News for hackers. Stuff that matters.
Re:I want to lose every debate by roenxi on Tuesday January 31, 2023 @04:31AM (#34593141)
There is a gradient of Advanced Conversational Techniques that nobody seems to ever discuss. If someone hasn't got a real grasp on the basics then just listening is certainly a great start and gets people about half way there. Life gets easier. Most people are so desperately instinctual at social tactics that anything which involves thinking about what other people think will yield great dividends.

But if the goal is self improvement, it can't be done with just listening. Like learning can't be done by just reading. It is far to slow finding the gaps in your own understanding; arguing is orders of magnitude quicker. People will explain an argument's flaws right quick, and often helpfully repeat themselves a few times.

Although what you're leading towards here might be persuasion, because it is a great tool for learning and people often don't realise the subtle way a persuasive argument pushes back. Those aren't as much fun as the hot flush of a robust debate but they are a lot more powerful (especially since many people may not realise that there is an argument going on).

Re:I want to lose every debate by legends2k on Tuesday January 31, 2023 @05:51AM (#34593622)
Where can I learn about _Advanced Conversational Techniques_?
Re:I want to lose every debate by roenxi on Tuesday January 31, 2023 @06:55AM (#34593991)
Sorry, in hindsight I shouldn't have capitalised that. It isn't a recognised name for something that I'm aware of.

That said I found Marshall Rosenberg's Nonviolent Communication quite eye opening because it articulated the idea that it is possible and sensible to approach conversation strategically. Then after getting a feel for a do-no-harm approach it is relatively easy to start categorising what people say into tactics and there are some things that work and others that really don't. It seems pretty obvious that effective people are very good at listening, asking questions and what sort of evidence they treat as persuasive or unpersuasive.