What's the main strength of your antagonist? \ stacker news ~AskSN

pull down to refresh

What's the main strength of your antagonist?

1300 sats \ 22 comments \ @optimism 7 Jun AskSN

We all encounter people with whom we structurally disagree, also here on SN. It often stems from our own individual biases: when we critically evaluate what our antagonist has written, we struggle to relate to the author's premises or conclusions.

Groupthink, confirmation bias and ego can amplify this disconnect. Reflecting on this led me to consider the qualities of the people with whom I most frequently disagree. I think that understanding their strengths can help me approach our differences with greater respect and provide valuable feedback into my own thought process. Thoughts like what I just wrote in the discussion at #999625 reinforce my belief that the capability to respect your opponents will strengthen you: the polarized human is a weak human.

I want to see if I'm on the right track here... so I'd like to ask SN:

Without naming or tagging anyone, please, what is the main strength of your antagonist?

I'll share mine:

The person I disagree with most on SN is a very good analyst and, despite my complete disagreement with the big picture narrative they support, often right about a significant portion of the smaller conclusions and even predictions underneath the bigger narrative.

view all related items

200 sats \ 3 replies \ @elvismercury 7 Jun

This is a great question.

My antagonist has no patience for theoretical and abstract thought and wants to see concrete things only. He's very good at making steady progress on anything he cares about.

201 sats \ 2 replies \ @SimpleStacker 7 Jun

I assume this means you're abstract and theoretical, and make slow progress on whatever you're doing?

But I bet it also means that when you do take action, you do it the right way usually

200 sats \ 1 reply \ @elvismercury 7 Jun

I appreciate that generous interpretation :)

I am dreamy and get lost in ideas. I'd say that I make a great pairing with folks who are less imaginative and welcome my influence, much as I appreciate their virtues. I've had teams like that and it was beautiful.

My antagonist, sadly, sees no value in it, so all we do is wage various secret wars against each other. He moves forward relentlessly on mostly trivial shit. The annoying thing is that work is way more legible.

100 sats \ 0 replies \ @optimism OP 7 Jun

My antagonist, sadly, sees no value in it, so all we do is wage various secret wars against each other.

About a decade ago I had a thing going on (where I was a "dreamy" designer) during a 6-month gig turned 18-month-gig I didn't even really want to do, at an international business where my antagonist was working in isolation in an office 10hr worth of flights and a 3 hour drive away: it wasn't easy to just go drop by his office and be like "sup, let's fix this". It was slowing down the project we were both working on and I hated it - deliveries that I was ultimately responsible for got de-prioritized in favor of endless refactoring and "productizing".

It got resolved by me taking the flights, the drive, having a beer, planning out the follow-up phase of the project the next day, have another (couple of) beers, drive back, fly back. All that was really needed was the mutual idea that the other was not a threat, and face to face contact helped a lot with that; the beers weren't really needed but may have helped in opening up. This ended up that we both did some concessions in our wish-list, made it work. And 4 months later we delivered, transitioned the customer deployment to service, and funnily, we both left around the same time.

De-escalation is important.

10 sats \ 0 replies \ @JohnTheTired 8 Jun

my antagonist strength is deep analysis and silent treatment, I'll let them praise their fake win then, when i find chance i just pull the rope to make them drown

107 sats \ 0 replies \ @lunin 7 Jun

My strongest "antagonist" taught me patience. Disagreement sharpened my thinking more than agreement ever did.

100 sats \ 3 replies \ @Undisciplined 8 Jun

I don't think of the people I disagree with as my antagonists. My antagonists are strictly those who engage in name calling over arguments. While I see no value in that behavior, they do tend to be people with highly technical knowledge, which is something I lack.

42 sats \ 2 replies \ @optimism OP 8 Jun

I started with "those you disagree with", then shortened it to "opponents" but that didn't sound right so I changed it again. Call it a failure of vocabulary on my part.

202 sats \ 1 reply \ @Undisciplined 8 Jun

I get you. I like learning from disagreements. For instance @Scoresby and I spent weeks arguing about something that we still haven’t finished, but I’d never think of him as an antagonist or opponent. We’re just two people trying to figure stuff out.

