There's a difference between a "conversation" and an "internet exchange".
In person, I agree completely. Skepticism towards your friends/ family/ acquaintances can easily poison the discourse and ruin relationships. If I have a discussion with a person I know, then I should absolutely give them the benefit of the doubt, and take what they say at face value unless they say something I find literally incredulous.
When you're having a discussion online though, it's a completely different story. People say stupid stuff on the internet, and "stupid" is a spectrum that goes all the way to "well-intentioned and seemingly-logical but poorly-researched and false". Online, and on a site such as this which aims for a certain level of discourse, every claim should be backed up. There's always somebody who disagrees that is going to read your comment, and you should give them a reason to reconsider their initial position.
This is not an easy thing to do. I believe a lot of stuff without knowing immediately why. This forces me to better account for my ideas, which helps structure my thinking. I'm not a strong enough logician to make infallible arguments, but by trying to convince an eternal skeptic, I only make my own arguments better.
[EDIT: I gave you an upvote, since you were in the gray. Some others had downvoted you, but that was undeserved, since I think your disagreement was in good faith. Other people, please don't downvote stale's comment.]
Treat online discussions as online, even among friends. You're never going to win anybody over, get over yourself. In real-life, you might be able to at least make a persuasive argument based on facts and supporting evidence, or even just charm. Online dialogue is just not suited to true understanding and hearing eachother out, but rather the opposite. Just observe the wild conspiracy theories that in normal discourse would never otherwise be allowed such prominence, if not for social media platforms and covert ad campaigns.
You do it because talking involves little effort, and you want to share your knowledge. That might be due to a variety of reasons; from trying to prove someone wrong, to a general feeling of wanting to display knowledge.
But none of those motivations require that you be, in fact, correct.
I've lost track of the times people overheard me discussing something with someone and piped in to tell me the virtues of homeopathy or how GMOs are a plot to destroy the food supply or that there's no actual proof of evolution.
I'm most skeptical of people who are least skeptical of their own knowledge and how they acquired it. Yet it seems those are the people most likely to offer an opinion.
If you (rightly) skeptical of my claims go find a newspaper and read the letters to the editor. These are people sufficiently convinced of their rightness that they took the time to send a letter or an E-mail.
if holding the wrong opinion in a conversation is morally wrong, one ought to converse in a way that welcomes and seeks being refuted.
I see some echoes of this in the advice about steelmanning friends and family who are in to conspiracies. But it's hard to imagine going into a conversation with say a flat earth theory believer and really want to be proven wrong about the sphere..
I think a lot of us suffer from "Someone on the internet is wrong!" syndrome. Frequently that person is me, but I will stand my ground and argue it until proven wrong.
It's socratic, good way to learn, by questioning everything and letting others question you. But it's not a productive way to spend your days and nights, so I'm happy to let the conversations die after a few days.
Step 1 is make friends with intelligent people who don't think the same way you do. If you are really looking for interesting and challenging conversation this is a prerequisite. A stranger doesn't know you and when you inevitably hit a point where they begin to question your motives or your seriousness or how informed you are, they will not give you the benefit of the doubt repeatedly. Eventually a stranger will write you off.
But if you have an established friendship with someone, and have a baseline of trust and respect, then you can have those challenging discussions. But make sure you are really open to being wrong. Most people are not.
Interesting discussion between people who disagree about important issues never really existed online. As someone who has been online since the 80s, you can take my word. The internet is mostly good at matching up people who agree due to the effect I mentioned above.
If your response to people holding differing opinions is that 'They are obviously stupid and misinformed and brainwashed', I don't think that any productive discussion can be had. I can, after all, say the same thing about anyone who disagrees with me.
“Never debate stupid. Bystanders will not distinguish between your salient words and your own. They’ll just see two seemingly educated people arguing and assume their points are equally valid.“
People respond most often and vehemently to what they disagree with on the internet. It’s a guttural response and not grounded in level headed thinking.
That last sentence is what's critical to having decent conversation with people in general. You may think their opinion/point is wrong or they might just completely misunderstand a topic, but give them the benefit of the doubt. If you're just stating your opinion versus giving your point of view and asking other to give/clarify theirs, you're probably doing it wrong. Anytime I'm in an argument I just treat it as a way to get a different point of view, even if I don't subscribe to it. HN is great for this.
I disagree -- or, I did. See, in real life, courtesy and avoiding criticism is the most effective way to start a discussion without resulting in an argument.
However, I've concluded that on the Internet there is no such thing as a good discussion (oh no, a universal statement! Well, let's say there aren't very many good discussions). Perhaps this is due to the vast amount of research material easily accessible to online debaters -- there is no incentive to work together with another individual to come to a conclusion, since the conclusions can be more easily found elsewhere.
Instead, people write things like my diatribe here to "correct" perceived mistakes in others' statements but in the end someone is right and the other is wrong and compromise basically never occurs.
In such a situation, the best thing you can do is make sure that you're the person who is right. Whether you couch your opinion in pandering terms or you state it harshly, the only thing that seems to matter is correctness. It's no longer worth my time to continually attempt to be polite and kind in internet discussion.
To me, the thing that really makes online arguments different than in person ones is that I'm usually not trying to persuade the person I'm directly replying to, I'm trying to present an alternate viewpoint to the other people who might see the comments. This happens all the time in FB groups for my neighborhood. Somebody will say a ridiculous NIMBY thing that sounds good on the surface, and I know I can't persuade them based on years of knowing their online persona, but I feel a need to reply in case somebody who doesn't have an entrenched opinion reads it.
