The truly intellectually honest way to disagree: Take the idea in question, and give it some genuine love. Make an earnest attempt to make some form of the idea work in the context of everything you know.
This is my litmus test for first-class minds. I've been using this for the past 25 years and I've found that those who truly take this approach are 1) uncommon, 2) impressively smart, 3) genuinely curious, and 4) seem to offer the highest chance for truly profound and productive interactions.
Most often, people fail this test by not using this technique at all, or trying to pass off its doppleganger.
Such people are very easy to spot. Simply pay attention to the possible interpretations of what other people say. You are looking for the one who's always interpreting what others say in the best possible light and who runs with other's ideas, often in a delightful and surprising way.
EDIT: The fakers are easy to spot, by the their bias towards finding fault for other's ideas or their eager gravitation towards straw-man interpretations when more interesting alternatives are easily imagined.
> Take the idea in question, and give it some genuine love.
Something like this is often known as the principle of charity[1] or the principle of humanity[2]. There's a ton of interesting philosophical work on such principles (why they might be a good idea, whether they underpin all language use, whether they are part of our default belief-desire model for interacting with other people, etc.).
But the best succinct version I know comes from a friend I went to grad school with: "Don't be an asshole."
But the best succinct version I know comes from a friend I went to grad school with: "Don't be an asshole."
Another aspect: If you think you're so smart, that you can already know everyone else's ideas are stupid and don't matter, you're probably just being an asshole.
Spotting your own negativity is a good test, but I prefer to phrase it in more self-effacing terms, "When trying to spot all the assholes in the room, I always need to find a mirror."
At my last job I came to realize that I'm "the positive guy." Often my coworkers would be complaining about how an external party was interacting with us - usually a particular response to a query or support request, but often just in general terms of how they operate in conjunction with us.
I quickly became identified as the guy who can understand their position and describe it in a way that makes sense for everyone else. This usually wound up diffusing everyone's anger and frustration. I hope it also means my coworkers will be more understanding and effective in their communication with external teams, but I have my doubts. :)
Maybe what I described above isn't exactly what you're talking about, but I see a relation that I hope is actually there.
I know a brilliant computer scientist who has all four traits you describe, and follows your intellectually honest way to disagree by nature. When you meet these people, it's obvious, and often life-impacting.
I'm certainly not all the way there yet, but I hope my story above illustrates my growth towards the first class mind you describe.
In Bryan Magee's Confessions of a Philosopher, he describes exactly this habit as the thing that impressed him most about Karl Popper.
I think some fear that giving an opposing position (X) the best possible interpretation, or responding to the smartest supporters of X, might make their own position (Y) look weaker by comparison, perhaps so much so that some readers will decide to buy into X rather than Y after all! "Strawmanning" is the easier route, as it saves one the bother of having to come up with powerful or detailed counterarguments.
How can I stop being a "faker", as you call it? I, and probably some other HNers, are often pretty critical or take things people say more literally than they meant often, rather than giving them the benefit of the doubt with a more liberal interpretation.
I realize this is usually not conducive to "profound and productive interactions", but it is almost second nature for me, something of a gut reaction and I'm not entirely sure how to go about fixing this problem. Behavior change is difficult, just seeking advice.
I think many of us here are the same way (or were at some point or sometimes still are). I love to argue. Often that comes from a good place, but often it comes from just that desire to win or to be difficult or whatever. I still have to push myself to really listen to the other view. Then my first step (when I'm in a better place) is to literally ask myself something like these questions, in roughly this order:
+ What does this person believe?
+ Why does this person believe those things?
+ What would I need to believe (first) in order to convince me of those things?
Try to short-circuit evaluation: don't judge the thoughts at all. Don't ask if you agree. Just figure out what they believe and why they might hold those beliefs. What other beliefs seem to be required? What other beliefs would make someone think that way? This already gets you fairly far into their mindset.
Also like your last bit of advice - think about the person's point of view before evaluating what they've said. And by doing this, I see how one could also get to the root of a disagreement, rather than just the surface, and address that instead. Everything becomes philosophical from there I'm guessing.
How can I stop being a "faker", as you call it? I, and probably some other HNers, are often pretty critical or take things people say more literally than they meant often, rather than giving them the benefit of the doubt with a more liberal interpretation.
1) Find something fundamental to be secure in.
2) Just stop being a faker.
