How to win an argument with a toddler
Nature and purpose of arguments
- Many commenters distinguish between “arguments” as cooperative exchanges aimed at insight vs. performative fights for status, validation, or spectacle.
- Several argue that real mind‑change is rare and slow; arguments mostly refine one’s own views, expose hidden assumptions, or clarify what the disagreement is really about.
- There’s pushback on the article’s claim that you should “lose” about half your arguments; some say that implies you formed views randomly rather than based on prior evidence or expertise.
Changing minds, identity, and rationality
- Strongly held views often sit inside personal identity; changing them feels like changing who you are, which makes honest argument hard.
- Some advocate probabilistic thinking: updating confidence levels instead of flipping from “right” to “wrong.” Others emphasize the need to separate ego from beliefs and treat being corrected as a win.
- Others warn that extreme openness to changing beliefs can make people more vulnerable to cults and manipulative movements; rationalist circles are cited as an example with both benefits (self‑improvement) and risks (cult-like offshoots).
Talking across political divides
- Several long subthreads explore how to talk with right‑leaning or MAGA relatives/friends. Tactics mentioned: framing issues in their terms (e.g., permanence of expanded powers), finding shared axioms, “steel‑manning” their position, and treating conversations as long‑term “seed planting.”
- Others say large parts of the modern right (or left) are not fact‑responsive, rely on propaganda, or operate more like populist or quasi‑religious movements. That view is strongly contested by people who see this as dehumanizing generalization.
- There’s meta‑critique that calling opponents “toddlers” or fascists can itself be toddler‑like and kills genuine dialogue.
Democracy, Trump, and danger assessment
- One cluster debates whether US democracy is “teetering.”
- Some list concrete actions (attempted overturning of an election, abuses of emergency powers, ignoring court rulings, rendition cases, politicized use of law enforcement) as clear danger signs.
- Others argue similar conflicts between branches and norm violations have happened before, see much of the fear as media‑driven framing, and stress that many citizens interpret the same facts very differently.
- A recurring theme: if you cannot even imagine how “the other half” reached a different conclusion from the same facts, you may be the “toddler” the article describes.
Online vs offline discourse
- Several note they almost never change their mind in online arguments but frequently do in person, attributing this to lack of trust, low bandwidth of text, anonymity, and incentives for “slam dunks” rather than understanding.
- Others counter that online debates can change minds indirectly: you research to rebut someone and end up discovering you were wrong.
- There’s broad agreement that without good‑faith engagement, argument is pointless; detecting bad faith online is hard.
Actual toddlers and parenting analogies
- A parallel thread discusses literal toddlers: validation of feelings, offering constrained choices, and focusing on underlying emotions rather than surface demands often “wins” conflicts more effectively than power struggles.
- Many say this maps to adults: first acknowledge emotional reality and shared goals, then discuss alternate solutions.
- Some warn that purely transactional “deals” with kids can backfire long‑term, and that children also must learn to accept genuine limits.
Labels and bureaucrats
- Multiple commenters dislike the article’s lumping of “defensive bureaucrats, bullies, flat‑earthers, agenda‑driven people, and radio hosts” as “toddlers,” arguing it’s polarizing and self‑congratulatory.
- Others defend criticism of “defensive bureaucrats” who hide behind rules against ethics, while another long comment defends bureaucrats as constrained implementers of messy, politically negotiated rules, not overgrown children.