Yep, this attitude is exactly what I’m talking about. Thinking that emotions and quality of discussions are two different topics is importantly wrong.
Apologies for leaving this as an assertion without further argument. It’s important but nonobvious. It needs a full post.
Just to give the intuition: discussions with a hint of antipathy get bogged down in pointless argument as people unconsciously try to prove each other wrong. Establishing goodwill leads to more efficient and therefore more successful truth-seeking.
Just to give the intuition: discussions with a hint of antipathy get bogged down in pointless argument as people unconsciously try to prove each other wrong. Establishing goodwill leads to more efficient and therefore more successful truth-seeking.
“If I am wrong, I desire to believe I am wrong.” In other words, if you think someone’s wrong, then you should consciously try to prove it, no? Both for your own sake and for theirs (not to mention any third parties, which, in a public discussion forum, vastly outnumber the participants in any discussion!)?
Yes, absolutely. I’m not advocating being “nice” in the sense of pretending to agree when you don’t. Being nice about disagreements it will help you do convince people when they’re wrong better.
For instance, if they’re obviously rushed and irritable, having that discussion briefly and badly may very well set them further into their mistaken belief.
In public discussions with more third parties it does change a lot. But it’s important to recognize that how nice you are in public has a large impact on whether you change minds. (Being cleverly mean can help win you points with the already-converted by “dunking”, but that’s not helping with truth seeking).
Yep, this attitude is exactly what I’m talking about. Thinking that emotions and quality of discussions are two different topics is importantly wrong.
Apologies for leaving this as an assertion without further argument. It’s important but nonobvious. It needs a full post.
Just to give the intuition: discussions with a hint of antipathy get bogged down in pointless argument as people unconsciously try to prove each other wrong. Establishing goodwill leads to more efficient and therefore more successful truth-seeking.
“If I am wrong, I desire to believe I am wrong.” In other words, if you think someone’s wrong, then you should consciously try to prove it, no? Both for your own sake and for theirs (not to mention any third parties, which, in a public discussion forum, vastly outnumber the participants in any discussion!)?
Yes, absolutely. I’m not advocating being “nice” in the sense of pretending to agree when you don’t. Being nice about disagreements it will help you do convince people when they’re wrong better.
For instance, if they’re obviously rushed and irritable, having that discussion briefly and badly may very well set them further into their mistaken belief.
In public discussions with more third parties it does change a lot. But it’s important to recognize that how nice you are in public has a large impact on whether you change minds. (Being cleverly mean can help win you points with the already-converted by “dunking”, but that’s not helping with truth seeking).