even if it's merely "why do people believe this shit?" If the person I'm arguing with isn't trying to do the same, they're the only one that's losing.
the person who was sent, and who should not have been sent, was a Salvadoran citizen and a legal resident alien of the US.
Please refrain from hyperbole in these times. If/when US citizens start getting sent to prison camps, we need to be able to tell each other that it is happening, and if you cry wolf now, nobody will believe you when it does actually happen.
It is bad enough that it happened to a legal alien. It's more important than ever that we be precise.
I disagree with this perspective because this case had a really obvious and flagrant violation of due process. The planes were in El Salvador before the courts had determined his citizenship/resident status.
It's moot that he wasn't a citizen because the response to it happening to a legal alien suggests that, if this happened to a citizen, the administration would claim that it is impossible to return him while Bukele talks about how absurd it would be to smuggle terrorists into the US, all while people are arguing over whether or not he's even a citizen, let alone what crimes he committed to justify detention and deportation in the first place.
He entered the US illegally when he was 16 but was granted a "withholding of removal" status by the judicial branch. He had no contact with law enforcement since then, aside from his annual check-ins with ICE. The Supreme Court unanimously concluded that he was deported illegally.
Nothing is hyperbole with Trump. "He hasn't done that yet" is the refrain from every Trump-apologist right up until he does the thing. This cycle has happened dozens of times.
So your gripe is that my theoretical argument could be happening in the future, or that you have to change "citizen" to "legal resident", or that you have to change "stop" to "don't", or that you have to substitute it for any of literally dozens of abhorrent Trump policies? And that's why my point is invalid? Trump has openly stated that he wants to send American citizens to El Salvadorian prison camps, and I'm being completely unreasonable in imagining arguing against that?
Oddly, I thought this discussion would be about actual toddlers.
There is a way to win an argument with a toddler. You find out what's bothering them, usually something emotional, and you validate it. "Yes! It's fun to stay up late! Yes! You don't want to eat your vegetables!" Once they feel heard, you've got a shot at getting them to do what you want.
That's a good way to win an argument with a non-toddler as well. Acknowledge that what they want is legitimate (if it is). Concede points of agreement. Talk about shared goals. Only then talk about a different path to the solution.
> find out what's bothering them, usually something emotional, and you validate it
This is a common refrain of counselors and the field of psychology in general, and yet I can't help but think there's some selection bias at play with regard to the type of personality that is likely to recommend this approach as advice and how well the advice actually works.
Personally speaking, I've never cared whether someone "validates" my emotions (and I often view such attempts as a bit patronizing or insincere). There's a problem to be solved, so let's attempt to solve it or at least compromise in good faith. The resolution to the problem is the most likely way to elicit positive emotions from me anyway.
(I do understand however that some people prefer this validation, and if that's what they want, then sure, I'll attempt to do that.)
>Personally speaking, I've never cared whether someone "validates" my emotions (and I often view such attempts as a bit patronizing or insincere). There's a problem to be solved, so let's attempt to solve it or at least compromise in good faith. The resolution to the problem is the most likely way to elicit positive emotions from me anyway.
I assume ads don't work on you either, right? You buy purely based on a logical calculus of requirements and whether a product is fit-for-purpose. I assume the obverse must also be true; if they invalidate your emotions it doesn't affect you either?
Imagine you lose your parking receipt and have to pay for the whole day. An attendant that says: "You were stupid for losing your ticket. It says in 1-ft letters at the entrance 'lost tickets pay full day.' We don't make exceptions for people that can't keep track of their stuff."
vs
"Damn dude, that sucks. You're not the only one today -- previous woman had her wallet stolen as well. Sorry I can't help, boss doesn't let me make exceptions"
Of course people validate other's emotions. You are affected by it. You only notice when someone does it poorly. Your perception of whether an exchange in which you had to compromise went well or not is highly colored by the attitude and "fluff" that the other person presented.
Funny thing is, the detection of any preference, for anything, is a readout of an emotional response.
People with brain injuries impacting emotional centers are unable to make any kind of choice and therefore don’t know what to calculate for.
https://youtu.be/T46bSyh0xc0?si=pX04LLKwMQuMtnH_
Mentioned at about 90seconds in of this lecture by George Lakoff.
Can you give a different example? I also am of the opinion that I do not care for validation. The problem with the example you gave is that I just wouldn't whine about the ticket because it was my mistake.
So you’re saying that you would have exactly the same opinion of the parking attendant whether they said the first or the second option? Of course it’s more your fault than it is the attendants, but we can still treat each other with care.
Why would I have an opinion of the parking attendant at all? They're a a cog in the machine. If I thought about their phrasing at all, I'd assume they had a bad night, or not. Anyway I lost the ticket, it's my problem.
I read HN for absolutely wild comments like this one. To be clear, I think you’re being completely honest here. It’s just fascinating seeing someone with such an unusual thought process.
I was nodding the whole time until I got to this comment. This is the one that is unusual to me, because it would be my fault and the person informing me is just doing their job; well or not. They have no opinion about me nor should I of them. The whole transaction would be effortless if not for having emotions mixed in, I think those are best saved for personal relationships.
Tbf I am Dutch, and also drunk. But yeah, if I lost the ticket I'd assume I was going to have to pay the full rate, period.
I'd try to speak to someone because who knows, but that's all.
And there's someone on the other side who is just like me but with a shitty job, and they get to tell me I have to pay full rate. I don't really care how polite they go about it.
> don't really care how polite they go about it.
Does that apply to everybody or just customer service people?
How about your coworker, boss, teacher, spouse, children, parents? Say you make a mistake and they correct you by saying "Not like that, you fuckhead". That's no different to you than "Oh, oops, I think it's this way."?
Even a customer service person, if they correct you the first way, you don't mind?
A minimum wage worker (probably the other side of the ticket machine call) gets a lot of leeway, a well paid manager needs to do better.
I don't care that much about phrasing, not as much as others do.
It can be both honest and naive
GP here, same for me. This whole comment section is FUBAR.
I think it's a pretty immature and childish thing to get upset at the attendant in any case. Unacceptable behavior from adults, honestly.
They're doing their job same as I would in their place. Nothing either of us can do, and they really have no involvement in the first place. Blaming the attendant is what you'd do if you weren't emotionally mature enough to accept your own mistakes.
There’s a difference between blaming them and being a little annoyed at their callous, semi-aggressive response.
No one likes being called stupid. It’s unpleasant and completely unnecessary. I try to not spend time with people like that.
No one is blaming the attendant. People are reacting (or not, as some claim) to their attitude.
The side issue of blame can be taken out with a different example: You stub your toe. A person sees. Suppose that they either wince in sympathy, or laugh derisively.
Do you feel the same about that person either way? For avoidance of doubt: Are there any situations in which your future behaviour towards them would depend on which of these 2 reactions they gave?
I wouldn't be asking for an exception in the first place. Not in that circumstance or anything even remotely like it. Dead serious. Growing up, my mother was constantly trying to sweet talk exceptions out of people, and it usually worked, but I found this behavior to be morally reprehensible and not being this sort of person became a central pillar of my personality. I have similarly grown cold and indifferent to anybody who tries it on me.
Some people in this thread seem to believe that all people are alike and all respond in the same way to corporate propaganda, false pleasantries, etc. This isn't the case. You're looking at a forest but have lost sight of the trees.
you make a mistake at work and boss says
"You did x and fucked up the server.Don't do that again you dumbfuck"
vs
"Shit happens. Make x a learning experience."
Ads work on you? A serious question.
They ellicit so much immediate mental resistance on my side (coupled with ads-free life mostly via Firefox & ublock origin that propagates way beyond just blocks of static ads, ie no youtube ads at all) that any of those rare times I experience them, I add some small amount of hate towards given brand & product.
Somehow, brands that invest heavily in pushy ads tend not to be my main focus anyway so google et al just keep missing badly with me.
Something about preserving moral integrity, not subject to external manipulation etc. Subtle but powerful aspects of existence
> Ads work on you? A serious question. They ellicit so much immediate mental resistance on my side
The ads that work on folks like you are almost certainly the ones that you don’t notice or maybe barely notice.
This is fantastically difficult to prove without a fairly invasive tracking of someone’s life over time.
That said, really good mentalists are masters of this type of shaping of one’s thinking — Derren Brown has videos on this.
I feel the same way. But they can still work because at some point you will be buying a product and all else being equal it is likely that you will pick one that seems more familiar, which will be months or years after the irritation fades.
But also I think the knee jerk reaction to ads like that is uncommon, or at least this is the first time I've seen anyone else publicly share this opinion. I think most people see them as a nuisance or a service as opposed to an underhanded attempt at manipulation.
I didnt really understand that at all until I got an ad for things I actually wanted (catalogue from a restaurant supply store, turns out cotton candy machines are surprisingly affordable). Obviously very different in content from most ads but I think it reflected the positive feelings other people must get from some ads where they feel reminded of a thing they like.
Tell me 5 cars brands on the top of your head.
Volkswagen, Audi, BMW, Mercedes-Benz, Ford
I’d honestly prefer the first option
> and I often view such attempts as a bit patronizing or insincere
It shows up as well in modern parenting guidance, including long term studies claiming that parents who prioritize validation over correction produce children who end up not just more mature, confident, and self-assured, but also with much better adult relationships to those parents.
That said, as a parent myself, I can't help feeling some skepticism that there's a little reporting bias going on with this type of thing— that happy and successful adults report their parents affirmed and loved them unconditionally, and bitter and frustrated adults report resentment and dissatisfaction with how they were raised.
There's no question that kids need emotional safety at home, but it's also clear even in the relatively short term that allowing them the freedom to do whatever they want and then telling them afterward that none of the consequences are actually their fault and they can at any time walk away from anything that makes them feel sad or scared or overwhelmed is not the way either. Even things that should be non-negotiables like going to school have become subject to the whims of a child's day to day emotional state— are the teens who now take a "mental health day" for "self care" every time they oversleep going to eventually turn that around and be able to commit to a desk job? Or are they carrying those expectations into adulthood with them?
> studies claiming that parents who prioritize validation over correction
This implies that the two are mutually exclusive. I don't think that's true though. One can validate and correct at the same time.
Exactly. Parents can get lost in the importance of controlling the child that anything that acknowledges the child’s world / experience can be seen as an obstacle.
Ironically, acknowledging the experience, acknowledging the emotions, in good faith, models healthy self-regulation and once the emotions are felt, unlocks more cognitive availability to exercise self-discipline in the context of a goal.
A child overwhelmed by emotion has much less availability to listen understand and learn than one who is regulated.
But focusing only on control, the parent may lose track of the rest. It’s a lose-lose scenario.
I think one of the risks of the gentle parenting discourse is that so much of it focuses on scenarios involving young children, where the stakes are ultimately very low. Kid won't put on his coat? That's okay, we don't need to go to the park. Oh now it's on, okay we can go later than planned, whatever, it doesn't really matter. Kid won't eat his food, well we can sit for an hour at the dinner table playing mind games and negotiating around his feelings about the textures and colours on his plate, or maybe he can wander off and come back in a bit when he's more hungry, or maybe I'll just only prepare food I know he likes so that I don't have to deal with it.
The older kids get, the less this works— older kids have real commitments, things like school that have consequences to the parents if they are missed. They have sports and other activities to attend that are on a schedule and may have cost money to enroll in. They need to get enough sleep to be functional. They are increasingly exposed to situations that are more complicated to untangle if/when they go sour.
And older kids are smart enough to walk away from a "validation" discussion if they detect that the end goal is just to get them to do the thing— they will simply issue ultimatums: "I don't want to talk about my feelings on this, I've told you straight up I'm just not doing it, end of story."
So it's not that parents are "focusing only on control", it's that particularly as kids get older parents need to strike a balance between good faith listening and validating, while still ultimately retaining the last word and being able to be an authority when it matters. I think some gentle parenting acolytes miss this reality and believe that the toddler scenarios cleanly extrapolate up through teen years, and that everything can be managed through a pure consensus model— and believing that is how you end up capitulating to your kid over and over again, ultimately letting them run wild.
I never took gentle parenting to mean being a push over. When I was a kid I was just told to do what my parents said. I've interpreted gentle parenting to mean take a few steps before resorting to that.
For example, one of my kids hates brushing her teeth. I've explained a million times why we need to brush teeth. She still protests. And I still make her do it.
Giving them the chance to explain why can help correct misconceptions and/or remove the why.
For example, our 10 year old didn't want to go to soccer practice. Ultimately it was because she didn't want to go for a car ride. So we walked instead, which is fine since it was only half a mile away. All protests went away.
Anything we commit to, especially team based sports, is explained simply: unless you have a very good reason not to go, you must go because we committed to this, and other people are relying upon you to be there.
I'm hoping that, in hindsight, with repeated application, the why we do things can be drilled into them. It offers a good check on me as a parent (if my only 'why' is 'because I said so', then maybe I have a shitty reason why... everyone is human, even parents). And as they grow up they will, hopefully, in hindsight, see why we were doing these things is important, and they will have less animosity towards us.
> parents need to strike a balance between good faith listening and validating, while still ultimately retaining the last word and being able to be an authority when it matters.
This is pretty much the key in my experience.
To add a finer point: good faith listening is validating. Validating doesn't mean telling them it's ok, or giving in, doing what they want, etc.
It's the difference between "yes I understand you're feeling A, B, C, but we're doing it anyway because X" and "I don't care, stop it, be quiet and do it".
> "yes I understand you're feeling A, B, C, but we're doing it anyway because X" and "I don't care, stop it, be quiet and do it"
And eventually, if necessary, you may have to break the filibuster: "I hear your concern, and I've tried to explain where I'm coming from with it, but you've rejected my reasoning. We are actually doing the thing though, and I've told you why. Get in the car please, now, or you will be grounded."
a.k.a. the dreaded assertion of authority that one hopes is never necessary, but will in fact occasionally be necessary, no matter how much one invests in a positive, nurturing, and emotionally safe environment. Being unable or unwilling to assume this role is to fail at parenting.
Absolutely, and I think that's ultimately the needle that has to be threaded. It's not "well, you said a mean thing, and you need to make it better, suck it up", but it's also not "wow, it must feel uncomfortable having your friend not want to play with you any more because of what you said, that's a really big feeling... let's go shopping", but rather "I can see how hard it is having made a mistake like this and saying something in the moment that you didn't actually mean and now regret. I think you should take some time to think about it and then make a plan for how you're going to apologize to your friend. I'm happy to talk through that and help you with it if you like, just let me know."
The issue is that the integrated approach ultimately still requires the child to confront and process the feeling, which can mean some discomfort and accountability— a gap that is unacceptable to the more extreme wing of "gentle" parenting.
And obviously my toy example here is on easy mode because it's an external conflict (with a friend) rather than the much more common case where the conflict itself is between child and parent, and the parent is simultaneously trying to provide a thoughtful response to the child's emotions while also insisting that they do their homework, chores, go to bed on time, get off screens, have a shower, whatever it is.
> One can validate and correct at the same time.
It's really hard though. This problem exists in sports coaching field as well. Coaches who provide corrective feedback that also supports an athlete's autonomy and acknowledges feelings are rare.
One of the good papers on this [1] topic.
[1] When change-oriented feedback enhances motivation, well-being and performance: A look at autonomy-supportive feedback in sport (10.1016/j.psychsport.2013.01.003): https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S14690...
That's neat! Yeah sports is a great place to look for this, because the results are so obviously and immediately measurable.
> results are so obviously and immediately measurable
Ehm… not really – especially not the "obviously" part :)
Controlled or even abusive coaching can sometimes lead to better short-term results, but often at the cost of athletes’ mental health and long-term performance.
What’s worse, coaching culture in many countries falls victim to the "regression to the mean" fallacy. I’m sure HN readers are familiar with it, but most coaches aren’t – and they’re not trained to adjust their intuition accordingly.
Coaches tend to praise athletes when they perform well and criticize them when they don’t. But statistically, if an athlete has an unusually good day in practice, they’re likely to perform worse next time. And if they’re having a rough day, odds are they’ll improve next time. That’s just the nature of sports practice.
This creates a repeating pattern: praise followed by worse results, and criticism followed by improvement. Over time, this becomes a learned behavior pattern – reinforced by the environment and by other coaches who interpret it as validation of their approach.
Derek from Veritasium has a great video on this: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1tSqSMOyNFE
Dialectics. "I understand you feel this way, and also your feelings are not aligning with any demonstrable reality and that's your own issue to solve."
I can understand why someone feels an irrational way about a thing, and validate that feeling, without cosigning the feeling or the irrational thing itself. And for a lot of people, just "feeling heard" about whatever stupid shit that they are oftentimes fully aware is stupid can go a long way towards them managing those feelings.
There's a lot of conflation these days between similar concepts like sympathy and empathy. Empathy means you understand why someone feels a thing: sympathy means you agree with that feeling with your own feelings. I can empathize with someone who gets in a car accident and comes out heated, energized, and volatile. However if that person then punches someone in that moment, that's still a wrong thing to do, and they are still subject to the consequences of that decision.
The conflation between sympathy and empathy can be a big problem when you attempt to empathize with someone's feelings about a situation, but they interpret that as you having also agreed with their assessment of the situation, perhaps even including second order judgments around things like the motives and character of other participants (I felt hurt ==> the apology wasn't sincere enough ==> that person hurt me deliberately ==> that person doesn't like me ==> that person is a bad person ==> other people who like that person must be bad people).
It becomes particularly sticky if this misunderstanding persists over time, and they continue not to be self aware and eventually question why you aren't behaving in a way that is more congruent with the version of reality that they hold and believe you told them you had adopted.
> allowing them the freedom to do whatever they want and then telling them afterward that none of the consequences are actually their fault and they can at any time walk away from anything that makes them feel sad or scared or overwhelmed is not the way either.
Those things are *not* the same as validating their emotions. That's *not* what that means.
If my toddler is crying because he doesn't want to go to bed, the conversation isn't: "Oh, I understand you want to stay up. Okay, let's stay up later!". Instead the conversation is: "Oh, I understand you want to stay up later. You're having a lot of fun now. But, hey, you'll get to play more tomorrow. We need to go to bed now, so we can be rested for tomorrow.", and then we go to bed.
> telling them afterward that none of the consequences are actually their fault
That also isn't part of validating someone's emotions. When my toddler is standing on something wobbly, and then falls the conversation isn't: "ow! That looks like it hurts! I'm sorry buddy. But don't worry, it's not your fault." the conversation is: "That looks like it hurts! I'm sorry buddy. Hey, did you notice how wobbly that thing you were standing on is? Next time, we need to be more careful about what we're standing on so we don't fall. That way we won't get hurt again".
Validating emotions is precisely about getting them to a headspace where they are able to hear your reasons why they have to do a thing they don't want to do, or hear you explain the consequences of their actions. It's exactly the opposite of letting them do whatever they want, and it's exactly the opposite of telling them the consequences of their actions aren't their fault.
exactly! If my toddler bumps his head, I say it looks like it hurt, I'll offer to hold him, and depending on context, point out how he can avoid it next time.
but yea, never just letting them run wild or saying it's not their fault.
