5 ms·

What I realized after many long discussions with my friends is that the largest discrepancies in opinions often originate from a simple different assumption. Th

What I realized after many long discussions with my friends is that the largest discrepancies in opinions often originate from a simple different assumption. The difficult part is discussing long enough to figure out what that assumption is, since it's usually so fundamental (for both parties) to the whole belief that you have to spend a long time arguing about the "obviously" wrong statements of the other person. When you figure what the assumption is, it's basically guaranteed to make you agree with each other: "Ah, but so you believe A! Of course you'd argue for A' then, makes total sense now!" It's then much easier to find compromises since you can work on the small thing below rather than the whole scaffold built on top. Unfortunately I haven't yet found a way to easily discover what the differing assumption is aside from lengthy debates. This makes finding compromises with people harder as you can only discuss in depth with people where you can trust that they are truly arguing in good faith.

Gadiguibou 5y ago
I noticed the same thing. I don't think I "debate" much anymore. At least, not with the intention that I assume most people have when debating: changing the other's opinion. Instead, I try to focus on understanding the other person's point of view as thoroughly as possible. I found that backtracking until the last point on which you both agree and then moving from there seems to be the most efficient. Whenever you disagree on something, make sure you're all making the same assumptions. One tip to do this well is to rephrase what the person just said and ask if that's what they meant. If not, they'll elaborate. You won't even have to ask. If it was right, try to formulate your misunderstanding as a question instead of an affirmation. For example: "I understand that you feel y. Considering x (the point you both agreed on), what do you think of z (what you believe follows from x)?"
- antihero 5y ago
  This sounds more like dialectics than debate. If anything "debate" is something private school kids and self-proclaimed "intellectuals" do to grandstand. Dialectics, or trying to reach a better and more insightful conclusion through collaboration and understanding, is far more productive.
  - vendiddy 5y ago
    Do you know if any good resources on improving at this? It takes me a while to arrive at a shared understanding and isolate any differences in opinion.
    - mmcdermott 5y ago
      I would start with Plato. While the works are literary and not verbatim transcriptions of conversations, I think it gives a good view into the process of asking questions to dig into a point, then backtracking. What you rapidly realize when applying this (as GP alludes to) is that most people simply aren't interested in the protracted examination of an idea. The challenge is to find people who are have interesting thoughts and the patience to work through it in depth.
    - haps 5y ago
      Psychiatrist's Guide to Conversation: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tIATzLf-y04 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tIATzLf-y04
    - latexr 5y ago
      Look into Street Epistemology[1]. Anthony Magnabosco on YouTube[2] is a good start. Essentially, be interested and pose non-confrontational questions regarding the other person’s belief. Don’t argue for your point, have them explain theirs. If you ever reach a moment where the other person says “good question, I hadn’t thought of that”, stop the conversation. Let them mull it over in their own time, your job is done. You may or may not pick up the conversation another day, and either is OK. Teach someone else this skill and you’ll have conversations where both parties are striving to understand each other instead of pushing their own agenda. [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peter_Boghossian#Street_epistemology https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peter_Boghossian#Street_episte... [2]: https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCocP40a_UvRkUAPLD5ezLIQ https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCocP40a_UvRkUAPLD5ezLIQ
    - scns 5y ago