3) Get busy doing the real thing.
The first is the most important. One of the professors I admired greatly would always give your idea his best effort, because he knew that the mathematics would eventually cause it to blow up if it wasn't correct. Find first principles that you can take as iron clad, then always build off of those with honesty and humility. There was never a reason for him to grasp at straws to fabricate a straw man. He knew there were solid theories he could work from and test as hard as he could. He also never had a reason to pretend something was more solid than he actually knew it to be.
That's all well and fine for hard sciences, I guess, but the same goes for most of the softer disciplines as well. History is often your friend. Find the historical precedents and examine them honestly.
I've read that book already and even have alerts on it for new chapters, but thanks for mentioning it. It's thoroughly entertaining!
Well, in my case, it's not that I make fallacious counter-arguments. My arguments are generally quite sound, and simple logic/rationality serves my need for something fundamental.
My issue is that, when something looks illogical on the face of it, rather than giving it the benefit of the doubt and try to imagine how it might work, I just shoot it down. And I shoot it down quite harshly usually, though almost always with a well-reasoned argument.
I have to be arrogant here and say that most of these arguments/ideas/statements I shoot down seem to really deserve it, which I know because I do sometimes restrain myself and just shut up and listen. However, sometimes my response is really undeserved, and I'd do better if I tried to understand where others may be coming from. Even if it's deserved, I could be much less harsh and argumentative, so as to better foster a good discussion.
It's not even about preserving the feelings of others. I often find people interrupting me and shooting down a completely different idea than the one I actually had. Other times, I find that my seemingly ironclad argument doesn't apply in the intended context, or is fine theoretically but overlooks an important detail in a practical context.
How can I stop being a "faker", as you call it? I, and probably some other HNers, are often pretty critical or take things people say more literally than they meant often, rather than giving them the benefit of the doubt with a more liberal interpretation.
I think it helps to realize it is endemic to the culture and to understand why.
My original introduction to online communities was with parenting/homeschooling forums for folks with "gifted" kids. The members were generally bright and many of them well educated. The initial environment was pretty ugly, in spite of the intent that these were supposed to be "support" groups.
I eventually concluded that most of the members were used to being the smartest person in the room and had the routine experience that if someone didn't agree with them, it was because they didn't understand it. I felt it was the first time most of these people were exposed to a culture of intellectual equals where other people who disagreed with them had valid reasons for seeing it differently. I felt that we had no choice but to break new ground in order to get past the tendency for people to be obnoxious and arrogant.
Hacker News appears to have a similar situation. It is somewhat compounded by the fact that it is the most international forum I have participated in. This means people from very different cultures and very different life experience are interacting. This inevitably leads to inaccurate interpretations. I come from a multi-cultural background, so I tend to overlook foreign accents and grammatical errors to a greater degree than most bright, well-educated individuals. I operate on the rule of thumb that "They are speaking English way better than I would be able to speak their native language". I know a smattering of German and French, a smidgen of Spanish, and a few words of Russian. I'm not fluent in any of them. So I start with giving foreigners a pass on grammatical errors or oddities of wording. I don't see it as any indication of lack of intelligence. Grammar and spelling are often nit-picked here and I occasionally do it myself. I try hard to not come across as obnoxious. I sometimes genuinely was not sure what they were saying because of a misspelled word (that seems to trip me up more than grammar, which is mentally easier for me to account for, presumably because I grew up in a bilingual home). In some ways, I like the fact that people here will nit-pick grammar and spelling and such but I really hate it when it is done in a very obnoxious manner. I have seen instances where someone was railing about something of that sort and it just made me feel like "Oh, grammar and spelling are things you think are critically important to public appearances but manners are not??"
This dynamic -- of everyone in the room being confident they are Right, by god! -- was a problem within my own family (with my marriage and my kids). After about 16 1/2 years of marriage, my then husband bought me a t-shirt that said "I'm always RIGHT (except when I'm wrong)". It was something I said a lot at home and I think it was something of an admission on his part that perhaps he shouldn't argue with me so much, perhaps he should try harder to talk to me instead. (The constant arguing was one of the things that contributed to the demise of the marriage.) I try really hard to talk with people online rather than argue, even if I don't agree with them.
Can you provide a demonstration of this? For example, I disagree with the idea of intelligent design. How would I "give it some genuine love", to use your words?