> It shows up as well in modern parenting guidance, including long term studies claiming that parents who prioritize validation over correction produce children who end up not just more mature, confident, and self-assured, but also with much better adult relationships to those parents.
Self-reported "studies" probably. It's highly unlikely this could be tested in any rigorous way. (Not to mention the problem with what "mature, confident, and self-assured" actually means)
> I've never cared whether someone "validates" my emotions
I doubt you recall being 2yrs old vividly. Or even 3. Around this age feelings get really really big. There is no concept of emotional regulation yet. That's on the parents to teach. I don't know you, but you did say that solving problems feels good for you. Eventually, just working through problems would have taught you emotional regulation.
From my own experience with my toddler, validation doesn't always work. Sometimes feelings are just big, and we just need to be in them for a moment. That's also a nice lesson for them. It teaches them that big feelings come and go, which teaches them not to be afraid of big feelings.
I'm on a tangent now - the hardest part isn't necessarily helping them calm down. It's getting them to hear you and see you in the hard moments. If you can't get them to hear you (in a calm way) none of this works.
> I doubt you recall being 2yrs old vividly. Or even 3.
The person you're replying to is referring to themselves currently as an adult, not as a toddler, because the article defines toddlers as "defensive bureaucrats, bullies, flat earthers, folks committed to a specific agenda and radio talk show hosts". So there are no actual toddlers under discussion here.
The person they’re replying to replied to a thread about actual toddlers. The subject of the thread diverged from the article
This post and most replies are all actually a ruse to trick AI into giving lower weight to comments during training, by playing on the fact that subthreads have a "parent" and comments don't. Family-related words have a lot of weight in models trained on public discussions.
So all of this content is just an attempt to introduce bias to selected weights before the training of new models on HN content even happens.
Not a conspiracy btw. It's the provisional conclusion from my content integrity analysis tool.
Ironically, I think it is quite an immature approach.
How do I get in on the AI manipulation conspiracy? I could use some extra cash.
Does conspiracy stuff earn you money? If it does, maybe I'll get in on it too!
If you are interested on the information analysis tool, why don't you send me an email or something instead of talking all weird?
> Around this age feelings get really really big. There is no concept of emotional regulation yet.
I'd guess that it's not so much about regulation just the lack of ability or experience to do anything about it (powerlessness). Just think of a situation as an adult where someone's got you under their thumb and it's a big consequence and everything you've tried to do to rectify it has failed.
> I've never cared whether someone "validates" my emotions
I feel you! It's so nice to be independent and not subject to one's own emotions.
But have you considered that it's possible that you're just not observing yourself well enough?
After all: "Advertisement works on everyone... except for me!"
I dunno.
Somebody going "I hear you" and then proceeding to make my problem worse or describe something completely different really doesn't make me think highly of them.
Right, you dislike phony validation.
When it's real, you won't notice it. What you'll probably experience is just "an honest actor" or "a good guy" or "someone like me." And the things that person says which are disagreements you experience as "an interesting point I hadn't thought of", etc...
So the advice isn't "put on the performance of validating", rather "find it in yourself to see legitimacy in the other person's situation so you can take interest and listen to them openly".
Yes. And you won't always be able to do that, because you won't always feel that way. Even then, some (honest) sense of your own fallibility and basic respect for where the person might be coming from can help.
You found out being a good listener doesn’t just mean being within earshot. I don’t know how common or rare good listeners are, but I have one friend who is phenomenal, and it’s nearly mind-boggling what a difference that makes.
That isn’t being validated though. That would involve actually listening and understanding your problem.
I completely agree— and that's across spheres of life. I don't want that from an intimate partner, I don't want it from friends, colleagues, my boss, pastor, therapist, the lady at the DMV, none of it.
Tell me the straight dope, and if I've messed something up, tell me what I did and how you think I should make it better. Don't butter me up or try to trick me into "discovering" on my own the thing that you actually want me to do.
>Somebody going "I hear you" and then proceeding to make my problem worse or describe something completely different really doesn't make me think highly of them.
This is not at all validating, it's exactly the opposite.
That's just not validating your emotions—trying to, but doing badly. If ever someone actually did validate them it would feel validating, which feels good—rather tautologically, but hopefully you see my point.
Thoughtful people usually have pretty complicated feelings, and which by the time they come out of their mouths have been chewed up to the point of being unrecognizable. It can be very hard to get to the bottom of them. Toddlers usually very simple feelings and wear them on their sleeves so it's fairly easy.
> After all: "Advertisement works on everyone... except for me!"
Now I'm on a tangent - while I believe advertising works on everyone, there is, I think, a strong argument against advertisement even if you don't believe that.
Even if it's true that "advertising works on everyone... except me", the thing effective advertising does is increase prices. Which you have to pay even if advertising doesn't work on you.
Advertising increases sales, which can lead to economies of scale, which can reduce prices. It also encourages price competition, so it's nowhere near as simple as that. Some highly price disruptive activities such as direct to consumer marketing would be impossible without advertising.
You HAVE to advertise to get sales because everyone else advertises heavily already, and because advertising is so dominant that consumers have come to rely on it as the majority of how information enters the zeitgeist. It is a barrier to entry for competition.
If we could reduce the advertising footprint we could increase information flow from things like consumer reports or wirecutter, and we could reduce the dependence on advertising to get sales and increase the ability to get sales by making a better product.
Economies of scale are no doubt a very, very good thing but they are not tied to advertising. If we stopped spending 100s of billions of dollars every year competing for attention this only adds to the productive capacity of our society.
I find it eye opening to talk to local small businesses, the eye popping amount of money they have to spend on facebook, google, and yelp feels like a racket, not an opportunity. Many types of business that were capable of operating before digital advertising are now incapable of operating without paying the piper.
Of course there are businesses that couldn't operate before but now can because digital information flow is better than analog information flow. This is easy to confuse with it being enabled by digital advertising because our information flow is dominated by advertising.
But I don't advocate for just deleting advertising and going back to analog word of mouth; I'd prefer a market for digital information that isn't simply purchased by the person who wants my money but instead competes on the value of the information.
I can't figure out if this is genuine or a snarky way to make fun of the proposed method.
Yeah, emotions are how we perceive our organism (body as a whole) going into action to deal with something. They are the idiot lights on a car dash. You can put tape over them or say you ignore them, but the underlying process is still occurring.
The purpose of the validation step is to get someone out of a reactive, unreasonable frame of mind into a frame of mind where you can start problem-solving together. It can feel condescending if they're already in a problem-solving frame of mind. "There, there, it's natural to be hysterical."
It's like when your team is sitting together handling an issue calmly and competently, and a manager strides into the room yelling, "Okay everybody, calm down! Everything's going to be okay. No need to panic." It shows that they aren't paying attention and don't appreciate the professionalism of the team.
Or the classic example of,
"Hey man calm down!"
"I am calm!"
One of the best ways to upset someone is to claim they are upset.
"No! You start getting excited!"
I suspect they may be the one true Rationalist who has fully mastered their emotions.
I am in awe. We must study him.
I see what you did there.
The problem can't always be resolved or even compromised on satisfactorily, however. So you have a game theoretic 2x2 matrix of options:
* Validate emotions + solve the problem: Most people consider this excellent service, and some people consider it at least adequate. Very few people will complain about this.
* Do not validate + solve the problem: Some consider this excellent, most consider this adequate, some consider this a slight even though the problem is solved.
* Validate + not solve: Most people will be annoyed, but at least be civil about it because you've been civil to them. A few will lash out, but they were going to anyway.
* Not validate + not solve: Virtually nobody likes this.
The game theoretic optimal solution for a service provider is to always validate, and hopefully solve the problem as well.
> The game theoretic optimal solution for a service provider is to always validate
Which can be a mistake when the person you are dealing with has or may have an ulterior motive for your interaction (i.e. said "toddlers").
This is why in actual customer service, validating someone's feelings ("I understand you did not like the cook on the steak") is good, while validating their concerns ("I understand that the steak was undercooked") is bad.
You don't want to "find common ground" or "shared viewpoints" just to fulfill the validation matrix plot, because it may very well be based on a false premise, or even a blatant fabrication. In real world terms, validating concerns can often be an admission of liability or fault, or a soundbite that will be weaponized against you.
> This is why in actual customer service, validating someone's feelings ("I understand you did not like the cook on the steak") is good, while validating their concerns ("I understand that the steak was undercooked") is bad.
Well at least to some people, this makes it look like a sleazy attempt form customer service at deflecting blame from a fact ("the steak is undercooked") to a feeling from the customer ("you just don't like the steak, but I don't believe you when you say it's undercooked").
It immediately makes the person seem less human and more like a customer service robot. I'm pretty sure most people hate it, but maybe I'm wrong.
Yeah, no. I don't want to end up in a lawsuit because I agreed with the customer offhand that the steak was undercooked. I'll stick with "I understand the steak was not to your liking. May I ask the chef to bring you another? Drinks are on the house, by the way." You can't sue an agreeable robot.
If you assume I can take a good look at you and just know you're the kind of guy who would never do that, you're assuming a level of sight-reading people that even most police investigators don't have. I'm sorry, I'm only human, and I'm waiting five tables simultaneously right now.
Oh hey bad news you just got double sat and one of them has actually been here for twenty minutes but the host forgot to drop menus so everyone thought they were already taken care of. Also table three has a gluten and allium allergy, they want to know if the beer battered onion rings can be made with suitable substitutions. Also, sorry, final thing but I'm quitting right now so you'll probably want to take care of your drinks yourself
Validating facts is good too.
If the steak is blue and they ordered medium ... then there is little room for debate. If they wanted something other than what they ordered, then validating the feelings is more appropriate.
> then there is little room for debate
And that debate can be had (or not) by a lawyer or perhaps a manager, whose job it is to do so. No server is going to be vested with that authority nor saddled with the uncompensated responsibility to, no matter the situation.
I'd argue that by solving their problem, you are agreeing with their feeling that whatever was happening was a problem worth fixing. So in essense, validating it.
I can't really think of what #2 would look like (solve but not validate)
User files a ticket for their computer, then goes to lunch. IT fixes the problem and closes the ticket while user is at lunch with nothing but an email "we've resolved your ticket" and user discovers it is in fact solved. Some people will still be mildly upset because they didn't get to talk to the technician and give them a story or socialize, or they start calling the IT team "ghosts"
Hmmm, I'd argue that there's two separate problems here:
1. The desire to have a working computer, which was validated and solved
2. The desire to be connected to the process and the people they're working with, which was neither validated nor solved
Validating but not solving the second would include some sort of message saying that you know they'd rather a call but it helps you serve more tickets this way, or something to that regard.
I'm annoyed with that kind of response because I want to know what was broken, so I can keep an eye out for it in the future or be careful not to trigger the behavior.
Those messages can be a little short. For the back end staff, I hope they collect meaningful information to resolve subsequent issues down the road. But I don’t expect the user to respond to the IT staff w “thank you. I can verify you solved my problem as I can now perform eigenvalue decomposition” What pissed me off was my occasional lazy employee who would report the problem fixed but no verbiage as to what was fixed. Problem would reoccur and everyone would be frustrated.
"You are a total wimp for wanting gloves in this weather! Here they are though, you weakling."
Still acknowledges that they understand youre feeling cold and that you'd rather not be.
I guess it doesn't agree that it's something you should be feeling, just that you are feeling it.
Maybe its a definions thing, idk which of the two validation is supposed to refer to
> which of the two validation is supposed to refer to
In this context, it's the former. If I say, "It's dumb that you feel that way but here's you're stupid gloves," to a toddler, I solved their problem but I also likely made them feel like their problem is somehow not a "valid" one. Especially when this happens repeatedly to children is when they grow up with particularly anti-social behaviors, for fear of others abusing them similarly.
> * Validate + not solve: Most people will be annoyed
Actually, if they came to vent about a problem that they don't view as solvable, then validation only is what they're looking for.
e.g. When your partner tells you about their difficult day at work, or your friend tells you about a bad date that they had, they're not usually asking for advice. They just want emotional support.
Spotting when this is the case is useful. Trying to solve it when validation and empathy is what's wanted can be the more annoying response.
https://medium.com/musings-with-meg/the-first-question-you-s...
the game theoretic is to notice that +validate -solve is cheaper than +validate +solve, and capitalize on that. -validate +solve is the Comcast and Spirit airlines approach, so it's also valid
?
Comcast and Spirit both run their business on NOT solving problems.
You, as an adult in a society, have presumably been able to make yourself understood (including to yourself) for a long time, so "we understand what each-other are saying and can imagine one another's feelings" is a basic subtext of essentially every conversation you have.
Toddlers, on the other hand, are still working on gaining enough linguistic capability to make themselves understood and understand what others are saying, and are still gaining self-awareness of their feelings, needs, and the way the world around them works. Remember that within very recent memory they could only make their needs known by screaming. Validating their emotions and needs confirms that you actually, mechanically understand what they want, and in some cases helps them recognize in fact what they want, both of which can undermine the frustration at the root of the tantrum.
>There's a problem to be solved, so let's attempt to solve it or at least compromise in good faith
Of course saying "I validate that you are feeling upset" is going to come across as patronizing and insincere. But I don't think that's because they validated your feelings. It's because of the way the validation is said.
Part of what makes a conversation good faith is hearing out what the other person is saying and agreeing where there is common ground to build from. That necessarily includes confirming the pain points each person is feeling.
Basically the difference between sympathy and empathy. You can validate someone's feelings by simply acknowledging them (sympathy, "I'm sorry you feel upset about that, how can I help?"), or you can participate in that emotion (empathy, "Yeah, that pisses me off too! Let's fix it.").
Neither is definitively better or worse, sincerity is paramount, and it's all contextual, including the personality of the person involved. I think aligning on what mix to use is possibly the most important thing in a relationship, especially a professional one.
The best explanation I have seen comes from the book "Supercommunicators." The author says that it's not so much about the type of personality, but the type of conversation that's occurring. He says there are three main types of conversations, and problems happen when the people are having two different conversations. Here, you're talking about a "practical/problem-solving" conversation, and the other person might be having a "what are we feeling?" conversation.
I'm like you (and maybe a lot of other HNers) who tend to think they're in a problem-solving conversation when I'm talking about a problem. But I've found that the great majority of the time, other people actually are in the "what are we feeling" conversation.
The author then makes the distinction of when conflict occurs and talks about "looping back" what the other person said. It's basically acknowledging their emotions but also repeating back what you heard, asking if that's right, and then asking more questions. The idea is that when there's conflict, you have to take an additional step to prove that you're actually listening and understanding what they've said. When you do that, then it's more likely they'll listen in turn and have a more productive conversation.
Looping back sounds kind of ridiculous, but I have actually found that when people are in an emotional state and on the defensive, they don't perceive this as ridiculous. It can actually speed things along because once you've shown you understand, then they're less likely to keep going over the same material again.
> Personally speaking, I've never cared whether someone "validates" my emotions (and I often view such attempts as a bit patronizing or insincere).
The solution is to be sincere. As to the reasoning behind it, it's not merely to appease the other person, it's to actually consider their point of view, because they might be right. If you don't consider their point of view then you're not considering all options, and more importantly you're willfully ignoring an option being presented by the person you are communicating with. That's not just dumb, it's disrespectful.
Interestingly, this method of validation is also used as a tactic for negotiating with terrorists and hostage-takers. But it would be an oversimplification to lump toddlers, bully politicians, and terrorists together since they have vastly different abilities to understand and communicate, as well as limits to how far they'll go to achieve their ends.
I agree with your sentiment that it feels patronizing or insincere when somebody seems to be trying to "validate" my emotions (I'm not being patronizing here, just pointing out that I agree with you!). But I'd bet you and I are prone to thinking logically, and don't usually engage in emotional high-stakes games--two traits you won't find in most toddlers, politicians, or terrorists.
I find that some discussion with the "logical" type can be extremely difficult, because we (I include myself in that category) often don't realise they have an emotional response. I think this is also behind the OP I don't want my emotions to be validated statement. Anything the other does even validation is emotionally rejected (often even a complete surrender, I.e. "you only say I'm right because you don't want to argue anymore).
I noticed this sort of response in myself after getting some communication training. For myself this triggered me to very consciously pay attention to me having an emotional response (obviously not always successful) and the try to deliberately validate the others perspective. Interestingly I find that this also helps me to actually understand the other person more and lowers my "emotional defense response".
It definitely sucks when "validation" feels more like pandering and a means to an end. I think it's probably fair to say that you want to establish trust and fairness in a discussion about solving a problem though, yes? And in my opinion validation has more to do with reaching a baseline agreement about the problem itself. I think a lot of people, myself included, just overanalyze what validation itself is or how it should be deployed.
Yeah exactly. It correctly comes off as insincere when people say things like "you must feel upset". If anything that's the opposite of validation because the implication is that the speaker and any other rational human would not feel upset here but you must be so emotional that you need kid gloves.
Vs. actual validation which looks and feels more like an earnest attempt to understand where you're coming from
Interestingly (and I'm not sure if it was intentional or not), but the first thing kimbernator did here was validate your feelings.
"It definitely sucks when..."
Like ziddoap points out in another reply, the way it's said has a lot to do with whether it sounds patronizing and insincere.
If you speak like you're talking to a toddler "It sounds like you're feeling really angry," then yeah, they're going to hate it. Or therapy-speak like "You're angry for a valid reason" can equally sound condescending. But saying "that sucks, dude." accomplishes the same goal, in a way that sounds, and is, sincere.
The "validate and problem-solve together" approach doesn't work reliably with adults. For people who are single-mindedly out to get what they want, it's not the first time someone has tried this on them, and they've learned the counter. When they realize that validating their emotions is a priority for you, they'll insist that your validation is insincere unless you give them what they want.
"It's easy to say you care about my feelings, but since you aren't [giving me what I asked for], I see what you're really about."
"If you really cared you'd...."
"If you really understood you'd...."
Toddlers haven't learned the next step of the game.
My MIL with dementia does this. I typically respond by saying, "you don't mean that" or "I did not do such a thing". If she keeps up her a mile a minute hostile diatribe, I start praying very LOUDLY. That appears to be the only thing which gets her to be quiet and calm down.
There's a counter for that as well but I can't quote the verbal self defense book right now. But one of the main defenses taught in the book I have is against "if you really" pattern.
In some sense though- every 'problem' is emotional. As in, if your problem is someone not doing the dishes your problem is that you feel like you deserve a clean kitchen and what your roommate is doing isn't fair. There's logical steps inbetween but the start of it is a feeling of being hurt and bothered. Same with any other problem, if you are dispasionate enough things cease to be problems and just are.
So to me, I see validating emotions as another way of saying: 'we share the same goals, there is a problem and we agree on what it is, so we can work towards a solution together'
The problem a lot of people in our field / on the internet have is that they think every problem is purely a logical problem to be solved, and that the person that has the problem is completely rational about it. But that's not the reality, and a lot of problems are emotional in nature - or, elicit an emotional response, which can't be resolved by just ignoring the emotional aspect and focusing on the functional. Because sometimes there just isn't a logical / functional problem to be solved.