Perhaps you are misunderstanding my post, but I never said that people shouldn't change their minds or debate a subject (in fact I vehemently believe that they should). It's simply this forum is not a constructive place for that type of discussion. Debating online, through anonymous accounts, provides little context towards other people's experiences. Additionally, you lose the nuances of language and body language, which often leads to misunderstandings. Personally, I don't feel it's an effective medium for debate.
I do give the benefit of the doubt for as long as I can. I admit to understanding positions that are premised on different values. I have a hard time when once I understand the values, inaccurate steps are taken to reach a false conclusion.
What I’m talking about is more akin to talking with someone making a mistake in a proof, being pointed out the mistake, but still digging their feet in to not admit the mistake.
I’m fine if assumptions aren’t shared, but not when conclusions don’t follow logically from assumptions.
Being open minded isn’t akin to listening to everything and anything- there are limits.
So no, it is not that ‘I enter conversations with a pre-made idea of what [I] want the conclusion to be.’
If you both debate in bad faith you get to that point. It’s not “curious conversation”
The problem is people choosing emotions over rational discourse and establishing footing and common ground. A lot of commenting is in the vein of “I am right and you are going to hear me out (or else)!”
There are four ways in which people disagree. First is just miscommunication which is easily clarified. Second is working from a different set of facts. Third is same facts, different interpretation. Lastly is same facts, same interpretation, different principles. Discourse online straddles the four, with an unhealthy amount of ego and stubborness thrown in for good (bad) measure. Without a good way to get people on the same page first, aka people don't even read the linked article before commenting (tbc, guilty of that myself), there's zero real hope of getting people interested in epistemology and why we get it so wrong. And who could blame them? Examining why you believe something central to your identity threatens it and is very uncomfortable, and most people simply aren't here for that.
I say, "well, I have a certain notion." I then go out and look for evidence I might be wrong: I do find this evidence. So I add, "my earlier notion is contradicted by evidence. Being skeptical of that evidence, I would like to gather more, but I don't have the time presently. Being an empiricist, I accept the best available evidence, at least provisionally."
You then go on a rant about how I'm a stupid idiot who ignores evidence. In my mind this is coming from nowhere, it's a reaction to a comment where I specifically sought out evidence I might be wrong and accepted it. My reaction is, "wow, this guy is being a jerk, I don't really want to engage with them anymore."
You then proceed to say, "doesn't the fact that you don't want to engage with people who are acting like jerks prove you're a stupid idiot who ignores evidence?"
As for your specific criticisms, they're founded in misreading what I had to say, and since I imagine the reward for discussing them further will be more rude remarks, the only thing I'm really interested in discussing anymore is why I'm heading for the door. Anything else would just seem to be handing you ammunition to use against me. I would be happy to explain myself further and to admit where I was incorrect if this was a good faith discussion, but it isn't. Note that doesn't mean I haven't privately changed my mind about things.
I agree with you, so I guess there are some necessary guidelines.
1) You should almost always learn from someone face to face. Whether it is in person or over Google Hangout, personal interaction lays down a baseline of respect. Yes I am implying internet forums are not the place to learn (and the irony of saying that here.)
2) Don't waste their time. Defend what you believe until you've learned why you're wrong (if you are), but don't be a dick.
It is really about starting a conversation and learning efficiently. Lob 100 softball questions at an expert and they can give you dictionary answers. Or really challenge them and you can get a framework for their entire understanding of a broader volume of knowledge.
I have run into the same situation that you described so many times. It's one of the most off-putting points about discussing the world with people. I wish people understood that basing an argument on bad facts makes it easy to "disprove" the argument in the mind if the person you're trying to convince.
There is always a point in having a discussion with someone, even when they are severely misinformed and blind to their own biases because neither of those makes their perspective void, just harder to understand. But gaining that understanding is the only road available to you that can lead to them changing their perspective. Additionally, no matter how much sense you make to yourself and how much nonsense the other individual appears to be spouting, the moment you dismiss even the possibility that you yourself are wrong and that they could have a valid point, albeit poorly articulated, is the moment you throw away the claimed high ground of being rational.
In person, I agree completely. Skepticism towards your friends/ family/ acquaintances can easily poison the discourse and ruin relationships. If I have a discussion with a person I know, then I should absolutely give them the benefit of the doubt, and take what they say at face value unless they say something I find literally incredulous.
When you're having a discussion online though, it's a completely different story. People say stupid stuff on the internet, and "stupid" is a spectrum that goes all the way to "well-intentioned and seemingly-logical but poorly-researched and false". Online, and on a site such as this which aims for a certain level of discourse, every claim should be backed up. There's always somebody who disagrees that is going to read your comment, and you should give them a reason to reconsider their initial position.
This is not an easy thing to do. I believe a lot of stuff without knowing immediately why. This forces me to better account for my ideas, which helps structure my thinking. I'm not a strong enough logician to make infallible arguments, but by trying to convince an eternal skeptic, I only make my own arguments better.
[EDIT: I gave you an upvote, since you were in the gray. Some others had downvoted you, but that was undeserved, since I think your disagreement was in good faith. Other people, please don't downvote stale's comment.]
reply