With Intelligent Design, all you have to do is run with it for awhile and see where it leads. Others have done this for you. It's okay to reuse that work.
I understand and agree with your first paragraph, except I would sum it up as empathy.
Where I'm confused starts at "such people are very easy to spot...". Who are you referring to? The people who fail your test, or the people who exemplify this kind of intellectual honesty?
Another, admittedly more combative strategy is to try and disprove every new idea you're confronted with (albeit as honestly and charitably as possible). If an idea is too difficult to disprove, see if proving it is any easier.
I think the key realization is that genuinely being right is much more useful (especially in the long-run) than having others perceive you as being right in any particular debate.
I really do like your litmus test, and in most situations it will work
very well. None the less, please allow me to politely put on my "faker"
hat for a moment to pick apart a straw-man corner case.
I deal with feasibility assessment, or at least I used to, so when
giving an idea some love, I'm not only expected to find various ways an
idea can work (if possible), but I'm also expected to find the pit-falls
to avoid and the weaknesses to address. It is simply a matter of
learning and stating both the potential risks and the potential rewards
so a more informed decision can be made.
The finding of fault, or better said risks and caveats, is equally
important to finding positive ways to interpret, implement and express
an idea. The most important thing is how you express your findings,
both the positive and the not-so-positive. There really is a difference
between being critical and critical thinking.
For example, in terms of rhetoric, your post is stunningly beautiful.
You crafted a rhetorical statement where no one can disagree with you
without being a "faker" but in doing so, in terms of logic, your
argument is fallacious (similar to Suppressed Correlative [1]). The
fallacy might weaken your statement but it doesn't make your statement
entirely wrong, and the clever rhetoric actually makes you look rather
sharp.
The people who can interpret an idea in a positive light are wonderful
to work with, so we agree on your main point. None the less, the people
who can interpret an idea in a positive way while still spinning an
iteration to politely address short comings are even better.
The point I'm trying to make, hopefully by example, is both the
interpretation and iteration are important, but the most important
part is fair and polite expression of both the good parts and the
not-so-good parts. You may not agree with my result, but at least you
know why I proposed a change to your idea, and hopefully you were not
offended by my proposal.
Personally, I hope someone here will take my post, find my faults, and
politely respin an iteration with their proposed improvements. I'll
gain something from their efforts. Even if I disagree with their
results, I'll still learn a valuable new perspective that I've probably
overlooked or unfairly discounted.
Additionally, stcredzero do you think I'm a "faker" for iterating your
idea with a minor addition to address a small oversight? --Or was
iterating actually what you were talking about when you said
"interpreting" and running with it?
There really is a difference between being critical and critical thinking
This is essentially the point I'm making.
You crafted a rhetorical statement where no one can disagree with you without being a "faker"
Uh, no. Where am I saying "everyone" or "all"? I'm saying that certain admirable people do X and other not-so admirable people do Y. Nowhere do I say that everyone falls into one camp or another. Points deducted for trying to put words into my mouth!
Additionally, stcredzero do you think I'm a "faker" for iterating your idea with a minor addition to address a small oversight? --Or was iterating actually what you were talking about when you said "interpreting" and running with it?
EDIT: And no, I won't be offended by your opinion. I actually just like to know.
I'm talking about an honest iteration. But since you just blatantly tried to put a false dichotomy into my mouth, either you just tried a slimy rhetorical trick yourself or your thinking/writing was a bit confused, or there's another explanation I missed. In the first instance, it looks a lot like "faking."
Probably similar, but it's my own formulation which came out of observing 1) how people are dishonest when they discredit other's ideas unfairly and 2) the actions of people I admire as intellectuals.
This is my litmus test for first-class minds. I've been using this for the past 25 years and I've found that those who truly take this approach are 1) uncommon, 2) impressively smart, 3) genuinely curious, and 4) seem to offer the highest chance for truly profound and productive interactions.
Most often, people fail this test by not using this technique at all, or trying to pass off its doppleganger.
Such people are very easy to spot. Simply pay attention to the possible interpretations of what other people say. You are looking for the one who's always interpreting what others say in the best possible light and who runs with other's ideas, often in a delightful and surprising way.
EDIT: The fakers are easy to spot, by the their bias towards finding fault for other's ideas or their eager gravitation towards straw-man interpretations when more interesting alternatives are easily imagined.