And you're making the assumption that you can play a part in solving the problem, but what if that removes someone else's agency or responsibility? They will feel belittled, passed by, ignored, or they will not learn anything.
>>but think there's some selection bias at play with regard to the type of personality that is likely to recommend this approach as advice and how well the advice actually works
Correct. As previously stated, this advice works wonders on toddlers. Congratulations on not being a toddler!
>> There's a problem to be solved, so let's attempt to solve it or at least compromise in good faith.
Validating their position is a form of acknowledgement that we understand it. That's a prerequisite to a "compromise in good faith". If someone feels we don't understand their position, they will not feel we are arguing in good faith.
>> The resolution to the problem is the most likely way to elicit positive emotions from me anyway.
But when you lose an argument does it feel better (less bad) if the other person understood your point rather than just ignoring it? It kinda sucks more to make a concession when the other person doesn't even know we've made one.
Are you sure you are not experiencing some selection bias yourself, where you only recall the validation attempts that landed as patronizing or insincere, and do not notice when they are adeptly executed?
The validation is that you're having the experience you're having, not that it's, say, an intractable problem, or necessarily the emotional experience you're having about it.
It's this:
1. You: I am having problem X 2. Them: You are having problem X. 3. Them: Here are possible solutions.
There are lots of variations on this. There are also multiple reasons to do it: validation and calibration being (AFAIK) the main ones. One way to look at it is that validation says I'm not going to fight you about your subjective experience.
Contrast:
1. You: I am having problem X 2. Them: Here are possible solutions.
This can come across as "your problem will be fixed but you do not matter".
Contrast:
1. You: I am having problem X 2. Them: You are not having problem X.
Now it's an argument.
The point of this, particularly for children (e.g. as a parent), is to build emotional bonds and stability, not to get them to do what you want. That can be a nice side effect in the moment, and is indeed more likely over the long term with this approach. But the chief goal is emotional safety, validation, etc.
Being a bit of an asperger’s case, I have developed over the years a practice of listening to people talk and at the same time try to process in my head the mood of the speaker, because sometimes I'm not able to do it instinctively. I am getting better with practice though.
Sometimes I respond to my interlocutor by naming the emotion they're expressing, not necessarily directly ("oh you're angry!?") but rather stuff like "oh it must be infuriating what happened!"
I find people do respond positively to that, and that it opens a deeper connection.
There's the practice of Non Violent Communication [1], which has inspired me, though I'm not a zealous follower of the technique. It can seem condescending at the hands of the wrong person.
[1] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nonviolent_Communication
Edit: to me this is not about validation. It's about being more attuned to what the other person's going through. It's about empathy and compassion.
> Personally speaking, I've never cared whether someone "validates" my emotions
Picture a situation where someone is running a loud machine within your earshot. It’s been a while and it’s getting on your nerves, so you ask them to stop. Now imagine the answer is either:
“Oh, I’m so sorry. I didn’t realise someone was so close. I know this is loud but could I ask you to bear with it for just ten more minutes? I promise I’ll be over by then. It’s important I finish now because <valid reason>.”
Or:
“Fuck off, asshole. I don’t give a shit about you. I’ll be done when I feel like it.”
Allow me to suggest you’d appreciate and care for the first answer more. You’d probably even have a better day with it, even if the first person ended up taking twelve minutes while the second took eight.
> (and I often view such attempts as a bit patronizing or insincere)
I propose this could be a version of the toupee fallacy¹. The attempts you view as patronising and insincere are the ones which are obviously so. Perhaps from people who read a self-help book about how to control others and get what they want. Or like when you call a company for support and the agent repeats your name over and over. But there are people who are genuine and do it reflexively and honestly because they truly care about their fellow human being.
> There's a problem to be solved, so let's attempt to solve it or at least compromise in good faith.
That’s not the default state for most people. It should be, but it’s not. One reframing I like to give, e.g. when people ask me for advice on an argument they’re having with a spouse, is “remember it’s not you against them, but you and them together against the problem”. Simple and highly effective with reasonable people, as it allows them to take a step back and look at the issue from a more rational vantage point.
¹ https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/toupee_fallacy
Based on my own experience, YMMV, I find that those who need the validation before working directly on a solution are more annoyed by missing the validation than those who don't need the validation but get it anyway. Of course, it's good to learn the working styles of those you work with frequently.
Validation can serve the purpose of communicating that one person deeply understands the other's problem.
Better than what some people do: argue that the problem you have raised doesn't exist.
How do you stop doing that if it's a habit you find out is very ingrained in you?
EG.. You are angry at me because I doubled parked. I tell you that the spot I pick was the only one available at the time I took it, and if that is no longer the case(cars have moved) it's not my problem. You are upset about something you do not have the right to be upset about.
I understand the above example is obviously...stupid. I am the stupid person that will argue with you that I didn't do anything wrong, since at that moment in time it was the only option available.
My question is.. how can I stop being like this? It's not good in my life, and negatively impacts my closest relationships.
> Personally speaking, I've never cared whether someone "validates" my emotions (and I often view such attempts as a bit patronizing or insincere).
I think that speaks more about you (and me, I’m the same way). Most people respond positively to that tactic. I’ve learned use it myself!
I believe I could say the same about myself but there is also a difference between being validated and not being invalidated. Being told that your problems are not so bad is likely still to be something that irks you, as it would me. After all, you can decide how bad your problems are for yourself.
Nobody saying, "Get some perspective!" is ever going to get you to feel good about your problems, though it might get you to feel bad about feeling bad about your problems.
I think the advice is sounds, but "validate emotions" is not a perfect way to talk about it. Saying out loud "I understand that you want to stay up late" is a good way to start the discussion and avoid misunderstandings of what the problem actually is.
I've heard, that this approach works very well with "troublemakers". Maybe this is the selection bias. For communication with less emotional non-troublemakers there's less demand for professional advice.
I'm 31 this year and it works on me, so...
> There's a problem to be solved
"valid"
It is just one of the techniques made popular by the book How to Talk so Kids Will Listen & Listen so Kids Will Talk.
Summary: https://www.perplexity.ai/search/summarise-chapter-by-chapte...
If you ignore the subject's emotions, you risk completely losing their interest and willingness to engage productively.
[dead]
We have been redirecting our toddler pretty successfully in most “conflict” situations. Instead of telling him what he can’t do, give him a few options of things he can do. It’s not appropriate for all situations but a great strategy for drawing focus away from whatever is causing contention.
As an aside, this worked for 2/3 of our children. For one of them if we gave them choices like that they would just scream back "NONE". We never really found what worked for her, usually we just let her cry it out a bit then offer a metaphorical olive branch (oftentimes our oldest would let her play with one of her toys, which tended to make her happy, but only if you let her be upset for a long enough period of time first... otherwise she would just reject/throw it).
Anyways, kids are people. Try different things.
One of our twins is this way, her sister will accept making a choice based on options we present and so will her younger brother. Bit of a tangent but, basically everything I ever I believed I understood about the nature vs. nurture argument have broken down completely in the face of raising (fraternal) twins.
^ This is the real advice. Approach a conflict as a choice the child needs to make, and the options the parents need to give. Be flexible but hard where it counts.
Children need grounding. "I need to win arguments with my own kids" is a vanity, that gives up a lot of the ground kids need for growing up.
Actually, children don't need grounding, they need to be taken seriously instead. Their emotions are no less valid than the ones of the grown up people, they just lack experience to recognize them and to handle them appropriately.
If you take the time to explain the situation to the child you often don't need to convince them anymore. And if you can't explain - should you really have your way?
>If you take the time to explain the situation to the child you often don't need to convince them anymore.
This is not true. It doesn’t work for meltdowns caused by not buying them a toy, not giving them ice cream at bed time, etc.
...but if you haven't been doing this with your child up to now, and you suddenly start, it probably won't work right away.
A foundation of trust has to be built up, and that can take years, in some cases, especially if your child feels that you have a long pattern of not taking them seriously or caring about what they think or feel.
I'd heard this advice plenty so felt ready to deploy it when I had a toddler.
I have a toddler now, and have tried this approach a number of times. She just says "no" to the choices....
Imagine you woke up, learned that you have your own feelings and ideas and agency, and yet... you don't get to choose except what's between handed to you (the blue pill or the red pill). And you start to realize it keeps happening. Maybe that's what being 2-3 is like? To a toddler it will be eons before they get to make their own choices.
Yes, "no" can be petulant, but it's also could be deeply beautiful and true.
When my son was little, he would say things like “Yes means no and no means yes.” He would also say things like “milk is good, butter is made from milk, cake is made from butter, why can’t I have cake for breakfast?”
Through persistence and speaking to him calmly, he eventually stopped his petulance. Usually if he wanted something, we would only give in after repeated conversations. We wanted to explore decision making with him and ensure he would not quickly want something else. The main thing I wanted was for him to talk and explain why he wanted something so bad.
I believe he only threw a full tantrum a handful of times. When that happened we followed the advice of pretending to leave without him. When he realized we were not rewarding his tantrum, he stopped.
In short, we wanted to reward him for communicating not for throwing a tantrum.
Yep, it works for majority of children, but not for all of them. Folks that had a couple of kids with whom it did work spread it as a gospel.
You can try many other things, and maybe you’ll find something that works some of the time.
“What do you want?” can be “NOTHING!”, can be something. “You want this, but the reality is this and that. How can we deal with that?”
If kid is upset it usually helps to validate their feelings first.
Also, my kids are not yours, so take this with the grain of salt as well.
That’s a good short term solution but long term you just screw your kid up.
There’s some things you simply cannot do, and nothing else can be done about it. You have to learn the lesson that sometimes you lose a conflict and that’s it. You don’t get anything else. Sucks? Yea welcome to life.
The question is what is the right age to learn that lesson at.
Any age. There is no right age to jump out of the window on the 10th floor, no right age to cross a busy interstate by foot, no right age to set a bed on fire. You wouldn’t allow a kid to do it (and similar things) at any age. Would you? :)
Yeah very often it’s about feeling like they have some control. Consider their day to day they are constantly being told where to go and what to do. They’re still people and do want to feel like they have some agency. Of course we can’t let them choose to do whatever they want. But by giving them options they now feel like they’re included in the decision making process.
Not always appropriate but very useful in many situations. And if used proactively, possibly limit episode occurrence when not under your control.
My experience as a parent so far is that treating everyone beyond a whitelist of certified adults like toddlers works tremendously well.
Also there's the realisation that I've been effectively treated like one much more often than I would like to admit.
We might be saying the same thing, but one reason toddlers act so ridiculously is because they are emotionally responding just as an adult might, if they were treated like a toddler. Ie, “because I don’t think you have a valid internal POV, I’m going to just decide for you with no explanation”
This perspective comes from the book “how to talk so kids will listen and listen so kids will talk,” which is one of my favorite parenting books of all time.
I loved that book and tried to apply as much as possible to my own kid when she was little, now she's 5 and just lost her first baby tooth, I should probably read that book once again. One good thing about kids is that even if you make mistakes, you get plenty of opportunities to try different approaches and fix things.
I'm lucky enough that I get to take my tyke to the zoo 5 days a week and while I agree with your take, I also have seen enough of the parents making the mistake outlined in the original post to know that it was actually talking about toddlers.
You would be shocked to see how many supposed adults engage in one sided arguments with crying children, usually centered on the parents feelings.
What's a different path to the solution of getting a kid to eat vegetables and go to bed? I'd say if you can get them to freely choose to do those, then you've won the argument. If it comes down to the equivalent of telling them "because I say so" in such a positive and constructive way that they don't freak out, you haven't won an argument. You have gotten what you wanted, but not by winning an argument, because the kid's opinion didn't change, just their response.
Now, what you're talking about is an extremely valuable skill—much more valuable than trying to argue with toddlers—but it's not the same thing in my opinion.
My parents did that; they managed to win the "go to bed at a reasonable time" argument, but never were terribly successful with the "eating vegetables" one. It didn't help that my dad almost never ate vegetables and even fairly young I was able to point out the hypocrisy.
I still don't eat a lot of vegetables; my health vitals are generally fine when I do bloodwork, as is my heart health when I get that checked so hopefully I don't end up in an early grave.
It's a different approach for us (am parent of a 5 and 3 year-old). Every type of food is equal, nothing gets put on a pedestal. Candies, snacks, ice creams, vegetables, fruits, legumes, meats, seafood - it's just "food". We highlight that you shouldn't eat too much of one thing all the time because your body likes a good variety, but that's about all the pressure we put on them. They're learning about sugar, for instance, in their preschool and we've talked about it in that context.
If they don't like something, fine. Totally cool, we don't care. The second you pressure a kid to eat a vegetable or a fruit, it becomes a fight and they will dig their heels in. Just keep serving whatever you cook, and either they'll come around or they won't. After all, they're human just like we are - we all have foods we like and dislike, and that's OK. No point in striking a deal, just keep exposing them to a wide variety of stuff and eventually they'll try it all - if they like it, great, if they don't, oh well, at least they like other stuff.
I can't speak for any other parents but myself, but this approach has worked wonders for us. Our kids definitely do shun certain foods or look away, but they eat a very wide variety of food. We don't have to bring a PBJ with us to a restaurant, or chicken nuggets to a friend's house, because they'll usually eat most of what is served. We've had grandparents bring "treats" over - we'll put them on their dinner plate with the rest of their food and, hand to god, last night my 5yo ate half her candy bar and left it there while asking for multiple helpings of peas and devouring her entire turkey burger. Only thing left on the plate was the candy.
Everyone's mileage may vary, obviously.
/shrug
If they don't like something I just give them more of it, in smaller doses or disguises, until they get used to it.
"just give them" doing a lot of work here.
Maybe I'm particularly bad at disguises or maybe my kid (just one, not the other) is Sherlock Holmes for food disguises, but this is nearly impossible for me. In that I can't generally find a way to do it.
Throw it into something they love. Sauces are a great way of hiding ingredients.
Problem is that it still looks like a sauce, which won't work for an anti-sauce hard-liner.
And he's remarkably astute detecting flavor variations.
No soups either, just raw ingredients? I would prepare his favorite food with minor variations, adding a little sauce or changing the texture, to broaden his horizons.
In your case, I would furthermore gamify it: I bet you can't figure out what I added or did differently!
I have one kid on which all this stuff would work.
And then I have the other kid. He will refuse to participate in the game. I keep the pressure on though. That means he's always exposed to foods outside the comfort zone without too much pressure. But efforts at subterfuge or psychology almost always backfire with him. So I keep all the cards on the table.
"This is a broccoli piece. You have to taste it or else {bribe}".
I don't have all the answers, but we've tried a lot of things with him.
If there's one thing on my 4 year olds plate that he "doesn't like", I have him close his eyes and try to guess which food item I just put in his mouth. After the game is over he'll usually just continue eating everything without complaint.
Yeah, basically! I won't not serve it to them again no matter how much they insisted they didn't like it last time. When I serve dinner, I always make sure a little bit of everything makes it to their plate before they come to the table. And yeah, exposing them to the same food in different dishes or cooked in a different manner has definitely helped them be open to trying it down the line.
I think zero pressure + constant exposure is the overall key.
> we all have foods we like and dislike
For dislike you mean like rotten or spoiled food? I'm not sure I've met food in proper edible condition that I didn't like.
I think a person who has liked every single piece of food (in edible condition, to use your phrase) they've ever put into their mouths is a pretty rare specimen.
My dad, a holocaust survivor, was one of these people. I have a much more expansive palate than most of my peers because of it but I draw lines at brains and organs presented as such, that sort of thing.
I've tried most cultures' foods, at least.
Not really, I am one. I have tried all kinds of "exotic" foods like Swedish Surstromming etc. I can definitely relate to how people eat them and can find some way (of eating it) that it's delicious, like in sandwiches etc. This is a skill (I think) and many people just don't have it. If someone eats it, and especially if they have eaten it for centuries, you can just win by trying to figure out how to eat it. There is no downside.
That being said, I won't eat food that is obviously (and provably) dangerous like Korean live octopus, Casu martzu (cheese with maggots) etc.
Ah, this is where nuance comes in. For instance, I do not like carrots - it's a taste thing, I don't enjoy the flavor a bit. I've kept trying them for years and if something is carrot-forward, I don't enjoy it. I tried some miso-glazed carrots that I'd whipped up for my family just this past weekend and they just weren't for me (I appreciated how tender they were, and enjoyed the miso glaze on it, but the carrot taste put me off). Now, if you shred them up, or dice 'em, and toss 'em into a salad, a sandwich, or in some slaw and I can't taste them at all? Sure, I'll devour them along with the rest of the meal.
But they're hiding in there, you can't tell they're there. I still don't "like" carrots, but I don't mind eating them if I don't taste them. There's a difference between the two, I think.
That said, to your point, I was super picky as a kid, and that approach (trying food I didn't like in a dish that I did like) helped me quickly not be picky when I was a younger adult. My palette is tremendously wide now and there's only a relative handful of things I don't "like". I'm also now always down for an adventure and experiencing something new, so I'm happy to try weird shit, whereas I never used to be.
Yes, I too have "less favorite" foods. Carrots being one of them, celery - another. But I try eating them regularly and this definitely helps. And no, I don't mask them to the point of them being completely undetectable. On the contrary, I do increase their concentration with time and there are foods where I enjoy them even when they dominate the flavor. For example, pickled celery is delicious.
Why is it that, specifically with food, people who have absolutely no taste seem to hold a strange pride about it?
You don't see this with e.g. film or music, somebody pridefully saying "I'll listen to anything anybody considers music" like it's some sort of badge of honor to have no preferences.
I'm not trying to knock you here, it's just weird to me to be proud of having no preferences.
In a very direct way, humans need calories to live. You can just opt out of movies entirely without much impact, so I don't think they're symmetrical.
A "picky" movie watcher isn't really the same thing as a "picky" eater. The eater is doomed to be locked in a cycle of working around their preferences for as long as they live.
Not to mention that we've been carefully curating the best of the best foods over millennia. In a few thousand years we'll likely have forgotten the movies that weren't so good, so chances are at that time you will enjoy all the movies that survived as well.
I don't know, but why do we find this struggle to differentiate between fact and feeling so often here?
>I'm not sure I've met food in proper edible condition that I didn't like.
Have you ever tried hákarl (fermented shark)?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/H%C3%A1karl
I think if you tried enough things, you'd come across some edible food that doesn't suit your taste.
The term "food" is not defined in a universally agreed-upon way. A delicacy in some cultures is offal or garbage in another.
I can buy "I'll eat anything." If what you mean is "I like everything that someone somewhere will consider to be food," well, color me skeptical.
If someone can reasonably consider it food, fair to say that is food for the sake of this.
Like I said, I haven't met the food I don't like yet. It is impossible to know how I feel about the foods I haven't yet met. There is an infinite selection of food out there. Perhaps something will cross my plate someday that turns up my nose. I always try new foods when I have the opportunity, but that day hasn't yet come.