      https://news.ycombinator.com/edit?id=28697803 https://news.ycombinator.com/edit?id=28697803
- HKH2 5y ago
  > One tip to do this well is to rephrase what the person just said and ask if that's what they meant. So you're saying we should start sentences with "So you're saying..."?
  - Gadiguibou 5y ago
    Haha, yes, you're right!
  - sojournerc 5y ago
    With the addition that it must be done in good faith. If you only create straw men arguments for your opponent, you haven't tried to get to the bottom of their reasoning.
    - mental1896 5y ago
      This is key. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Principle_of_charity https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Principle_of_charity
  - scns 5y ago
    It gives the other person the feeling that you actually listen to what they are saying IMHO.
- williamdclt 5y ago
  > I don't think I "debate" much anymore. At least, not with the intention that I assume most people have when debating: changing the other's opinion. I don't think people go into debate to changing their "opponent"'s opinion. Debates are usually public, I think the point is to change (or form) the audience's opinion
silicon2401 5y ago
I've found the opposite. Most people have disagreements on fundamental viewpoints which means there's no point even discussing. For example I take the position that freedom of speech is almost sacred, which rules out the chance of any productive conversation with most people who prioritize things like preventing somebody from getting offended. Instead I choose to avoid topics where I know I disagree with the mainstream, unless it's with a close enough friend where I know our relationship won't be damaged by touching on a topic of disagreement.
- vvvac 5y ago
  freedom of speech != freedom to hate speech There's a difference, words, speech do cause pain and terrible issues in society and has to be moderated like a forum. It's quite simple.
  - silicon2401 5y ago
    I wasn't talking about hate speech, but the fact that you jump to thinking disagreement = hate speech is exactly why I don't talk about things with people unless they're close friends.
    - vvvac 5y ago
      I didn't jump anything, your freedom has limits, you're not free to kill people for example, same thing with speech and that's why it's moderated, grow up.
      - cybernautique 5y ago
        You immediately jumped to hate speech, your denial is insulting, and your petulance is jarring. I've been on both sides of this chasm. There is controversial speech which isn't racist. I can concede that there ought to be consequences for perpetuating racism and also maintain that freedom of speech is sacred. Grow up.
        5y ago
tpoacher 5y ago
In my view, it's often even simpler than difference in assumptions in the more general sense: typically it simply comes down to people using the same words but having different definitions in mind for those words.
- sayonaraman 5y ago
  i think it comes down to difference in sources of the information, rather than difference of interpretation. These days people rarely form an opinion of their own, it's mostly a sort of digest of media they consume. The assumptions can almost always be traced to some "fact" they believe to be true. And facts are easy to fake. A good example is this recent Reddit thread based entirely on false "facts" promoted by the media, but believed to be true by significant chunk of the US population https://www.reddit.com/r/PoliticalHumor/comments/px9vr2/bless_their_fascist_little_hearts/ https://www.reddit.com/r/PoliticalHumor/comments/px9vr2/bles... So the debate can often be reduced to something as basic as difference in sources you trust, rather than semantics.
Viliam1234 5y ago
> When you figure what the assumption is, it's basically guaranteed to make you agree with each other: "Ah, but so you believe A! Of course you'd argue for A' then, makes total sense now!" It's then much easier to find compromises since you can work on the small thing below rather than the whole scaffold built on top. That sounds like this technique: https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/exa5kmvopeRyfJgCy/double-crux-a-strategy-for-resolving-disagreement https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/exa5kmvopeRyfJgCy/double-cru...

