You can be correct, or you can get traction. I think a lot of technical people don't understand this. They get mad at people like say, Greta Thunberg, for not being purely clinical, accurate, scientific and dispassionate. But, meanwhile the people working to make the world believe climate change is fake are emotional, manipulative, and actually get traction against pure, reasoned, calm argument.

So do we want to be correct, or do we want to win?

This becomes especially complicated when some folks (such as myself) have, for better or worse, developed a gag reflex that is triggered by overly emotional or manipulative content. Even if we agree with the message it can be hard to willingly align yourself with people who are 'cheating' in this sense.

Is there a name for the phenomenon where your opponent always seems to be playing more dirty? Or where it's hard to see your own's side's emotional manipulation for what it is?

I know I've often fallen prey to this effect. You feel like your team has a disadvantage and then think the other team crazy when they claim the same. Almost like our brains are trying desperately to let us feel justified in relaxing our moral code.

Cognitive dissonance is the uncomfortable feeling when one sees through the effect you are describing. Perhaps "illusory cognitive consonance"? It's a bit of a mouthful...

Of course, confirmation biases and other related phenomena help us construct and reinforce these perspectives.

The Frollo effect?

judge Claude Frollo longed to purge the world of vice and sin / and he saw corruption everywhere, except within.

Is HN actually based on this premise of winning? I come here to escape that premise in media (social or otherwise).

Any site that tracks the "score" of your contributions and then makes your "score" visible on most pages is going to be about winnings whether that's the stated goal or not. That is a textbook way to gamify things.

Obviously this applies more to comments than to submissions but the comments are a large part of the user experience here so whether HN is "based on this premise of winning" boils down to a question of the importance of the comment section.

Dopamine feedback from imaginary points, and validation from mostly like minded peers makes users keep coming back to this website. Otherwise user retention would non-existent.

Interesting to present it as a binary tradeoff.

I want to win, but I want to make sure that the thesis has some modeling diligence =)

>So do we want to be correct, or do we want to win?

It's nice if you can do both. Unfortunately, most systems in the world are actively being gamed which means adding additional constraints to systems (like being correct, clear, forthcoming, honest, etc.) often put you at a disadvantage.

What is it that you want to win exactly? Control? The right to tell people what to do?

I’d much rather be correct, and let people make their own decisions. Otherwise this thing you call “freedom” is just empty words on a bit of paper.

> What is it that you want to win exactly? Control? The right to tell people what to do?

No, not control - principal reduction of problems associated with climate crisis.

That’s not going to happen without a huge cutback in our standard of living. The other side knows this, that’s why they fight so hard.

Don't understand what you mean other than this: different reality. Climate crisis is going to be the cause of a huge cutback in our standard of living. Science.

Persuasion isn't control, though. And being coldly analytical is only feasible if everyone agrees.

It's more of last comment standing.