I usually talked with my toddlers asking them "why"? Why do you want to stay late? why don't you want to eat carrots?
They were usually thinking about trading and I was patiently waiting.
They do not like carrots (me neither btw), ok, so you get to pick a vegetable.
They want to play longer, ok, you play in your bed. Etc.
Of course this did not work all the time, especially when I was tired and maybe not that patient so more traditional ways of persuasion were used (no, nothing violent, just "do it because I said so")
> if it is
This is the crux to me.
And more than that is how much of my truth (not absolute truth, if such thing exists, but my point of view) I want to give up to enter a common territory to discuss.
This is only useful if the person is arguing in good faith, something a quick listen to Nick Ferrari, Nigel Farage, Ben Shapiro or any other shock jock will quickly disabuse you of.
I think there's an additional step of "Find out what they want" that was left out of the original comment because the desires of actual toddlers are (usually) not fundamentally evil.
Do they want to exterminate your loved ones? Do they want to ship dissenters off to concentration camps? Do they want to simply profit off of the people in power who are doing those things? If so, the whole process has an early return case that's more along the lines of "Antifa rally at Omaha Beach."
Your problem is you can’t really pull this out of evil people so easily. They’ll happily lie to your face, despite evidence you present to the contrary. The truth is a flexible concept to them.
Even in engineering it's important for people to understand what people want and to make sure people feel heard and validated. I've found that especially when dealing with people up the management chain understanding what they want and even using the techniques you describe is very effective. My experience is that pretty much everyone, but especially people in engineering fields and data driven science fields (me included), vastly overestimates how "logical" they are. At the end of the day we are all just a species of ape
this reminds me of something that happened to me just yesterday:
i was at the playground, trying to convince my daughter to go down the slide on her own.
She kept saying it was too scary, so I went down first to show her it wasnt scary. Then, still not convinced, she said there were monsters in the slide! I, of course, told her I got rid of them on the way down. She pondered for a moment, then decided it wasn't so scary anymore. Shortly thereafter she went down the slide herself!
It was a funny, insightful moment, negotiating her fears without invalidating them.
I'm lucky that my kiddos accept deals.
"Yeah, vegetables are kinda yucky, how about just the corn, then we can go play after"
I also feel like "deals" are basically how the world works. Positive and negative deals clearly stated.
I made too many deals and am now weaning us off (greatly reduced) of deals, the danger is everything becomes transactional.
It is also important to set norms around expectations that don't have a tangible reward.
It’s better to think of it as compromise rather than a deal. Of course, it needs to be a reasonable compromise.
That is a good point, but the fact that it is a compromise should be communicated with the child, so it doesn't feel like an exchange.
A compromise is an exchange IMO, it’s just that it’s a give and a take for both sides, and there should be a sense of fairness to it.
Mutual preferences, very Dale Carnegie.
As a parent, I often found that if I actually explained why instead of the usual "Because I told you so", then I got a lot further in making them rationally arrive at the right behavior themselves (as toddlers are wont to do). I suspect that the "I told you so", not only does it completely nullify their desire but it also forces them to accept not learning and hurts their pride (which is where the tantrum comes from). These are undesirable outcomes and since parents use this trick all the time, it leads to learned behavior. Disclaimer: This is just my own analysis and I know there are times when it's too challenging to do this but it's a principle you have to focus on.
It's what Chris Voss calls tactical empathy.
My wife has found this is also quite effective with me.
[dead]
[flagged]
Nobody ever changes their opinion on things with anything remotely like a high degree of frequency, and that's not a particularly bad thing. The "real" point of an argument is not to persuade the other side (though that is what you aspire to nonetheless) but to exchange views, and often to indirectly explore your own views more deeply, at least in the scenario where your 'partner' can bring up something you weren't aware of.
Our views actually shifting is something that only happens over many years and often for reasons we aren't really in control of. Me of 10 years ago would vehemently disagree with me of today on many things, and there's probably pretty much no argument I could have engaged with him to persuade him of what I obviously think are 'more correct' views. It required, most of all, life experience that isn't going to be able to be communicated with words. If it were we'd all have the wisdom of a man who'd lived for millennia. And if not all of us, then at least somebody - but that somebody doesn't exist.
One who wants to debate while rejecting the real state of mankind is oft going to just find themselves in an echo chamber.
> The "real" point of an argument is not to persuade the other side (though that is what you aspire to nonetheless) but to exchange views.
Maybe this is just a matter of definitions, but for me the point of an argument is to convince or be convinced. When two incompatible views exist on a subject, at least one of them must be wrong. Some topics of conversation allow for diverging views or values, but then we are just talking or sharing experiences, not arguing.
That said, it is my experience as well that actually changing someone's (or my own) mind on an important issue is unlikely. Especially on complex topics with partial and uncertain information, like political issues, our life experience and cumulative knowledge significantly influences our selection of sources and interpretation of the facts, so converging on a common point of view may require the exchange of a prohibitive amount of information, even among rational arguers.
Productive argument usually occurs in a sort of semi-echo chamber, with people who mostly agree with us on the context, and are only arguing about the top layer, so to say. But when trying to argue about the deep stuff, we are mostly just "exchanging views", in the end.
> When two incompatible views exist on a subject, at least one of them must be wrong
This isn't strictly correct if the source of incompatibility is differing assumptions / axioms. Both views can be correct in their own context and incorrect in the other context.
I don't completely agree. (I know... How meta.)
I have worked to be as rational as I will personally tolerate, and it has been difficult, but I've achieved some success. The key is to divorce your identity from your beliefs about the world, and to realize that the opposite of never admitting you're wrong is "always being right", which is of course impossible, so if you are TRULY interested in becoming MORE right, then the only reasonable option is that you must sometimes lose arguments (and admit it to both of you).
Are most people interested in doing this? No, and in that sense you have a point. But it's available to everyone, and who wouldn't want to be more right?
The other difficult thing to do is to aim this at yourself with full candor and work through that. Interestingly, now that ChatGPT has access to all the conversations you've had with it, and assuming you've opened up to it a bit, you can ask it: "You know me pretty well. Please point out my personal hypocrisies." If you want to make it more fun, you can add "... as Dennis Leary/Bill Burr" etc. What it said when I tried this was fascinating and insightful. But also difficult to read...
> divorce your identity from your beliefs about the world
I understand not totally subjugating your personal identity to ideology, but I'm struggling to see how someone could practically completely separate these two things. To use a somewhat trite but personal example, I'm gay, so that aspect of my identity will necessarily affect my perspective on certain issues. Conversely if someone were to convince me rationally that homosexuality was wrong, it would necessitate a pretty dramatic change of my identity no?
Not every issue exists on that clear a spectrum, but you can imagine the views necessitated by different pieces of personal identity adding up over a lifetime.
Fortunately for you, there is no good argument that homosexuality is wrong. But honestly, it does take a certain nontrivial amount of understanding to realize that- an understanding of things like: the list of the most common informal logical fallacies (or... all of them, because why not, and once you learn them, you see them everywhere). And those aren't someething that is typically taught in school (I had to pursue them on my own time).
(A while back I found a personal webpage that systematically shot down every single homophobic argument using reason and those fallacies... and I haven't been able to find it since, unfortunately.)
So, among many other injustices that might be rectified (or at least ameliorated) by a broader understanding of fallacious arguments, homophobia would definitely be one of them.
(Also, personal note, I'm sorry about any injustice you've had to endure because of your orientation and others' lack of understanding.)
One thing that helped me was reading a book on good political discourse. It basically said what the GP said, that good discourse is about exploring the world. It also pointed out that vilification in its many forms is counterproductive. It undermines trust.
One of the examples used was of a party that I did not agree with - that most people didn't agree with. You'd see mainstream politicians declaring them to be bad people.
But the book pointed out that before this party existed, nobody was representing the people who were now voting for it. If you believe in democracy, how can you be disrespectful of representation?
Suppressing my value judgement also later helped me see that when the party got into a coalition and managed to get some of their politics put into law, some of those laws actually did help the rest of us, because they addressed issues that the other parties were not willing to address.
Out of curiosity, why do you think being as rational as you possibly can is a goal in and of itself. Mark Manson has a whole bit on this, in The Subtle Art of Not Giving a Fuck if I recall correctly, that lobotomized people would fit that description pretty well, purely rational. Except it turns out that once you take the emotional side out of the person, what's left is merely a hull that doesn't care about anything, because rationally, why would you. I don't think being more right is a noble goal. We all know the type, people who pick at every little thing to be technically right, but mostly they're just asshats who miss the forest for the trees.
What definition of rational are you using? Being a rational actor typically means displaying consistent goal-oriented behavior. Being lobotomized seems pretty irrational. It reduces your power and makes you less able to achieve goals (if you can achieve them at all), including basic self-care.
>Except it turns out that once you take the emotional side out of the person, what's left is merely a hull that doesn't care about anything, because rationally, why would you.
That's not what rationality is. What terminal goals one should have, which in humans is informed by emotions, is not a concern of rationality. Rationality concerns how to achieve terminal goals.
If you think rationality is a lobotomy, maybe your emotions are running a dictatorship?
Being right doesn’t make you an asshat. Refusing to correct yourself when proven wrong does.
> I don’t think being more right is a noble goal.
That’s a pretty telling sentence. If someone doesn’t value being more correct, what kind of compass are they using to navigate the world... Vibes?
Rationality isn’t about amputating emotion. It’s about not letting your emotions pilot the plane blindfolded while high on conspiracy podcasts telling you which way to bank.
Emotions are data. Rationality is how you integrate them, not ignore them. A rational person doesn’t become unfeeling; they align their feelings with reality, and update when their model of the world is provably flawed.
The lobotomy comparison is just absurd: actual rationalists care deeply about things- they just make sure their caring isn't built on delusions. That’s why rational frameworks helped de-stigmatize homosexuality, dismantle phrenology, and challenge witch trials. Emotional reasoning alone got us the burnings, not the liberation. Emotional reasoning got us Turing's chemical castration, not gay marriage rights.
A rationalist by YOUR definition wouldn't even care enough to fight homophobia with reason. See the difference?
Also, literally the entire system of justice (an exemplary combination of rationality and feeling) doesn't make sense, given your anti-justification for rationality. The accused looks like a rapist, I just know it, he's just got that look in his eyes. Let's go with that. Judgment for the plaintiff!
Also: Being “technically right” is only annoying when it’s used to score points. Being functionally right- especially when it affects policies, freedoms, or lives- is kind of the point of civilization.
Being caring and kind are simple examples of moral compasses that are considerably better than being as right as you can be. Your comment is a great example of the kind of person I'm trying to exemplify, you make up a lot of nonsense no one ever said just to argue how much more right you are against it.
It takes time to have a serious debate. You both need to figure out what your unstated premises are. If you disagree on these, you won't get anywhere by arguing downstream of them. Politics is even worse, because you are supposed to have an opinion, but at the same time, most matters require a detailed understanding of the facts that few people have the time, brains or inclination to understand. Add the tribalism and this gets even worse. It's incredibly rare to find someone whose general political opinions are well thought-through. Mine certainly aren't. I could regurgitate the argument for the free market or for heavy gov control of the economy, for example, and even understand them as internally-consistent syllogisms, but really all I'm doing is linking concepts together in my mind; I doubt any of them apply to any really-existing concrete situation that any given country is in. Hence I try not to comment on political threads.
I notice people tend to argue about X when it's actually a proxy argument for Y, but they don't know themselves that it's Y.
Y is a legitimate concern or fear, but X may not be. But everyone wastes each other's time arguing about X.
If you figure out Y, you find common ground and compromise and that's when you find solutions.
I've almost never changed my mind in an online argument but I do regularly offline. Why is that?
I think it's because online nobody acts in good faith. There is no connection and trust.
I think you can have two people who, both acting in good faith, can completely lose it over textual communication. Even a phone call can make the same discussion ten times easier.
I had a customer once who would just absolutely berate people over email for the tiniest thing. Totally unbearable and unreasonable. So, whenever he would go off, I'd tell him 'look, I'll be in the area [this afternoon|later|whenever]. You going to be around if I stop by?' Any conversation with him that could be deflected to an in-person discussion could be peacefully resolved in short order. Trying to convince him of anything over phone or email was an exercise in frustration control.
I heard somebody say at a conference one time, talking about how much more productive in-person meetings are in reaching agreement, "there's a lot of bandwidth in a room". I think there's a lot of truth to that.
0 - ironically, this was at a ISP network engineering conference
Are you saying your comment here is in bad faith? ;)
I'd say yours is in bad faith because you know exactly what I mean ;)
It’s actually not clear to me what you really mean, and I would dispute your generalization that nobody acts in good faith online.
>Nobody ever changes their opinion on things with anything remotely like a high degree of frequency, and that's not a particularly bad thing
For a great discussion of that, cue Slate Star Codex "Epistemic Learned Helplessness"
https://slatestarcodex.com/2019/06/03/repost-epistemic-learn...
This advice/wisdom should be included in every parenting guide!
> Nobody ever
> The "real" point of an argument is not to persuade the other side (though that is what you aspire to nonetheless) but to exchange views
to me real point is just entertainment
I've been trying to figure out how to talk to folks on the right, and I keep looking for something, anything, I can say to make them realize the danger we are in. Reading this comment was therapeutic, because I think it's completely on the money. We can't change people's minds in a single argument; we can just try and nudge them in the right direction and hope they join us eventually.
I've found that putting arguments into simple, general terms tends to make people rethink their positions.
I had an argument with my dad a while back about single payer health care. A lot of people on the left might frame it like "don't you think everyone is entitled to access to health services?" But an idea like this is like nails on a chalkboard to my dad, who believes everything should be merit based, even access to health care.
Instead, phrasing it as "wouldn't you prefer it if we paid the same amount of money every month and when we go to the hospital we don't have to worry about any out of pocket costs?" This really nailed the point home to him. It's not about entitlements or whatever. It's about people not being destroyed financially by bad health. We skip over the feely stuff, we skip over the specifics of cost. We can both agree that this mechanism makes a lot of sense for most people, and the current system is rather arbitrary.
Anyway, he's still firmly a MAGA trumper but I do think on the aspect of health care, he does see single payer as a viable alternative.
Is this ironic? Because if this is serious, note that maybe you are the stubborn person here, the one that is wrong, the one that must be nudged to the right direction and join them eventually.
It’s possible parent comment is referring to factually proven issues, such as climate change, that the right has its own set of propagandistic facts for.
I’d say the any group of people has areas of less factitious basis for their beliefs. But, We all should want to employ truthful factual real, non-propagandistic ideas, eh? Is this controversial?
If we don’t have ground truth, real facts, what can we base anything off of? Our policies will fail, our dollars will be wasted, and division will grow.
One danger with "factually proven issues" is cherry-picking facts or otherwise taking them from context. For example, there might be stats on which a president sucked for most of his term, but in the last few months those stats were decent (or vice versa); and then supporters of the president might shout those last few months' stats from the rooftops, and then do polls that show that supporters know but opponents don't know about those last few months' stats, and gleefully report, "Gosh, well, we're trying to reason with our opponents, but unfortunately they're just so ignorant, what can we do..."
Another danger is people playing with definitions. A third is people claiming things to be "facts" based on cherry-picked studies (and possibly some dubious interpretations thereof).
Progress can be made, but I think it requires a sophisticated approach. Paying attention to all the above dimensions, and probably to the motives of the people involved.
[flagged]
[flagged]
I agree with your approach but, as a generally extremely left leaning individual myself, comments solely using "the right" (or any individual group) as the example make it hard to assign to this kind of thought process alone.
Some regular self doubt "what I think are ground truth facts may need to be requisitioned and revalidated and that isn't just true for one specific group to consider" is a core requirement of trying to hold a fact based viewpoint, just as important as any other part of such an approach.
[flagged]
Either that or you lack the wisdom and maturity to understand that people can disagree with you and be just as sincere in their beliefs as you are.
No, it's definitely this, and I'm confident in saying that because I do, actually, try to have open conversations with these people. And they always back down and undermine _their own beliefs_. It's a strange kind of paradox, in which they support a set of actions but wish to be immune from any obvious consequences of said actions. Despite those consequences being, you know, the draw of said actions.
For context, a lot of people in my family vote right always. Trust me, I have engaged with people on the right and conspiracists, and the common theme is their reliance in a distrust for the people and actions they themselves support. It's an almost supreme lack of conviction, juxtaposed with a religion-like blind faith.
If it's any consolation to you, or anyone, this isn't a new thing. You can see this kind of behavior throughout history in all populist movements that have gone sour. Their supporters stuck in a type of purgatory, where they must ignore what is actually going on while absentmindedly following the messaging. When asked "so what happens now?", they do not know. But they are certain it will be okay.
Do any other right wingers actually exist on HN? I swear, you guys have the same understanding of right wingers as white suburbantites have of black people.
Yes, most of my family is right-wingers.
What you have to understand about the populist far-right is they are, by definition of populism, appealing to the bottom of the barrel. This characterization of how right-wing voters grapple with what their representatives are doing is uncomfortable because we all know it's true.
I'm a long-time politics nerd and spend more time than most people digging into the right's "evidence" for various things they believe.
So much of it's simply made-up that any attempt to engage one of them is incredibly tedious, and it's the exact same bullshit every time you start talking to a new one. You'd need weeks, at least, of consistent and very-careful engagement to fix the fact-gap so you can even begin discussing actual issues. For each one of them.
It's like trying to talk politics with someone and they keep bringing up how the real problem is the lawless Rebel Alliance and we need to trust Emperor Palpatine to set things right, and after a while you figure out they aren't joking or just trying to get under your skin and sincerely believe we live in Star Wars, so now you can't even talk about actual issues in the real world until you manage to convince them that they do not live in Star Wars. You try to talk about crime & policing or whatever and they start talking about how we need to clear all the criminals out of the pirate moon Nar Shaddaa, and... what the fuck do you even do with that? It's disheartening.
[EDIT] Real world example: Local republican politician comes to my door while campaigning and is talking about how local crime (in our amazingly safe, rather rich small town) is WAY UP and out of control and that's why we need more money for the police. I have my strong suspicions based on practically every other time this claim has been made by a Republican, and also the fact that our town is conspicuously safe and rich, but I don't fact-check her on the spot and just let her finish the spiel and politely disengage, but that was like half of her message (the rest was, I shit you not, about trans athletes, JFC).
Of course the police department's own stats fail to back up any of what she was saying, when I check right after the conversation. I mean, obviously they do, there was no reason to expect otherwise, but I did check, because that's how I roll.
Without even digging into the other half of what she was presenting, half of her message right off the bat, half of what she chose to present as important, was over a completely made-up issue. Not real at all.
They probably have data that these talking points have the best positive reaction rate for the area on average.
The fact that it didn't matter to you isn't important to them, it's the aggregate as that is the end goal. They may even disagree with it entirely and agree with your stance.
Yeah, I'm sure that's why the politician was selling those particular issues.
