I agree. Despite ending on a note of self-improvement, I wasn't really convinced that the author has any self-awareness to speak of. For example:

> When you argue with someone, you think you’re debating an idea. Often you’re not. You’re challenging their sense of self.

Oh, they're going to acknowledge that there are emotional reasons for their addiction to arguing.

> So I’ve drawn a line. I only discuss pros and cons with smart people

Oh, never mind.

▲

JKCalhoun 2 hours ago | parent | next [-]

Especially in software.

Approach A: implementation is hands-down the fastest.

Approach B: implementation is written so clearly and concisely that it's essentially self-documenting.

Approach C: a lot of attention paid to future proofing the code, parameter checking, sanity checking…

Which of the above was the most "logical" approach that the recipient was just not understanding?

(EDIT: Approach D: adheres closely to coding patterns in the rest of the framework.

I could probably come up with others…)

▲

p-e-w 2 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

Debating is always primarily a game of power and only secondarily about truth or correctness. If it were about truth alone, the person who is right could be content with being right and not caring what others believe, just like they don’t care about 99.9999% of beliefs held by others either.

But it’s not about truth, it’s about imposing your beliefs on others. And while rational arguments are a socially blessed method for doing so, they don’t change the underlying motivation.

	▲	Erem an hour ago \| parent \| next [-]
		This is true for a very narrow definition of debate though. At work, choosing to debate can make the difference between a software design that solves the problem vs one that doesn't. Deploying code that causes an incident vs lands safely. In broader life, public debate can reveal new arguments to seeking minds, help influence and educate people other than the debaters. It can even grow the debaters themselves if they approach with the right humility. That said, many do approach debate in the way you describe. For those of us trying to avoid futile debate in favor of productive debate, the best choice is to detect these bad faith actors, acknowledge the bad faith publicly, and pull away
	▲	throw4847285 an hour ago \| parent \| prev \| next [-]
		Ok, I definitely don't agree with this. It's so reductive as to be absurd. It almost reads as rooted in personal resentment.
	▲	roenxi an hour ago \| parent \| prev [-]
		> If it were about truth alone, the person who is right could be content with being right... So... how would someone know if they're right? For starters, if we're going to be serious there are a lot of matters where there isn't even such a thing as "right" because the question is how to decide what to optimise for. But more importantly, if you rely on the inside of your own head to try and arrive at the truth the most likely outcome is slop. One of the best parts of being argumentative is finding out what the holes in a view are really quickly. There seem to be views in the comments and original article that arguments are to be won rather than undertaken and reviewed. They're a man-vs-self story, not man-vs-man one.