Gadiguibou 5y ago

I noticed the same thing. I don't think I "debate" much anymore. At least, not with the intention that I assume most people have when debating: changing the other's opinion. Instead, I try to focus on understanding the other person's point of view as thoroughly as possible. I found that backtracking until the last point on which you both agree and then moving from there seems to be the most efficient. Whenever you disagree on something, make sure you're all making the same assumptions. One tip to do this well is to rephrase what the person just said and ask if that's what they meant. If not, they'll elaborate. You won't even have to ask. If it was right, try to formulate your misunderstanding as a question instead of an affirmation. For example: "I understand that you feel y. Considering x (the point you both agreed on), what do you think of z (what you believe follows from x)?"

antihero 5y ago
This sounds more like dialectics than debate. If anything "debate" is something private school kids and self-proclaimed "intellectuals" do to grandstand. Dialectics, or trying to reach a better and more insightful conclusion through collaboration and understanding, is far more productive.
- vendiddy 5y ago
  Do you know if any good resources on improving at this? It takes me a while to arrive at a shared understanding and isolate any differences in opinion.
  - mmcdermott 5y ago
    I would start with Plato. While the works are literary and not verbatim transcriptions of conversations, I think it gives a good view into the process of asking questions to dig into a point, then backtracking. What you rapidly realize when applying this (as GP alludes to) is that most people simply aren't interested in the protracted examination of an idea. The challenge is to find people who are have interesting thoughts and the patience to work through it in depth.
  - haps 5y ago
    Psychiatrist's Guide to Conversation: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tIATzLf-y04 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tIATzLf-y04
  - latexr 5y ago
    Look into Street Epistemology[1]. Anthony Magnabosco on YouTube[2] is a good start. Essentially, be interested and pose non-confrontational questions regarding the other person’s belief. Don’t argue for your point, have them explain theirs. If you ever reach a moment where the other person says “good question, I hadn’t thought of that”, stop the conversation. Let them mull it over in their own time, your job is done. You may or may not pick up the conversation another day, and either is OK. Teach someone else this skill and you’ll have conversations where both parties are striving to understand each other instead of pushing their own agenda. [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peter_Boghossian#Street_epistemology https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peter_Boghossian#Street_episte... [2]: https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCocP40a_UvRkUAPLD5ezLIQ https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCocP40a_UvRkUAPLD5ezLIQ
  - scns 5y ago
    https://news.ycombinator.com/edit?id=28697803 https://news.ycombinator.com/edit?id=28697803
HKH2 5y ago
> One tip to do this well is to rephrase what the person just said and ask if that's what they meant. So you're saying we should start sentences with "So you're saying..."?
- Gadiguibou 5y ago
  Haha, yes, you're right!
- sojournerc 5y ago
  With the addition that it must be done in good faith. If you only create straw men arguments for your opponent, you haven't tried to get to the bottom of their reasoning.
  - mental1896 5y ago
    This is key. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Principle_of_charity https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Principle_of_charity
- scns 5y ago
  It gives the other person the feeling that you actually listen to what they are saying IMHO.
williamdclt 5y ago
> I don't think I "debate" much anymore. At least, not with the intention that I assume most people have when debating: changing the other's opinion. I don't think people go into debate to changing their "opponent"'s opinion. Debates are usually public, I think the point is to change (or form) the audience's opinion

silicon2401 5y ago

I've found the opposite. Most people have disagreements on fundamental viewpoints which means there's no point even discussing. For example I take the position that freedom of speech is almost sacred, which rules out the chance of any productive conversation with most people who prioritize things like preventing somebody from getting offended. Instead I choose to avoid topics where I know I disagree with the mainstream, unless it's with a close enough friend where I know our relationship won't be damaged by touching on a topic of disagreement.

vvvac 5y ago
freedom of speech != freedom to hate speech There's a difference, words, speech do cause pain and terrible issues in society and has to be moderated like a forum. It's quite simple.
- silicon2401 5y ago
  I wasn't talking about hate speech, but the fact that you jump to thinking disagreement = hate speech is exactly why I don't talk about things with people unless they're close friends.
  - vvvac 5y ago
    I didn't jump anything, your freedom has limits, you're not free to kill people for example, same thing with speech and that's why it's moderated, grow up.
    - cybernautique 5y ago
      You immediately jumped to hate speech, your denial is insulting, and your petulance is jarring. I've been on both sides of this chasm. There is controversial speech which isn't racist. I can concede that there ought to be consequences for perpetuating racism and also maintain that freedom of speech is sacred. Grow up.
      - 5y ago

tpoacher 5y ago

In my view, it's often even simpler than difference in assumptions in the more general sense: typically it simply comes down to people using the same words but having different definitions in mind for those words.

sayonaraman 5y ago
i think it comes down to difference in sources of the information, rather than difference of interpretation. These days people rarely form an opinion of their own, it's mostly a sort of digest of media they consume. The assumptions can almost always be traced to some "fact" they believe to be true. And facts are easy to fake. A good example is this recent Reddit thread based entirely on false "facts" promoted by the media, but believed to be true by significant chunk of the US population https://www.reddit.com/r/PoliticalHumor/comments/px9vr2/bless_their_fascist_little_hearts/ https://www.reddit.com/r/PoliticalHumor/comments/px9vr2/bles... So the debate can often be reduced to something as basic as difference in sources you trust, rather than semantics.

Viliam1234 5y ago

> When you figure what the assumption is, it's basically guaranteed to make you agree with each other: "Ah, but so you believe A! Of course you'd argue for A' then, makes total sense now!" It's then much easier to find compromises since you can work on the small thing below rather than the whole scaffold built on top. That sounds like this technique: https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/exa5kmvopeRyfJgCy/double-crux-a-strategy-for-resolving-disagreement https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/exa5kmvopeRyfJgCy/double-cru...