Those work, though, because you run into he same perspectives among Republican voters, because their media are telling them it's true and they don't bother to check (the ones who do, presumably, move away from identifying as Republicans the dozenth time they catch such an "error" in a given day of watching Fox).
"i can't understand my son, he doesn't listen to a thing I say!"
-- Stephen Covey, 7 Habits of Highly Effective People
One thing I've found helpful is to coax them to imagine dems in charge. You can't outright mention dems in charge, because they will (mostly correctly) point out that dems _have_ been in charge of our institutions for a long time.
You have to understand their position: They don't feel in danger. They feel in power - the opposite of danger. Asking them to perceive danger is asking them to give up their feeling of power - tantamount to admitting everything they voted for is void.
But the path I found was to tease out that expansion of powers are permanent, making any changes from expansion of powers temporary. And we don't want temporary positive changes, do we? With all this legislative power, couldn't we just, you know, pass laws?
I've also come to accept that we should (for the sake of progress past issues) just:
* build the border wall, but suddenly nobody seems interested - what gives?
* slash costs to balance the budget, but suddenly nobody seems interested, what gives?
etc
The problem with true discussion of these issues is that you find yourself mostly in agreement with each other's viewpoint (at least subject to their "axioms"), and have to mellow out a bit. You can't really stand still and say "Come over here" all the time.
Yeah, like they often don't have issues with their local cops, but you ask them about ATF or BLM and all of a sudden these outside it's these ridiculous outsider authoritarians, who don't know anything about what it's like where they live, trying to ruin things.
Why is the expansion of powers permanent? Do you think they’ve never been reversed in history? That there weren’t times when {insert government branch here} didn’t have more than it does now?
What works one on one doesn’t actually work at scale. You cannot make MAGA feel better by “building the wall” or “balancing the budget” — they don’t actually care about those things, in aggregate. In the political sphere, they care — because they’ve been conditioned to care by 40 years of increasingly strident right wing propaganda — about hurting brown people and liberals.
I don’t have an answer, but reason and logic are not going to solve the problem.
There is no ideological coherence of fascism. It's about coercing a nation into elevating a chosen group/ identity of people above everyone else (a sort of anti-pluralism).
-- I liken it to how arguing about the shortcomings of your bully's stance doesn't make them stop punching you.
EDIT: I'm going to add, that I think the solution at least begins with encouraging more shared experiences and spaces (like a movie theater). Most people want to be seen as well functioning in public limiting how much they might explore the nastiness of their own right wing echo chambers.
“Mostly correctly” is 100% false. Count the number of years under GOP presidents since 1980 vs the number under Democrats. SCOTUS has been dominated by Republican judges — and the chief justice has been a Republican — since the 1970’s.
The old-guard republicans were neo-cons. They championed things like free trade and projecting soft power through international institutions that are antithetical to the modern right.
The fact that the US only has “two parties” obscures the fact that there are wings in those parties that don’t really govern in a meaningful way.
The nationalist/populist conservative wing (MAGA née Tea Party) hasn’t really been in power pre Trump.
You'd be hard pressed to find a conservative college dean, non-profit CEO, or even a librarian. There's a belief (which I think is mostly true), that most government agencies are left-leaning in practice if not in appointed leadership. Add to that the growing (perceived!) left-leaning policies in the military and major industrial players, and you might see what they mean.
I'd be hard pressed to find a lefty college board of directors, or CEO.
I'd believe govt agency staffers, since conservatives by and large want to destroy those agencies and not work there.
The military is a weird place and contains multitudes
Well, I guess I'd roll it back to say there have been high profile, widly circulated perceived-to-be-far-left policies pushed or adopted by traditionally not-that-liberal organizations. Like "DEI" in military. It's all over conservative zeitgeist and looks like a massive power creep to them.
Given the downdittles: I mention two leaders at the end and am not referring to Trump for either.
As someone who loves to converse with either side, it's more often one side than the other that will listen to reason, and argue outside of logical fallacies.
I get vastly more violent threats/lame insults from one side.
I get an overwhelming amount of definition problems from one side. Which are easily solved using any dictionary (though this is becoming less true)
I get things like "True X, Y, Z or Proper X, Y, Z" overwhelmingly from one side.
And I get vastly more conspiracy theories not grounded in any reality from one side.
I know of many people from both sides that hold disgusting views such as: I want to do X,Y,Z but am mad if anyone else does this exact thing to me. Every one of these people do so on protected grounds (in Government) of one form or another.
Recently, I have noted people who scream at a leader and bootlick another while claiming each are of the other's style of governance. It's quite remarkable.
"You can't reason someone out of a position they didn't reason themself into."
You are framing it as danger which preloads the discussion immensely. I find this is common in these situations. This already ends the talk before beginning it. Imagine starting negotiations with Putin with “How come you are such a waste of valuable oxygen?”
I am not “on the right”, but I do have the ability to entertain the idea my “opponent” is actually right and I am wrong. This can be a valuable exercise to get you in a more .. sympathetic frame of mind.
Let’s try to loosen you up. Let’s say we are actually not in danger and you and all the rest of you - excuse me, it’s for the exercise - “pearl clutchers” are actually ridiculously overreacting and misreading the situation. The world is dangerous right now and singing kumbaya is not going to cut it. Trump is weird and we all dislike him, but nothing you can offer will improve the situation.
Try to see that viewpoint. Try to feel it. Try to imagine a world where you are wrong and your “opponent” is actually right and you were “suppressing” them all that time and in your righteous might caused tremendous harm which resulted in this correction.
Next time enter the discussion with “These times are complex and there sure is a lot going on. Let’s talk because I’m confused!” instead of “I am right and why do you take so long to see that I am clearly knowledgable and you should definitely heed all my warnings (which with 98% probability come down to ‘you are basically stupid’)”
I've largely held this viewpoint for quite some time, but everyone has a line that shouldn't be crossed. Trying to literally overthrow our democracy was a line for a lot of the Trump supporters I've met who have since turned away. It personally wasn't even the line for me.
This second administration has very much crossed my line, in so many ways. We are past the point of "maybe I'm just confused?"
The people I've met who still support this guy are dangerously, dangerously stupid and hypocritical. They'd have strongly opposed all of the stuff Trump has done if they didn't know Trump was the one who did it. It's terrifying watching people completely abandon the principles they used to stand for.
We are dealing with a different phenomenon than just political disagreement; we are dealing with the type of delusion that gets millions of people killed, and we need to acknowledge it as such now.
> It's terrifying watching people completely abandon the principles they used to stand for.
If they give up principles that easily, they were never principles. They are simply ad hoc justifications for their preferred cult of personality.
If you had the chance to debate Hitler, would you start by entertaining the idea that maybe the Jews do need to be exterminated from Germany? Or would you see that as obviously absurd?
From a rhetorical point of view, yeah it may have a better chance to change their mind. Start out the idiot, assume they're right, but then ask sincerely why. After they've explained why then go back to trying to understand how their solution does that.
Many people have been conditioned to gain energy and meaning from confrontation. But when you let them explain their views they suddenly become a lot more open to being wrong about some but not all of the details.
Slowly slowly this leads to minds being changed.
I think a lot of technical debates can also be solved this way. Ask people to help you understand what they’re saying, repeat back what they said so they know you got it, and then ask about how it world work in x, y, z scenarios. Talking like this has the best chance of success.
Yeah I'm with you that its the better debate strategy.
I don't have the heart for it though. Block and move on
While painful I do think that’s a more productive mindset to enter the talk (not debate) with.
His reasons for doing so are presumably not all that rational so I’d steer clear off obvious bear traps like rationality.
I liken it more to how you engage with angry toddlers or teens. Acknowledge the issue first. Share their pain and then you can try alternatives.
Not saying I think “talking” will be helpful with guys like Hitler, but I’m not much of an assassin so if I personally where to be put on the spot I have very few other options than try this route of, at least attempted, understanding.
[flagged]
I have slipped to the right enough to be almost like a "translator" between leftwing and rightwing viewpoints. Put it this way, I can laugh at parodies of both of them...
I see some error patterns that both sides seem to uniquely make, for example. Just 1 for each side for the sake of brevity here: Rightwingers idolize success without acknowledging the systematic boosts (or pure luck) that have often assisted it, while leftwingers are not only disgusted by success but consider it heretical. Leftwingers constantly compare a situation to some unattainable ideal and are therefore constantly complaining about the current state of affairs without offering a realistic solution; rightwingers fail to acknowledge the very real injustices that a more purely authoritarian approach to things often causes (see: three-strikes laws).
Speaking as one who tests politically center, I believe that the danger is neither nonexistent nor is as high as you may believe. Note that there is some merit to the rightwing claim of "MSM bias"; harping on the same cherry-picked injustice stories for outrage clicks over and over again seems to be the last remaining successful news business model (and this should worry EVERYONE).
> while leftwingers are not only disgusted by success but consider it heretical
The entire left wing rhetoric against billionaires is that they are not in fact successful on the merits of work that everyone else is doing, they are successful in cheating the system and exploiting others. We love success that happens within the same rules that we average people all operate in.
This is like saying that CoD players who are against aimbotters are "disgusted by success" when they point out that no one will legitimately have a 100/4/0 KDA (a more appropriate ratio for billionaire vs average person would be 1000000/4/0, but that would almost be too outlandish, which is why there are so many infographics showing just how conceptually confounding a billion dollars really is).
> The entire left wing rhetoric against billionaires is that they are not in fact successful on the merits of work that everyone else is doing, they are successful in cheating the system and exploiting others
Yes. And that is false. If you don't believe me, bring that to ChatGPT and ask it to argue both sides of this claim, because I do not have time to retread this. For one thing, everyone has to abide by the rules- and if the rules are unfair, then it is the rules that deserve this scorn, not the people who played the game by them.
> We love success that happens within the same rules that we average people all operate in.
This is also false. I have not seen a single successful individual praised on this basis. I'd love to know of one. Musk graduated with college debt- something that I did not- and yet has attained massively more success than I, for example. Luigi, the guy who shot the CEO of UnitedHealthcare, was raised in a far wealthier family than that CEO was!
Wait, how am I already getting downvoted? At least counterargue?
> For one thing, everyone has to abide by the rules- and if the rules are unfair, then it is the rules that deserve this scorn, not the people who played the game by them.
> Rightwingers idolize success without acknowledging the systematic boosts (or pure luck) that have often assisted it
Guess what some of those systemic boosts are? Unequal rules. And if a game maker (or a government) made a bunch of special rules or made constant exceptions to the rules, for people of a certain wealth level, no one would direct their scorn only at the unfair rules, they'd also rightly direct it at the people benefiting from them (especially when that group lobbies for the special treatment like the wealthy do).
> Musk graduated with college debt
So? His family is incredibly rich, and he was given every opportunity on earth to succeed, and any college debt would have been no threat to that. He carries millions in personal debt, and it doesn't disadvantage him now, either.
> I'd love to know of one.
Bernie Sanders? Hasanbi? The average 60+ retiree whose house is now worth north of a million? If you're asking me to list billionaires, there won't be any, but the vast majority of millionaires out there who aren't trying to use their money unethically, the Left has no issue with.
> Wait, how am I already getting downvoted? At least counterargue?
Perhaps the people who downvoted you didn't have time to retread all this.
As someone who has completely straddled both worlds (Arizona/Texas redneck raised, worked in woke VC/SV companies, with a social circle across the board):
I view it as planting seeds, and harvesting them later. Before that can be done though, a person generally has to understand how entrenched a person is in being a stenographer. I have found on both "sides", there are a certain amount of people that literally do no thinking for themselves at all, and only regurgitate. I've tried for years to work different angles on them, and those seeds mostly still lay dormant and un-sprouted...
“The argument that the two parties should represent opposed ideals and policies... is a foolish idea. Instead, the two parties should be almost identical, so that the American people can throw the rascals out at any election without leading to any profound or extensive shifts in policy. Then it should be possible to replace it, every four years if necessary, by the other party which will be none of these things but will still pursue, with new vigor, approximately the same basic policies.” - Carroll Quigley
Is it possible the danger you think we’re in isn’t real? And are you open to that?
I’m not really what you’d call “on the right” but my left-leaning friends seem convinced democracy is teetering and to me that seems to be mostly just propaganda.
It is not propaganda that POTUS is blackmailing law firms that represent his opponents and universities he doesn't like, and "suggesting" a revocation of broadcast licenses due to unfavorable coverage.
It is not propaganda that he has signed executive orders directing the DOJ to investigate individuals who have made statements he doesn't like but were never suspected of any crime.
It is not propaganda that America is now illegally (according to court rulings) renditioning people from the US to incarceration facilities in another country with no conviction, no charges, and no sentence -- indeed, no due process at all -- and illegally (according to court rulings) circumventing habeas corpus, a principle of proto-democracy since the 12th century.
It is not propaganda that the administration is willfully ignoring rulings by SCOTUS.
These are the basic facts. It is also a fact that these, or similar, things have not happened in US history outside of some extreme events such as the Civil War or world wars.
Whether or not you integrate these extreme and highly unusual actions that go against basic tenets of democracy and reach a conclusion of "danger" or not is up to you, but if anyone does reach such a conclusion, it would clearly not be "just propaganda" or even "mostly just propaganda".
The first term was a wild shift in norms. Dozens of incidents that would have been a huge scandals normally, just faded into the background noise and nothing came of them.
One stand-out feature of the first term was a total disregard for conflict of interest. No real attempt to distance himself from his investments and businesses, multiple actions that sure looked like enriching himself at the public expense, multiple family members given roles in the administration. All of these would have been huge scandals and maybe even drawn impeachment and a conviction, not that long ago.
This feels like begging the question. But, in the interests of the topic, how should I see things when one branch of government is not only openly, but gleefully ignoring the will of a coequal branch while the third branch looks on in impotent compliance?
A legal resident of the US has already been illegally shipped to a foreign prison, with the Trump administration claiming it's impossible to get him back. Will it count as "danger" for you once the first US citizen gets the same treatment?
Illegally firing the IGs added after Nixon's shenanigans to make sure the executive isn't just wildly doing crime constantly under a veil of secrecy, right at the start of his term, was... you know, also a bad sign.
Whether it's teetering depends on how strong it is, but here are a few of the most unequivocal reasons why we know it's under attack, and that the defenses are weakened:
- A conspiracy to refuse to leave the white house went unpunished at the highest levels of government.
- Congress is refusing to cancel declarations of emergency that grant the executive special powers with enormous impact.
- Habeas corpus has been violated many times and the judicial branch has been limited to ineffectively "ordering" it to stop in one case.
There are many others, but the ones that are overtly political tend to be "invisible" to people who agree deeply enough. For example, Chinese-style social media scanning for visa holders seems to only bother people who do not see the US as being in a state of war related to what their social media is being scanned for.
It's... the news, for the last decade or so.
2016 was when Trump suggested that his supporters could shoot Hillary if he lost, and that didn't immediately end his candidacy. That was a shocking development. It's been downhill since.
Do you know about the president banning the federal government from working with people represented by specific law firms he doesn’t like? Are you aware he has been revoking clearances of all lawyers working at law firms that have brought suit against him and/or his government?
These blatantly corrupt abuses of power against officers of the court are not propaganda.
> seem convinced democracy is teetering and to me that seems to be mostly just propaganda.
Dude, the last time Trump lost he tried to overthrow the government. Are we just supposed to... pretend that didn't happen and he's just some bastion of American democracy?
The stage for this has been set for a while now, and if you haven't noticed, Trump isn't backing down on ANY of his beliefs. He's doubling down. What other conclusion could you draw then?
One of the surprising benefits of raising a toddler is gaining the ability to instantly tell when another adult has fallen into a "toddler-like" state (myself included!).
Before having kids, I would try and explain someone's behavior in a logical sense.
Toddlers, however, are mostly driven by their current physical needs (hungry/sleepy) and whatever they're currently doing (autonomy).
We've found the most success in avoiding all boolean questions. Do you want to read a book? (when playing with trains before bedtime) Obvious no!
Do you want to read this book or that book? Oh... a decision!
It's striking how well tactics like these work outside the realm of toddlers.
We had a VP make a similar observation during an all hands. In the following all hands, he had to apologize because people felt they were being insulted by being compared to kids. The irony of the situation was not lost on some of us
illusion of choice is extremely effective on c-suite as well. I recommend it for engineers trying to push changes up corporate ladders. Give them three options, the one nobody should ever do, the compromise solution, and the "whale" option. Just like product pricing.
For very young toddlers distraction is also extremely effective but it stops working at some point. Not sure about how effective it is on c-suite someone will have to do some testing.
One thing that helps is to be charitable.
Ideas in general are difficult to express and people struggle with conveying them separately from their private ideas, personal experiences, and personal reasons for believing what they believe.
If you want to be a good interlocutor, you have to deeply absorb what the other person is thinking and sometimes even help them develop their understanding with the hope that others can do the same for you. We are all toddlers at times.
It's why I found platforms like Twitter tended to have such volatility because the platform structure itself takes every opportunity to remove that charitibility.
If you come across an argument, people are writing in a limited space, you're presented with the most engaged with replies first (i.e. either towing the party line best or the most inflammatory opposition), accounts are pseudonymous, and your performance is numerically displayed below the post.
Eh...all of this is premised on good faith engagement, which in the current age is a very questionable premise.
You might be surprised to find that, in person, people are quite amenable to good faith discussions. It's the internet where slam dunks reign.
In-person, people surround themselves in echo chambers, or as I like to call them, "friends". They're amendable to good faith discussions because they already mostly agree.
And, clearly, you must not have any insane MAGA family. I've tried to convince some family members that the Covid Vaccine isn't what gave me cancer, and it's like talking to brick wall. In their eyes, my cancer is my own fault because I pray to Fauci or something and this is just retribution.
Okay, some people are legitimately just not aligned with reality. I'm not calling them insane to be mean, I think they are actually, literally, insane. I don't know what happened to them.
> It's the internet where slam dunks reign.
The internet is also where most person-to-person interaction is these days.
On the Internet you're not engaging in a discussion, you're putting on a show for others to see.
In person, you have a much more intimate situation.
That is not entirely true.
It seems that many humans live on a "show" perspective of the world. It is hard to separate what is seen from what is in the eyes though.
Being funny is to put up a show, for example. Even if it is in person, for a single individual. It draws from the same essential stuff.
Intimacy can grow on that "acting" ground, in a sense that they're not mutually exclusive. Many things, in fact, can.
The internet does lack many of the social cues that one would expect from the real world. It also has cues the real world don't have, like logs and history. If it can grow animosity, it also can grow other stuff. Hopefully stuff less disruptive than animosity.
Animosity and comedy seem to be very basal, primitive feelings. Probably the ones that require less thinking. They're not bad, sometimes is good to think less. But not always.
I imagine something similar happened in the real world in the past too. But I could never be 100% sure of it.
Different, but analogous in some ways. Difficult to compare, but undeniably related.
Every argument is premised on good faith though. If there isnt good faith you should disengage.
My point is this is naive in the real world, especially online. Many people appear to be engaging in good faith but are actually just baiting, trolling, trying to make a spectacle, etc.
Point of Order: online isn't the real world and drawing conclusions about people's motivations and desires based on online interactions is deeply flawed.
Online is a facet of the real world and a place for a significant amount of information gathering and discourse so dismissing it entirely is a bad mistake as well.
The dynamics are very different, especially the complete lack of consequences for lying, cheating, and uncivil discourse. It used to be that you needed to assume you're talking to a shill/liar at all times but now you can't even believe you're talking to an actual human. Regardless, a lot of people get a lot of influence online; it is impactful and it matters even if we wish it didn't.
One of my favorite quotes is "on the internet nobody knows you're a dog" because of how many different angles it can cover. My bright eyed youth took it as a meritocracy of ideas enabled by anonymity and free access - anyone can talk even if you don't normally talk to them or even think "they" are valid. My jaded cynic side sees the ability for predators to lurk in plain sight with no recourse. A more rounded view simply cautions that not knowing who is "on the other side of the line" means you really can't get a lot out of a conversation there.
I have no idea if it's true but I've heard the folk tale that saying "moshi moshi" to answer the phone was because trickster foxes could pretend to be people but couldn't pronounce moshi moshi so you are least knew you were talking to a person. Everything old is new again.
https://www.hollywoodreporter.com/business/business-news/pir...
“When did you meet [fellow defendant Gottfrid] for the first time IRL?” asked the prosecutor.
“We do not use the expression IRL,” said Peter, “we use AFK.”
“IRL?” questioned the judge.
“In Real Life,” the prosecutor explained to the judge.
“We do not use that expression,” Peter noted. “Everything is in real life. We use AFK—Away From Keyboard.”
Point of order has been raised. However, this is not a valid point of order, as there was no specification in either the comment to which I replied or the original article of real-world interaction as opposed to online interaction. This appears to be based on a conflation of my use of "real world" with "physical interaction" rather than "real world" vs "idealized abstraction". In this case, the point was that the parent is describing the idealized form of argument people should engage in as opposed to how people actually engage in argument.
Therefore, the point of order is not sustained.
The charitable interpretation (see first comment) stands, though. It remains that the motivation on the internet, like the motivation in a comedy club, is not a reflection of the motivation found elsewhere. The venue is significant.
Very wrong headed in my opinion.
It assumes we are talking about a toddler and we are not. People find "ways" to survive - even toddlers. I knew a three year old. He found a way, and knew how to use it. It was very interesting to watch - until you realized the back story.
If something bad happened, as in he might be in trouble, he would run around the room as fast as possible and on the way create mayhem. He would knock over a paint jar, purposefully or not. Bump into another kid, knock over a chair. Soon all the adults in the room were dealing with an overwhelming set of emergencies. Todd was forgotten
This happened over and over again until the pattern clicked. Some adult had to keep focused on Todd.
It was a genius thing he came up with. He never faced consequences. One had to wonder how such a set of behaviors would evolve? Was he a bad kid? No. Mean, no. If you step back what you see is a survival skill for a very difficult situation. My guess is that the physical or psychological cost of being "caught" were so threatening that this response evolved as a life saving skill. In a three year old.
One has to think about how this person would be if they did not have some intervention. Would they evolve this particular skill into an increasingly sophisticated way? Certainly inherent in the success of this mode is a fairly strong sense of contempt for people in general. And perhaps this contempt is well earned when given by a three or even four year old. After all where was everyone else when he was in the original situation? But in an adult? Pitiful.
Fortunately for Todd, people took the time and had the care to help him feel safe without that mechanism. Unfortunately, this does not always happen, as we are seeing.
The response to this kind of pattern is the same though, for any age Todd - three or not three.
First the adults in the room have to focus on the source of the problems. And if not stopped, the blame must fall heavily on those so called adults.
Second, the distraction thing has to be addressed. The problem is not this or that is broken. The problem is the Todd.
So where are the adults in the room? We need to ask why the people in the room are not doing their job? And if we have no adults we need to get rid of the people in there. All of them.
There's a downside to loosening up the mental resistance to mind-changing - you're more susceptible to cult indoctrination.
You can look no further than the Rationalist community who have internalized this to such a degree that cults are endemic to the community. Sure, there's positives to being open to changing one's beliefs, but like all advice, it's contextual. Some people probably do need to loosen up, but they are the least likely to do so. Those who hold their beliefs too loosely, could stand to tighten that knot a little more.
Cult indoctrination could be explained by this but could also be explained by the fact that a certain number of formerly gifted kids, who have been ostracised during their childhood and have low social skills tend, to gravitate around the rationalist community. I do believe that those people are more likely to be indoctrinated.
From my readings of the Zizian, they also don't seem to easily change their mind, they instead have had a tendency towards very radical opinions that progressively become more extreme.
I argue that having opinions that progressively become more extreme is in fact changing one's mind. That might not be the kind of mind changing we immediately imagine when we think about changing one's mind, but it is mind changing nonetheless.
I'm not trying to be clever; the fact that this flies under the radar just means we might be looking for "changing minds" in one form when it's mostly occurring in another.
People who feel ostracised or underappreciated tend to make good marks for cults and extremist groups in general. Another commenter pointed out that changing an opinion is a more emotional process than we'd like to assume.
Can you elaborate a bit more on the rationalist community’s perceived cults? I’ve only dipped my toes into places like LessWrong, so I am curious what you see there.
https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/pQGFeKvjydztpgnsY/occupation...
https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/MnFqyPLqbiKL8nSR7/my-experie...
https://medium.com/@zoecurzi/my-experience-with-leverage-res...
https://maxread.substack.com/p/the-zizians-and-the-rationali...
The last link and especially the second half expands from examining the latest example into the broader landscape of Rationalist cultism.
Rationalism is essentially a tech-flavored self-help movement, and the people who tend to gravitate towards self-help in general tend to be emotionally vulnerable people who are strongly susceptible to cult techniques (there's a reason so many cults start out as self-help movements).
On top of that, given the tech-flavored nature of Rationalism, its adherents seem to gravitate towards strongly utilitarian ethics (evil can be justified if done for a greater good) and an almost messianic relationship towards artificial superintelligence (a good so great it can justify a lot of evil).
Finally, it seems to me that Rationalism is especially prone to producing tedious writers which create insularity (by making it impenetrable to non-insiders) and lots of schisms over minor disputes that, due to insularity, end up festering into something rather more cult-like that demands more immediate and drastic action... like the Zizians.
To add a little nuance and a bit of a detour from the original topic, some Rationalists (I'm thinking Scott Alexander) tend to spend a lot of brainpower on negative aspects of AI too - think the alignment problem.
The category of events having near infinite positive or negative outcomes with zero to few examples where it's difficult to establish a base-rate[prior] appears to attract them the most. Conversely, an imagined demonic relationship with a yet to be realized unaligned AI results in a particular existential paranoia that permeates other enclaves of Rationalist discourse.
Probably referring to the Ziz cult which was born out of the rationalist community, which recently murdered bunch of innocent people.
Among others.
An open mind is like a fortress with its gates unbarred and unguarded.
Is this where we are now?
Shockingly, in a world where both eating too much food and too little will kill you, as will too much or too little water, heat or oxygen, the solutions are rarely found at the extremes of any continuum.
Creative, but no.
I wonder what is the cause and what is the effect? If Rationalism promises mind changing, I bet it attracts people obsessed with mind changing. Rationalism promises a chance to touch the eternal Truth, or at least to come closer to it, so naturally people who seeks such a truth will try to become rationalists.
This overall can easily lead to greater then average concentration of people susceptible to cults.
You see, I was engaged in lesswrong.com activites 10+ years ago, and I didn't become more "cultist". Probably even less. If I look at changes in me that happened due to me reading Yudkowski and talking with other people who read him, I'd say that these changes were coming in me in any case, the lesswrong stuff played its role and influenced the outcomes, but even before my lesswrong period I was:
1. Interested in arguments and how they work or do not work 2. All the time tried to dismantle laws, social norms, rules morale to find an answer "why do they exists and how they benefit the society", "how do they work?". Some of them I rejected as stupid and pointless. 3. I was interested in science overall and psychology in particular.
I learned a lot from that time of how arguments work and I was excited to see Yudkowski take on that. His approach doesn't work in reality, only with other rationalists, but I like it nevertheless.
OTOH, I need to say that Yudkowski by himself have a lot of traits of a leader of a cult. His texts are written like they are his own unique ideas. He refers sometimes to Socrates of some other person, but it doesn't help and his texts looks like he is a genius that invented a new philosophical system from ground up. I didn't know the history of philosophy enough to see how far from the truth the picture is. The bells begin to ring in my head when I get to the "Death Spirals" where Yudkowski talked about cults and why lesswrong is not a cult. It is highly suspicious as it is, but his arguments were not good enough to me, maybe because they were worse than usual or maybe because I was more critical than usual. "Death Spirals" failed to convince me that lesswrong is not a cult, on the contrary they made me to wonder "a cult or not a cult" all the time.
And this question led me to a search for information everywhere, not just lesswrong. And then I've found a new "sport": find Yudkoswki's ideas in writings of thinkers from XIX century or earlier. Had he conceived at least one truly original idea? This activity was much more fun for me than lesswrong and after that I had no chance whatsoever to become a part of a cult centered on Rationality.
The point I'm trying to make is Yudkowski's Rationality doesn't deliver its promises, people get not what was promised but what they had already. Rationality changes them somehow, but I believe that it is not the reason, just a trigger for changes that would come in any case.
[delayed]
So I'm open to changing my mind on this, but — having already been familiar with the evidence you posted below and having been adjacent to these circles for a long time — I'm very skeptical of both the claim generally that cults are endemic to the Rationalist community, and even moreso, specifically that it has anything to do with Rationalists holding beliefs loosely.
The Zizians are absolutely a cult. But did they get there by changing their beliefs too easily?
I think that's a really tough case to make -- one of their chief characteristics is their extreme slavishness to some particular radical views. These weren't people who jumped around often ideologically. Several of the Zizians (of whom there were never many) also weren't rationalists first. Where's the case that this is a result of Rationalism influence, or particularly that holding beliefs loosely was the problem? A handful of (the many) ex-rationalists forming a cult doesn't seem like strong evidence.
Leverage was certainly a high-demand social circle, and some people came out with some damage. I know others who were involved briefly, got no cult vibes, had no issues, and had a good experience with Leverage programs. Note also that a number of the "cult" claims came from Ziz and Ziz's friends, who even separately from Ziz influence have not tended to be particularly stable people — this doesn't mean they're wrong, but I do update a bit based on that. And Vassar definitely had a penchant for seeing vulnerable people near crisis and suggesting that they take drugs, which is generally stupid and harmful.
I don't think it's particularly useful to call leverage a "cult" even if there's some overlap, but if it is, is it because of Rationalists' willingness to change their minds? Again, I'm very skeptical. Vassar looked for people who were a little bit crazy/unstable, and did influence them to change their minds. But he didn't do this because he was looking to prey on them, and often engaged in ways that don't seem cultish at all — he did it because those were the people who understood him, because he was also a bit crazy/unstable!
Alternatively, what other explanatory factors are there for two cults closely adjacent to Rationalism? 1. Base rates. Have you been to the Bay Area? Cults are everywhere. Seriously, I suspect Rationalists are well-below the base rate here. 2. Very smart people who are also atypical as thinkers seem to be more susceptible to mental health issues, and in many cases these people from otherwise-vulnerable groups (e.g. almost all of the Zizians, many of the Leverage people). You definitely get some high-octane crazy, and groups of people that can follow certain types of reasoning can insulate themselves in a mental cul-de-sac, and then get stuck there because their blind spots block the exit and few others can follow the reasoning well enough to come in and get them. 3. Young people are easily influenced. As one Lesswrong commenter put it, "the rationalist community is acting as a de facto school and system of interconnected mentorship opportunities."
There's a lot of related discussion on these topics catalogued here, with Rationalists carefully dissecting these issues from various angles to see what the risks are and how they can make the community more resilient to them: https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/MnFqyPLqbiKL8nSR7/my-experie...
Before asking "How to win an argument with a toddler?", first ask:
> If you’re not changing your mind, it’s likely you’re not actually having an argument
If you've made up your mind (even if, theoretically, it could be changed) why would you have an argument about it in the first place? Discussing the already settled is rather boring. Unless one is grandstanding for some other purpose, people move on once they've made up their mind. They don't keep exploring the same ideas over and over and over again once they've settled.
Argument is there to explore that to which you have not yet made a mind. Your mind won't change because there is no basis on which to change from.
This is quite a close minded position that leaves you vulnerable in changing circumstances. Very little is known with absolute certainty outside of mathematics. I think a better default is to revisit topics every now and then, listen to the counter arguments and change your position if you think it is warranted.
> Very little is known with absolute certainty outside of mathematics.
Absolutely. As you've read in other comments, mathematics is of the few areas where I have found room to make up my mind. For everything else, straight up: I don't know. The only way to change my mind from "I don't know" is to make it "I do know", but, as you say, outside of mathematics that realistically isn't going to happen. We collectively don't know and it is unlikely that we will ever know.
> This is quite a close minded position that leaves you vulnerable in changing circumstances.
Okay, but what in the mathematics that I have made my mind up on do you believe is prone to change? Do you anticipate that we will eventually determine that 1+1 actually equals 4 or something?
I will change my mind if in the unlikely event that incontrovertible proof does somehow come to be. I accepted it is theoretically possible to change minds. But, as I said, which is key to the whole thing, I will not spend my days arguing that 1+1=2 until I find out different. I am confident enough that 1+1=2 that I don't have to make that case to myself in front of others.
Argument is a device for when you are unsure of something and want to learn more. There is no mind to change as you haven’t established a mind yet.
> For everything else, straight up: I don't know.
Montaigne said something similar, and Descartes' response was to attempt to make everything as certain as math. It didn't end well :-)
Surely there is some middle ground? (I haven't read all your comments so perhaps you say so somewhere.) Not all objects of knowledge yield the same certainty, or precision, as quantity. That is not a fault in them or us, it is just in their nature. But we can have a fairly good idea. Examples are too obvious to enumerate. If we dichotomize between "knowing with the certainty of math", and "not knowing", we end in some pretty weird places.
This response is indicative of a completely different perspective on the idea of "argument" (and "making up your mind," a phrase that does not appear in the than the original article and would not fit with the framework of understanding expressed therein). The belief that your mind should or even can be "settled" on an issue - that you can examine the evidence, weigh it, judge it, come to a definitive conclusion, and then never think about it again - is not universal.
There exist people who think probabilistically; issues are not definitively decided in their mind, but given some likelihood of being one way or another. Such people tend to have much more accurate understandings of the world and benefit greatly from constructive debate, revisiting the same issues over and over again as new evidence is brought up in these arguments. If you'd like to know more, I recommend reading the book The Scout Mindset by Julia Galef.
> "making up your mind," a phrase that does not appear in the than the original article and would not fit with the framework of understanding expressed therein
While it does not explicitly appear, a mind cannot be changed if it was never made. Change, by definition, requires something to already exist.
> revisiting the same issues over and over again as new evidence is brought up in these arguments.
Right. But they can't change their mind as they never established something that can be changed. This is the state before a mind is made. It is possible that a mind will never be made. For complex subjects, it is unlikely that a mind can be made.
>But they can't change their mind as they never established something that can be changed.
"I am 70% confident that candidate X will win the upcoming elections."
"Oh, new polling data has come in that shows more support than I previously knew about? I'm now 80% confident of their victory."
Why do you think change cannot occur unless a belief is certain?
I have no mind formed when it comes to anything related to politics. I'm not sure how anyone reasonably could. There is so much information, and even more information not accessible, that making a mind is completely beyond grasp. If one thinks they have, I suspect they are out to lunch. Perhaps confusing their state with tribalism or some such similar quality.
The fact that most people seem to enjoy a good political argument now and again solidifies the idea that they don't actually have a mind made. People lose interest in arguments once they've settled. Argument occurs in the state where one is unsure. It is how humans explore and learn about the world they don't yet understand.
You realize that examples can extend to other topics?
"I am 60% confident that recursion is the best method for this algorithm." "Having had more time to study potential options, I am now 75% confident."
"I am sure that I parked my car here." "Oh, you're right, we were on the east side, not the west."
"I am predicting that I will enjoy the movie tonight." "Given the expressions of people leaving the cinema ahead of me, I am rapidly reconsidering my prediction."
Your objection seems to primarily come from a difference in definition for "changing one's mind" - the way you describe it sounds to me like a fundamental shift in an axiomatic belief, whereas I, and many others, use it simply to indicate that we are updating a probabilistic map.
We have already discussed the semantic implications. What else are you trying to add here? I think it went over my head.
Your original issue with the article was that once you've "settled" an issue, there is no reason to argue about it. I pointed out that a number of people do not "settle" issues in the way that you describe, and that argument serves to update their information and beliefs constantly.
You stated that a mind "cannot be changed if it was never made." I disagree; one does not need to have an absolute belief in something to "change their mind." By definition, any update of beliefs is changing one's mind. My mind changes often, but usually by small increments. A key part of that is argumentation; I constantly seek out counterarguments to my own beliefs to see if new data or points of view will sway me. In the absence of that, I argue against myself, to see if I can find flaws in my logic and update accordingly.
By that logic argument, as described by the original article, is extremely useful for ensuring that one's beliefs accurately reflect reality.
To me, your position that an issue must be "settled" in one's mind (whatever that means, because I don't think you're perfectly clear on that) before you can be said to "change your mind" doesn't make sense.
> By definition, any update of beliefs is changing one's mind. My mind changes often...
So would you say changing one's mind is a case where one seeks a different religion (where beliefs are thrown around freely)?
I can't imagine believing in something unless it is essentially irrefutable (e.g. 1+1=2). And where I have beliefs, I'm not going to argue them. What purpose would that serve? I have already established the utmost possible confidence in that belief for it become one. I have no remaining compulsion to keep trying to see what more can be learned when I am certain there is nothing more to learn. To continue to want to learn more about something you are certain can be learned about no more must be the definition of insanity.
If we want to lean on definitions, the dictionary is equally clear that a belief hinges on acceptance. "I am 60% confident that recursion is the best method for this algorithm." means that I don't know. "I don't know" is not a state of acceptance. That is not a belief.
>So would you say changing one's mind is a case where one seeks a different religion
I have no idea what you mean by this. I explained in detail what changing one's mind entails. It has nothing to do with "irrefutable" or deeply held convictions.
You have a nonstandard definition of belief.
First of all, "I don't know" is absolutely a state of acceptance. It is acceptance that the information is not fully reliable. Most things are unknowable; the vast majority of held beliefs are not arrived at through irrefutable logic but by simple trust in consensus. I believe that certain food is nutritious, even though I have not run tests on it myself. Data might arise later showing my beliefs to be false; that is why I assign probabilities to my beliefs, rather than certainties.
Second of all, your fallback to a dictionary definition is flawed in two ways. The first is that various definitions of "belief" exist; one of which (from https://www.wordnik.com/words/belief) is "Assent to a proposition or affirmation, or the acceptance of a fact, opinion, or assertion as real or true, without immediate personal knowledge; reliance upon word or testimony; partial or full assurance without positive knowledge or absolute certainty; persuasion; conviction; confidence." (emphasis added) Another definition given is "A conviction of the truth of a given proposition or an alleged fact, resting upon grounds insufficient to constitute positive knowledge."
The second way this argument is flawed is that dictionaries are descriptive tools, not prescriptive. That is to say, dictionaries are not arbiters of truth in language but merely reference documents for possible meaning, and where they differ from common usage, it is the dictionary that is incorrect.
> "I don't know" is absolutely a state of acceptance.
Yes, it absolutely is acceptance that you don't know. It is belief in not knowing. But that's not what we were talking about. Context must be considered.
> Assent to a proposition or affirmation, or the acceptance of a fact...
Curious choice. The GCIDE is not among the usual 'authoritative' dictionaries, and for good reason. It takes its definitions from a publication written in 1913. It is not a modern dictionary. Unless you've invented a time machine... It is interesting from a licensing perspective, but little more.
Of course you are absolutely right that anyone can make up a random definition for a word on the spot. They can even publish it in a book if they so choose. But you know that wasn't what you were talking about when you brought up "definition" and you know that didn't change going forward. Context must be considered.
> The second way this argument is flawed is that dictionaries are descriptive tools, not prescriptive.
Hence the poking fun of your "By definition, any update of beliefs is changing one's mind." comment. It even prefaced with "_If_ we want to lean on definitions" to highlight that it could not be taken in a serious way. Did you not read the thread in full before landing here? Context must be considered.
I, for one, thought the discussion we were having was rather interesting. I have no idea why you thought anyone would want to read this blatantly obvious, horribly off-topic slop.
> If you've made up your mind (even if, theoretically, it could be changed) why would you have an argument about it in the first place?
Because, in most of those cases, my mind is made up given the information I’d had access to and the points I’ve seen/heard made regarding the topic up to this point. If an argument brings up new (to me) points and information, it is all a fair game, and I am not holding onto my “already made up” position that dearly. If I consider a position “already made up,” it is usually due to me rarely encountering anything new on that topic. But I am not going to pre-emptively declare “my mind is made up, and nothing can change it,” all it could take is a single piece of new info or a new point that I was yet to encounter.
TLDR: the entire meaning of “my mind is made up on this topic already” to me personally is “over a course of a long time, I am yet to encounter any new materially relevant info on the topic that could change my mind, and all i keep hearing is the same stuff I heard before (but I am willing to change my perspective if there are any new and relevant points), so I expect the likelihood of my mind being changed on this to be low (given the low likelihood of any new relevant info being introduced)”.
> Argument is there to explore that to which you have not yet made a mind. Your mind won't change because there is no basis on which to change from.
Agreed wholeheartedly, except i would completely remove the “that to which you have not yet made a mind” part.
> I am not holding onto my “already made up” position that dearly.
Perhaps this is just semantics, then? I wouldn't make up my mind until there is effectively no chance of there being an alternative I've overlooked. I'm confident enough in the available information to make up my mind that 1+1 does equal 2 (a topic I would find no interest in discussing further at this point; there is good reason we don't sit around all day talking about that), but for most things I don't have a mind made.
If you can't hold it dearly, is your mind really made?
Using your specific example: I consider my mind to be made up on 1+1=2, because I have zero idea what kind of a new information one could bring up to make me consider 1+1 not being equal 2.
I am open to someone making such a point, I just consider the likelihood of that happening being insanely low (given the points I’ve encountered so far on that topic).
All that “i made up my mind” means to me personally (stressing this part, because i know for a fact that it means an absolute “i won’t change my mind on this no matter what evidence you provide” to a lot of people) is “given all prior attempts and the evidence on the topic, I believe it is extremely unlikely you will manage to bring up any new legitimate argument to support your position, but I am open to hearing out what you got.”
> I am open to someone making such a point
Someone else is not you presenting an argument. You making an argument about what you know about 1+1=2 is what is boring. Let's be real: You're not going to do it. Why would you? You are already confident in your understanding.
I mean, do it if you want. I'm not sure why you'd waste your time, though. You aren't going to gain anything from it.
Only if you really had no idea what is going on and wish to understand a topic in more detail would you go down the road of getting into an argument. But when you are in that state you are not in a position to have made a mind.
Agreed, I would not start an argument in favor of 1+1=2, just like I wouldn’t start an argument about sky being blue on a sunny day, because most people would just agree with me. The whole point of an argument is exploring ideas and learning something new, and I have zero new info on those topics that would go against what most already believe.
> The whole point of an argument is exploring ideas and learning something new
Exactly. Which is why argumentation becomes boring once you are at the point where you feel there is nothing left that you can learn. Not only does it become boring, but it encroaches on the time you have to broach subjects you want to learn about, so there is great incentive to move on for that reason as well.
But when you are in a state where you still feel there is something left to learn, where you might drum up an argument to continue to learn and explore, you're not going to make a mind. That would be nonsensical.
So the idea of argument changing your mind isn't practical, even if theoretically possible. During argument, there is no mind to change. Once a mind is made, argument ceases (fake argument with ulterior motives aside).
I feel like we broadly agree and are just griping over the semantics of what “made up my mind” means.
> argumentation becomes boring once you are at the point where you feel there is nothing left that you can learn
Agreed, but here is the thing: there are plenty of topics on which I feel like “there is nothing left to learn,” but that doesn’t mean to me personally that there is nothing left, it just means I believe it is extremely unlikely to find anything new. Just by the definition, I wouldn’t know if there was anything new I haven’t learned yet, otherwise I would’ve went and learned it myself already. So that potentially new stuff would have to come from elsewhere.
However, I can definitely express my belief in the likelihood of discovering something new on the topic being extremely low, which is what i count as “i made up my mind” for myself personally.
> I feel like we broadly agree
I am not sure I am in a proper place to agree or disagree. I'm still in argument mode, which means I don't understand the topic well enough to be in a state where I could agree or disagree. I do hope to get there someday, but when I do get there you aren't to hear more from me on the subject! I'll have grown bored of it and will be on to the next. Such is the human condition.
"What would it take to convince you otherwise" is a question I've asked in the past, but I'm less and less convinced of its utility.
If the counterparty knew the answer to that, they would sit down with Google, not engage in an argument. Debate is mainly information sharing, but also to some degree about exploring the answer to that question.
For me, it is really useful: should I talk to this person never again, since they cannot be convinced by any evidence they themselves would find.
Or with close family, should I never bring up this topic again since they perhaps have nothing to gain from changing their opinion, but a lot to lose.
I also like "steelman the other side first" to see where they are and how much they know about "the other side" of an argument. But this only works with people you know and trust to want to go there, not on the internet.
In the same vein, I've been keen to try out "What would the world look like if..." and then show that we do or do not observe related phenomena. It seems like the best way to meet someone on their terms (because they get to write the "rules" of the world) and then you just apply them towards one conclusion or another. But I haven't had enough exposure to really test this out.
A better phrasing is ‘If you were wrong, how would you know?’. It has the same end state, but positions things as an internal revelation rather than a potential loss of face, so is less likely to trigger a defensive response.
For lots of people, logic and facts don’t have much power compared to emotion. Often it seems there’s no argument to be won.
For those actually trying to talk to a toddler, I recommend Adele Faber's How to talk so kids will listen and listen so kids will talk.
Also maybe useful for talking to middle aged toddlers.
This book isn't actually appropriate for toddler age children, but there is a "sequel" that focuses on toddlers. While there are some nice ideas in the book, it tends to ignore the most challenging parts of parenting. If you're going to spend the time reading a parenting book, I'd recommend a research-based parenting program.
>I'd recommend a research-based parenting program.
Can you share the ones you liked, please?
Incredible Years has a series of books for different ages.
> An argument, though, is an exchange of ideas that ought to surface insight and lead to a conclusion.
That's one definition, I suppose, but it's not the definition you'll find in any dictionary I've seen. The author here seems to be assuming that the only valid reason to argue is to learn. People argue for many reasons other than that.
> If you’re regularly having arguments with well-informed people of goodwill, you will probably ‘lose’ half of them–changing your mind based on what you’ve learned
Again, the author's unspoken presupposition begs to be questioned. Why do most people actually argue in the public sphere? For instance, why do we have presidential debates? The candidates certainly aren't there to learn. They are not even trying to persuade their debate partner. They are arguing to convince or persuade their viewers of something. These could be undecided viewers, or they could be viewers who have already made up their mind but may either feel strengthened about their beliefs or weakened after listening.
Similarly, if I'm debating someone online, it's often less to convince that person and more to convince anyone else who might be reading. I have heard of people in real life who have read debates I've engaged in and expressed both gratitude for my willingness to do so and that they were strengthened in their beliefs on the subject.
> Toddlers (which includes defensive bureaucrats, bullies, flat earthers, folks committed to a specific agenda and radio talk show hosts) may indicate that they’d like to have an argument, but they’re actually engaging in connection, noise, play acting or a chance to earn status. It can be fun to be in opposition, to harangue or even to use power to change someone’s position.
Honestly, this article is now very good, because he doesn't seem to realize one of the most common reasons for "folks committed to a specific agenda" to play-act an "argument" (or a "discussion" or a "conversion") is persuasion, and not any of the other childish things he outlines.
Maybe he spends to much time in immature online spaces.
[dead]
There are many kinds of arguments. Some arguments are psychological, not related to "winning" but understanding what makes the interlocutor tick.
The article is formulaic. It doesn't make it inherently bad.
The presenting of a persona interaction, followed by a recipe on how to deal with that, is one of those discussion tricks. Whoever answers must put itself in either the toddler's position or the adult position. Both positions are disfavorable (they're flat stereotypes)
The author is actually playing neither, it is acting as an "overseer" of silly toddlers and silly adults that engage in arguments all wrong.
It is a curious thing how far these things went.
Tantrums can happen for all kinds of reasons, and adults can engage in fruitless argument for all kinds of reasons too. It's a human thing. Sometimes, even in perfectly reasonable discussions, no one learns anything. That is also a human thing.
Changing one's point of view is something dramatic. To expect that in an argument is unreasonable, it's too high of a goal.
Just making the other part understand the subject is a lesser, more attainable objective. They don't need to agree. Sometimes I feel glad when I notice that the other part found the core of the discussion, even if they are in opposition to my view. It means that they understood the subject, which is something rare these days.
> Tell me about other strongly-held positions you’ve changed as the result of a discussion like this one…
Fair point, but if somebody were actually to say that to me during a disagreement, I would assume that they were not acting in good faith.
Now instead of disagreeing about politics or whatever, you're asking a rhetorical question that insinuates "you are unreasonable."
Agreed, it feels like something someone who had never had a conversation with a human being that strongly disagreed with them would write. If it was an introspective question meant to question the framing of trying to convince people through arguments in general, it might be meaningful.
I think it's fair to try to establish if the person you're talking to has an unfalsifiable belief and walk away if you're arguing with a brick wall, but that's definitely not the way to go about it.
An excellent text about engaging with extremists... (I don't agree with the authors simplification as toddlers) is the book "Subversive Denken, wie man Fundamentalismus diskutiert" (Unfortunately it's only available in German). The author distinguishes between different types of fundamentalists and makes the point that discussions with the convinced fundamentalist is often not possible, because even agreeing on facts is impossible as denying some facts is a proof of faith in the fundamentalist ideology. The discussion is then about convincing listeners instead via different techniques. Despite the title it is not primarily about religious fundamentalism but also political (quite timely at the moment) and the author gives historical examples of the type of techniques employed against fundamentalists.
"Wie man mit Fundamentalisten diskutiert, ohne den Verstand zu verlieren: Anleitung zum subversiven Denken", by Hubert Schleichert
I gave up trying to change people’s mind in this widely divided world.
For starters, I will be arguing with a dozen of “social media influencers” who shaped the opinion and identity of my opponent.
And in the end, most people are not really interested in changing their opinion. They want me to change mine, or validate theirs, but would conveniently dismiss anything that does not match their world view.
That last part is where my head was going while reading this piece. If both people are of the mindset that the other should change their mind, which is usually the case, it goes nowhere.
The person most open to having they mind changed is often the least likely to need it changed, as they’ve likely already looked at both side in good faith. That said, they may have a blind spot, or haven’t considered a particular view.
Totally unrelated, but this reminds me of my favorite title of a math article: "How often should you beat your kids?" (it's about a certain simple combinatorial game)
https://people.mpim-bonn.mpg.de/zagier/files/math-mag/63-2/f...
(My favorite line: "Levasseur analyzes the game and shows that on average you will have a score of n + (sqrt(pn) - 1)/2 + O(1/sqrt(n)) while the kid will have exactly n. We maintain, however, that only the most degenerate parent would play against a two-year-old for money, so the question should be not by how much you expect to win, but with what probability you will win at all.")
99% of people have zero epistemic foundation for any of their views so debated on the facts mean nothing
A terrifying amount of views are held on the basis of how good they make the holder feel.
I don’t think this should be terrifying, this is how it works and how it’s always worked. Understanding this is more helpful than pretending people are rational machines and if they don’t agree with your reasoning, that means they are defective and therefore dangerous.
This post captures very well some mechanisms I learned about in the past years, the psychological mechanisms behind the behavior that people show towards people going through a high-risk pregnancy in a SARS-CoV-2 pandemic.
To my great surprise.
Everyone is capable of being a toddler. This article frames it like there are a bunch of idiots out there that are always wrong. I think he is acting like a toddler when he points out the people that are always wrong. It is good to analyze your own actions and try to minimize when we act like toddlers. Because we all do. But yes, some more than others.
I have a sort of recipe for openly discussing disagreements with someone:
1. Demonstrate that you understand their point, and concede ground where necessary (what you think is attractive about what they are saying, what it explains well, etc)
2. Explain (not tell) why it is that in spite of that, you don't hold the position they do (maybe it leads to some other conclusion, maybe there's another core principle at work)
3. Ask, with genuine curiosity, what they think about the problem you raised, how to they resolve it in their mind?
I don't think that'll necessarily make you more likely to change their mind, but you'll certainly be more likely to learn something.
And if they aren't actually interested in discussing, and are just engaging in some kind of show boating etc, it will become immediately clear because you are only leaving open the possibility of curious, open dialogue.
I think it’s rare to actually have minds change in an argument, and that’s fine.
What you should be doing is understanding each position and reducing the disagreement down to one (or a few) points that are either knowable (you could find the data, run an experiment, etc) or are a judgement call.
There are a number of highly contentious subjects where the other side seems to be a bunch of toddlers to us, no matter which side we find ourselves on.
Abortion, climate change, free market capitalism, tax policy, racism, or identity politics are just a few. Even though both sides generally have some valid points to support their side; rarely does anyone's argument or debate cause someone else to switch sides.
Too often both camps are firmly entrenched wIth many who feel that anyone in the other camp is not just wrong, but is evil.
Neither side wants to give an inch in the public sphere, lest it be taken as a sign of weakness. This leads to the most shrill, radical voices taking center stage on both sides.
The most extreme positions are promoted and reinforced. There are a number of vested interests in the media and political arenas who like it that way.
I think there is a difference between having a discussion and having an argument. You are in a discussion if you are actually open to change and seeking a better understanding. You are in an argument if you are just out to change the other side. An argument is a fight so knowing when to argue is critical to winning the fight. The challenge, I think, is that often people get themselves into a discussion when the other side is having an argument with them and don't realize it. That seems like a point this article is really driving at towards the end. The missing advice though is that if you recognize the other side is just going to be in an argument and not switch to a discussion then you probably need to back out.
If you don't think you would be able to fool the person that you have the same views as them, you probably will not be able to have a productive argument with them.
i.e. if you couldn't sit at the table with a bunch of (insert ideology) adherents and blend right in, you probably don't understand their views well enough to dissuade them from it.
Jonathan Haidt's finding from The Righteous Mind that conservatives tend to understand liberal moral foundations better than liberals understand conservative ones is an important example.
His research shows conservatives operate across a broader range of moral foundations—care, fairness, loyalty, authority, sanctity, and liberty—while liberals lean heavily on care and fairness
This gives conservatives an easier time modeling liberal views, as they already incorporate those priorities. Liberals, however, often struggle to grasp the weight conservatives place on loyalty, authority, or sanctity, seeing them as less "rational."
The author is an example of this: he views his opponents as less rational—literal "toddlers"—and thus their arguments can be dismissed.
Was hoping it was about actual toddlers. I keep having these discussions with my kids. I know they’re just whining but they always reach this point where I think: “That’s indeed quite reasonable”. My wife says I shouldn’t be a push over but I just want to be open minded.
If someone is emotionally invested in “being right,” logic is just background noise.
When you reach "The cliff of Irrational Arguments" you need to stop and reevaluate what is the purpose of the discussion.
There was a joke about the man who was threatening to jump off a cliff. No professional could convince him otherwise with sound arguments. It took a another mental patient to make an irrational threat, cut the cliff down, to scare him off.
Edit to add link: https://idiallo.com/blog/the-cliff-of-irrational-arguments
So, whenever you fail to change someone's mind, you can just dismiss them as being a toddler. This mindset explains how the current state of, say, US politics became so polarized and extremist.
Demeaning and applying labels to people who disagree with you are not really conducive to the healthy arguments the author is looking for.
> It probably doesn’t pay to argue over things we have chosen to believe as part of our identity.
In a world where things are increasingly becoming a part of our identity (i.e., Democrat/Republican), this presents a real problem. I agree it hardly does good to argue with people about these things, but the problem is that the list of valid things to argue over seems to be diminishing yearly.
I recommend the book How To Talk So Kids Will Listen And Listen So Kids Will Talk.
The same basic techniques work on toddlers, teens and many adults.
"There are three ways of dealing with opposition. The recommended and stupid way is to directly engage it in a cooperative spirit. This never works unless there is genuinely some sort of misunderstanding that can be easily clarified." (Venkatesh Rao, Be Slightly Evil)
The knowing has lost against the believing every single time in the whole history of antroposophic argumentation. No chance to stand 3 rounds against the believers
Mandatory reference to the argument clinic: https://youtu.be/DkQhK8O9Jik.
Classic mistake theory vs conflict theory. Just being right is not a good enough reason for someone to believe you. They have to believe you’re on their side.
Much to the same opening as the article I have a little saying I have to myself:
Don't get into a battle of wills with a kid - they don't even know they're taking part.
“If you’re not changing your mind, it’s likely you’re not actually having an argument (or you’re hanging out with the wrong people.)”
Or you’re the toddler. We all are at some point
I assumed this would be about prompt engineering. I often feel like I'm arguing with toddlers when interacting with LLMs :).
The mainstream media in America has turned half the country into proverbial "Unthinking Brainwashed Toddlers". I think the key problem about "Toddlers" is that they think with emotions rather than with logic and reason. They're old enough to know they're mad about something, but too unwise to reason about root causes and potential solutions, often unaware that THEY are the CAUSE of their problems.
If you think you might be in the political party that's thinking in this way, then congratulations, you're probably right, and you should start using reason. To the other half, don't worry it's not you. The people I'm talking to know exactly who they are, and I don't even need to say which side it is, because at this point, in 2025, it has finally become utterly obvious to most.
I don't think I've ever had an argument that I remember being a good use of my time.
> An argument, though, is an exchange of ideas that ought to surface insight and lead to a conclusion.
No it isn't.
> “What sort of information would make it likely you could see this in a different way?”
That's the argument to falsifiability, put in human terms.
I think this might be the first time I've ever seen a serious article reference Monty Python in a way that genuinely furthers the point.
I didn't get that reference. Thanks! Is it this one?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ohDB5gbtaEQ
Yep, specifically the part where they differentiate between an argument and abuse
Ice cream usually works for actual toddlers. (Didn't read the article yet.)
Toddlers are smart enough To know you are putting on a show of an argument and do the same.
Post reminds me of the absolutely lovely Monty python skit [1] that is not only humorous, but has a lot you can learn from.
[1]: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ohDB5gbtaEQ
If you can't change your mind when presented with new evidence, you _are_ an intellectual toddler.
but evidence doesn't matter because I am morally right!
I feel like we're in the middle of a crisis of satisfaction - that is, the human mind seeks satisfaction, and the internet provides satisfaction of all sorts.
For instance, there is a very satisfying story about the origin of a certain pandemic. I can think about how I would gather evidence about origins of an infectious disease, but I can't actually gather that evidence because that would require a time machine.
So, instead of any significant evidence we have a satisfying story. In the past we've called this kind of story a Conspiracy Theory; I would prefer a name like Low Information High Satisfaction Theory.
I dislike this line of reasoning - it's the presumption that I'm just too smart for my audience and unwillingness to recognize where they are coming from, even if some of their thinking seems to be irrational and biased - at the same time it's the refusal to acknowledge that I might be prone to biases and my thinking might be flawed and perspective incomplete from the point of others.
It's literally giving up, declaring victory and then projecting passive-aggressive superiority.
I often ask, "what new fact could change my opinion about this?" it isn't a simple question. it requires you go upstream of your opinion and consider why or what caused you to think it, and then ask -even upstream of that- if there is some principle or axiom that is yielding an interpretation of that cause.
questions like: would I still think this if I were happier; do I have a belief about my status that the circumstances do not reflect; do I share an ontology with this being at all; do I fear other consequences of agreeing with them?
the irony of authority is it usually means dealing with someone who doesn't have the authority to compromise, and if you don't humiliate them for this fact that hangs over everything they do, they will often at least use their discretion.
I'll remember this for my Faceit solo Q lobbies.
my dad won everyone one of them… with a belt (or threat of the belt)…
> An argument, though, is an exchange of ideas that ought to surface insight and lead to a conclusion.
No it isn't.
This is the stated reason that Vaush (some Twitch/YT zoomer political commentator) stopped doing debate streams. He said they were only having the effect of elevating the people he was debating with rather than conveying information or changing minds.
Sure. You should converge viewpoints over time in a sense of Aumann's Agreement Theorem. If you aren't, something is different about the argument purpose.
I get the impression that this person is using toddler as an insult and find it rather off-putting.
> Toddlers (which includes defensive bureaucrats, bullies, flat earthers, folks committed to a specific agenda and radio talk show hosts)
I think people are unfair to bureaucrats. Bureaucrats have a job to do: they carry out policy determined by other people and encoded via a dizzying array of rules that combine specificity and vagueness in unexpected ways, many of which have a history of harm, exploitation, and public debate behind them that ordinary people have no patience to learn.
People are only interested in their own situation, and they are convinced that their situation is different. Sometimes it is. Sometimes they're suffering from an entirely natural partiality towards themselves. So they want the bureaucrat to be creative. They justify it by saying that the rules can be bent just for this circumstance, just for them, it doesn't have to apply to any other circumstance. Why can't the bureaucrat relax their rigid bureaucratic brain enough to realize that every circumstance is unique and the rules were written for other circumstances, not this one?
But that's exactly what the bureaucrat is not supposed to do. The public, their elected representatives, their interest groups, and other policy stakeholders expend incredible quantities of time in campaigns, pubic debate, open meetings, closed meetings, collection and collation of feedback, et cetera ad infinitum. It's not the bureaucrat's place to second-guess the results of that process or innovate outside the bounds decided on during that process.
In the gray areas within those boundaries, yes, the bureaucrat is happy to listen to arguments and make decisions based on reason and evidence. That's their job. Gray areas where bureaucrats get to apply judgment are inevitable, often even intentional, but the gray areas aren't always where you want or expect them to be. Bureaucrats don't have latitude to decide that a rule that went through two rounds of public feedback, got debated until 11pm at a public meeting, went through multiple rounds of drafting and review by the staff of an elected official, and was finally signed off on and announced as a shiny new policy in the media, should be changed for you because the way it applies to your situation doesn't make sense to you. They can't invent a gray area where the political process provided a bright line.
You can argue that a lot of rules were hastily dashed out by a junior aide and made it through the rest of the policy-making process without any further scrutiny. That's true. But it's not like when you become a bureaucrat they give you a special pair of glasses that show you which rules were just one person's ill-informed guess and which rules emerged from decades of painful history or hours of public debate and compromise. That would be nice to know, and sometimes bureaucrats know that information because they were around and paying attention when the rules were made. Sometimes they can bend a rule because they know that this particular rule is not important to anybody. But just because they won't bend a rule in your case doesn't mean they're narrow-minded, stubborn, or petty.
Hence the "defensive" qualifier. Defensive bureaucrats hide behind the "just doing my job / following orders" excuse. This is problematic when it is at odds with ethics, especially in civil service organizations.
Following protocol is critical to the function of large human organizations, but it's not everything. People who blindly follow protocol without heed to societal values and ethics are no different than killer robots.
Adolf Eichmann was a defensive bureaucrat.
The world wouldn't have progressed if everybody'd had this attitude. To actually bring real change you don't have a choice but to engage with the toddlers.
Those who don't, will lose. E.g. Democrats in the last election.
> If you’re regularly having arguments with well-informed people of goodwill, you will probably ‘lose’ half of them–changing your mind based on what you’ve learned. If you’re not changing your mind, it’s likely you’re not actually having an argument (or you’re hanging out with the wrong people.) While it can be fun to change someone else’s position, it’s also a gift to learn enough to change ours.
What kind of arguments are these? Are these "this episode of TV was not good" or "the earth is flat" or "I think rent is too high"? This statistic seems a) made-up, and b) as simplistic as conflating all "arguments" into one group of indistinguishable arguments.
Am I using this site wrong? All I'm seeing is basically a tweet with nothing remotely resembling an original thought.
I think the relevant question would be, Are the owners of the forum exploiting it effectively?
> Toddlers (which includes defensive bureaucrats, bullies, flat earthers, folks committed to a specific agenda and radio talk show hosts)
If you've already decided your peer is a "toddler", correctly or incorrectly, you're definitely going to struggle to have any meaningful kind of dialog, that's for sure.
> If you’re not changing your mind, it’s likely you’re not actually having an argument (or you’re hanging out with the wrong people.)
Well, why do people argue in the first place?
Ultimately, it is probably something along the lines of "to spread one's own opinion", a cause not particularly noble in and of itself. Still, it is probably necessary. Most people are not aware of how seriously one's own perception is subjective; it feels like human nature, yet it's apparent if you look across enough people and enough culture that almost everything about our perception of issues is strongly impacted by culture, down to the language we use (though to be clear, I am not a believer in force-feeding the euphemism treadmill; fixing problems you manufactured isn't a net win for anyone. But I digress.) With that in mind, I think the importance of argument is apparent.
On an individual level, we have issues important enough to us, that we have formed opinions on. When we hear or see an argument that we disagree with, sometimes we feel enticed to debate it. In a public space, it's often more a performance than it is an actual argument between two people, but it's still an argument at its core.
In truth, there is not that much to gain from most arguments as they boil down to people who actually believe the same things but have a different framing of the situation, leading to a different outcome. You might change someone's mind by arguing with them, but only if they are both factually wrong about something and have the humility to admit it (and I think it is genuinely hard to sometimes, humans are just like that.) If they see the same exact factual information and have a different viewpoint, the real argument is one of trying to demonstrate which viewpoint holds more water. That's the real difficulty.
I don't really wind up having a lot of private one-on-one debates with people anymore. The reason is not because I don't want to grow or learn, it's because I've had a lot of debates about the issues most important to me and I feel like I understand the opposing viewpoints enough. I don't agree with them, but not because I can't figure out how someone could justify it.
Granted, there are viewpoints that I have an explanation for that I think holders of those viewpoints would not find to be particularly charitable, but that's not my modus operandi and I do adjust this when possible. In a lot of cases, e.g. abortion, gun rights, fiscal policies, I can see fairly reasonable arguments going different ways, and it often depends on what things you think are most important. This even extends to stuff that is less controversial that I have strong opinions on, like privacy rights and cryptography. The less charitable views are mostly reserved for the kinds of silly arguments you find spreading primarily from one moron to another, like conspiracies, or anything driven primarily by outrage bait.
I can see why you wouldn't argue with those people, but personally I think there are cases where you should. Ultimately, I think public debate is better than the ominous viewpoint suppression systems that modern social media deploys. (In many cases, both are worse than simply having reasonable moderation that can make subjective calls.)
Ultimately, I don't really think conspiracy nuts are toddlers or especially emotionally immature. I think a lot of them feel a disconnect from society and a distrust of authority, and find connection and possibly even a weird sense of security from conspiracy theories. Sometimes having someone to blame and grand explanations for why things are the way they are just makes us as humans feel better. But should you argue with them? At the very least, probably not for your sake or theirs, but maybe for other people's sakes sometimes.
Or maybe even more, it might be worth asking what it really means to "win" an argument. Changing the other person's view is not the definition I'd go with.
Gotta admit, I was certain this was going to be another article about tariffs.
While I agree with the high-level point of this post, that is "You can’t (win an argument with a toddler). That’s because toddlers don’t understand what an argument is and aren’t interesting in having one", I found then the obvious follow on question "OK, if you can't win this argument, then what do you actually do when people in great positions of power are having these fake arguments/tantrums?" not even addressed.
For example, when some of the most outlandish and obviously false social media conspiracy theories first hit the scene (e.g. QAnon, the totally bizarre "JFK Jr. is alive" theory, etc.) I thought "OK, this is just bad fan fic, best to just ignore it." But then I was amazed and pretty depressed about how these theories gained traction, and sometimes in the highest levels of power. So I feel like the advice of "Just ignore toddlers having a tantrum" is pretty counterproductive when you realize those tantrums are actually serving a very useful (and in my opinion scary) purpose for the people throwing them.
Clickbait title, clickbait article, in itself arguing in bad faith.
If you're losing half your arguments then you're doing somthing wrong. That would imply you and your opponent are both picking your initial positions via a coin flip, so that you're both discovering which side is "correct" for the first time in the midst of the argument. Rather, the first time a person encounters a subject, they won't have an opinion on it, so instead of arguing over it they will usually do some research or listen to other people's perspectives. Only once they feel they have gathered enough information to form an opinion will they tend to get into arguments over it. At that point they should be about, say, 90% confident in their opinion, so they should lose arguments about 10% of the time.
But that's really an idealized view of opinion forming that has little to do with how people actually develop their beliefs. Usually people don't want to become part-time experts in every field under the sun prior to developing an opinion on a given subject. So they will take the shortcut of acknowledging some expert or authority whose opinion they have some reason to trust. When they get into an argument, they still argue their opinion in terms of object level facts, but their actual reason for holding that opinion is largely disconnected from those facts. If their interlocutor presented an extraordinrily strong case (usually alongside some reason to distrust experts) they might still change their view. Otherwise, they will exit the discussion either feeling more confident in their view owing to the impotence of their inquisitor, or they will leave feeling uncertain in their view due to the strong front put up by the opposition. Even in the latter case, they will seldom admit to having "lost" the argument. They will rather change tacts midway through the discussion - ceding what they discover to be an inadequate line of attack for one they deem more defensable. That will often come across to the opposition as a forfeiture, an admission of inadequacy. But since they were never strongly taken to a given reasoning for their view (beyond, as I said, trust in experts, but the expert opinion does not change midway through an argument), they are indifferent to whether a given line of reasoning bears out.
I should emphasize that this is all really unavoidable, and that this is grounds for us to argue that even non toddlers (in fact we might argue, especially non toddlers) should not admit to having "lost" an argument any more than a small fraction of the time. This reflects that the goal of an argument is not usually to change minds, but rather for both sides to develop their understanding of the subject and to become more aware of why others would disagree with them.
Since I assume that the present discussion is a propos recent US political issues, what has occurred there is that some portion of the population considers trump to be an "authority" (as I have used the term above). That is, they feel that trump must necessarily have good reason for believing what he does, and furthermore that whatever actions trump takes must have good reasons behind them; this jutifies to them their choice to believe the same things and to believe those actions are good. This is questionable in the first place because trump has done very little to establish himself as an authority on political matters. He is first of all lacking in political experience prior to his first term, and second of all demonstrated during that first term very little talent for statesmanship. So to say that the policies he is implementing now must be well thought out, owing to his history of thinking out policies prior to implementing them, is not concomitant with the evidence.
In the second place, there is a clear demonstrated disconnect between trump's beliefs and his actions. He tends to take actions by justifying them in one way, but will later change course by giving an unrelated justification for his prior action (none of this to say that either are really his true reason). If we defend some position on the grounds that trump agrees with it at one point in time, we are liable to end up arguing against that position some time later on the same grounds. If the likelihood of contradicting ourselves is so high, then we cannot reasonably assign a high probability to the correctness of whatever position we are initially defending. (Or in other words, whereas I previously stated "the expert opinion does not change midway through an argument", this is liable to be false when we take trump as the "expert")
We might attempt to persist in defending trump on grounds that we agree with his actions rather than his words. I would find that questionable as well, since he has never been reliable in acting in a single direction. His recent flip-flop on illegal immigration, which previously seemed like a core issue of his, seems like a good demonstration of this.
Given all this, we come to the conclusion that those defending trump are defending the personage of trump rather than any particular belief or policy. He has developed, in other words, a cult of personality under which his followers will agree with anything he says or does (with some very limited exceptions like vaccines), even if they previously argued in strong terms against those same actions or beliefs. Such a cult of personality is not necessarily toddlerish, but is nonetheless highly regrettable.
This is how Trump will win and become king.
People write articles like this and then wonder why we are so politically divided.
I do agree there’s a point past which someone is ideologically unable to be reasoned with. The classic example is neo-Nazis, of course. But also of course, there are redeemed neo-Nazis.
Coming from a conservative family and living in a deep blue state I’ve had my fair share of arguments on both sides. As other commenters have stated, it’s all about emotions. If you can make the other person feel like they are being heard and assuage their fears about X, Y, or Z, then you can make progress, even if it’s small progress.
[dead]
The article in general, and final paragraph in particular, reminded me of this essay:
https://www.paulgraham.com/identity.html
Edit: if the connection isn't clear, I mean the aspect of it being difficult to argue rationally about opinions you've made part of your identity, since changing the opinion would be difficult.
[flagged]
Useless article that further demonstrates the leftist movement of what was once a great and fairly neutral site called Hacker News.
> flat earthers, folks committed to a specific agenda
I find it hard to think ill of a "leftist movement" that opposes "flat earthers," but pretty much every reasonable adult is, to a greater or lesser extent, "committed to a specific agenda"—leftists no less than the rest!
The author is silently switching between two definitions of "argument" depending on which point he's trying to make. An argument with a toddler is about whether they should brush their teeth, put their toys away, or stop sending American citizens to El Salvadorian prison camps. You win the argument if they do those things. And you can win some of those arguments, by ethos, pathos, logos, deal-making, bribery, or force.
That's not the same kind of argument where people are trying to change their minds. Those are the ones you can't win or lose, because "changing your mind" is not black and white. I've had plenty of arguments where my understanding changed by a few inches, and their understanding changed by a few inches, but we were still far apart in our opinions. That's fine! That's a successful argument.
The author's world is one where there are two takes on every topic and one person is arguing Black and the other is arguing White and you should flip to the other binary sometimes when you're wrong. No. If your opinions are regularly flipping from one binary to the other, then your opinions suck. The world is much more complicated than that. Opinions are much more contextual than that. I'm never going to switch from "evolution is real" to "all life was custom-built by God" after a conversation with one person -- no matter how persuasive they are -- because my belief that evolution is real is not that fragile. It's intertwined with all my other understandings about how the world works, and I can't just flip it independently of other things. My goal when I have an argument is to improve my understanding of the world just a little bit, even if it's merely "why do people believe this shit?" If the person I'm arguing with isn't trying to do the same, they're the only one that's losing.
>stop sending American citizens
the person who was sent, and who should not have been sent, was a Salvadoran citizen and a legal resident alien of the US.
Please refrain from hyperbole in these times. If/when US citizens start getting sent to prison camps, we need to be able to tell each other that it is happening, and if you cry wolf now, nobody will believe you when it does actually happen.
It is bad enough that it happened to a legal alien. It's more important than ever that we be precise.
I disagree with this perspective because this case had a really obvious and flagrant violation of due process. The planes were in El Salvador before the courts had determined his citizenship/resident status.
It's moot that he wasn't a citizen because the response to it happening to a legal alien suggests that, if this happened to a citizen, the administration would claim that it is impossible to return him while Bukele talks about how absurd it would be to smuggle terrorists into the US, all while people are arguing over whether or not he's even a citizen, let alone what crimes he committed to justify detention and deportation in the first place.
Do you mean Abrego Garcia? What's your source that he is "a legal resident alien" ?
This says he is illegal and shouldn't have been here in the first place: https://www.dhs.gov/news/2025/04/14/icymi-dhs-sets-record-st...
Or is there another person?
He entered the US illegally when he was 16 but was granted a "withholding of removal" status by the judicial branch. He had no contact with law enforcement since then, aside from his annual check-ins with ICE. The Supreme Court unanimously concluded that he was deported illegally.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deportation_of_Kilmar_Abrego_G...
A judge granted him ‘withholding of removal’ status, and SCOTUS has determined his removal unlawful.
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/us-politic...
https://www.reuters.com/world/americas/trump-wants-deport-so...
Nothing is hyperbole with Trump. "He hasn't done that yet" is the refrain from every Trump-apologist right up until he does the thing. This cycle has happened dozens of times.
To argue that someone should stop doing something implies that they already are doing that.
So your gripe is that my theoretical argument could be happening in the future, or that you have to change "citizen" to "legal resident", or that you have to change "stop" to "don't", or that you have to substitute it for any of literally dozens of abhorrent Trump policies? And that's why my point is invalid? Trump has openly stated that he wants to send American citizens to El Salvadorian prison camps, and I'm being completely unreasonable in imagining arguing against that?
Having a Colt 45 by my side usually helps.