For the purpose of this post, I decided to only think about those who I have frustrating and fraught interactions with.

42 sats \ 0 replies \ @Scoresby 8 Jun

Totally agree with this. It's hard to find the right word for what it is. There's a big difference between someone who takes an opposing view and someone who antagonizes.

The word that came to mind when I read the OP was enemy, but our society pressures us to pretend that we don't have enemies (at least not personal ones), even though we often do. It's uncomfortable to think about who our personal enemies are.

I couldn't come up with any enemies.

100 sats \ 2 replies \ @Solomonsatoshi 7 Jun

At the core of free markets and democracy is the contest of ideas. It is a beautiful thing when it can function. But it is a fragile thing too...easily disrupted and fractured by fear, greed and insecurity. If we close down the contest of ideas with personal attacks and abuse instead of responding to an adversary with a reasoned retort we expose our own weakness. Adversaries give us the opportunity to demonstrate the advantages of our contrary viewpoint. Many of our views are based upon the bias of our past experience and cultural location so adversaries views can be useful in gaining new perspectives.

Here on SNs the Libertarian viewpoint is perhaps the loudest but there are a range of views and sometimes some decent reasoned debate- certainly more than occurs on most social media. The Libertarian view has the strength of being simple and uncomplicated- it is pro market and anti government. It champions individual liberty and freedom(good things) , ignoring that to some extend our individual freedoms depend upon the strength and security of the nation state we are citizens of.

I have been called a Chinese bot, statist and government agent, because I do not agree free enterprise is the only factor in a strong and prosperous economy- I contend that government is to some degree an inescapable consequence of human nature and our need to work collectively to some extent to provide the best framework free enterprise and society in general to prosper, while protecting our wealth from others who would seize it given the opportunity,- ie I advocate a mixed economy and one where government is seen as essential, but also one where government must be regulated by an active and involved population who fight against the eternal tendency for vested interests to lobby and infiltrate government to advance their interests over those of the wider population.

149 sats \ 1 reply \ @optimism OP 8 Jun

The name-calling isn't cool. Kudos to you for sticking around despite it - I mean that. Flip-side: if people go through the trouble of doing that to you, at least you're doing something right, but probably not everything ;-)

I'll admit though: I don't read every single comment of yours because they feel a bit repetitive sometimes. I often stop reading those where you start with "USA already failed" or "China already won". I don't mind hearing and thinking about your perspective at all, but I know that this is your analysis for a while now so it doesn't add much new perspective when you repeat it.

But also, one of the - what I believe to be - underlying principles that you raise regarding China confirms one of the issues I still have with the "Bitcoin standard" narrative today: when facing a powerful outside collective - be it a nation or a huge corporation- defending that standard can potentially be very costly. I'm since 2.5 years reading as many biographies from government leaders around the world from 1950-1970, to try and get a glimpse of their thoughts and actions around the gold standard (as that's the closest comparison I can think of) and thus far it looks like the combination of printing "alt coins" and ever shrinking fractional reserves of the USD is what killed it - but I'm not done yet because finding translations is hard, so my opinion is premature.

I did think that the discussions in #997414 and #998112 were going pretty well - when ignoring the ad hominem and other attacks that weren't based on the actual text your wrote - because that triggered more diverse viewpoints than I expected there would be (though the median is still "it'll be sorted out" by my count.) That was a great contribution and it was awesome that 0285 picked it up that way.

It helps when the topic is non-ideological, I think, because you can't really argue someone into your views when it comes to ideology. People adopt ideologies mostly from experience, bad experience in particular. I also believe that this is why politicians always fud, lie and overpromise.

100 sats \ 0 replies \ @Solomonsatoshi 8 Jun

I feel fortunate to have been raised in a fairly open minded family where it was ok, even encouraged to consider discuss and debate different viewpoints. My parents would constantly consider, question and sometimes change their religious, political and cultural views. It was fascinating and interesting to observe and participate. So I learned that it was safe to engage in a contest of ideas and challenge/question others on their ideology, but have learned in life that not everyone had the same childhood experience and that for many people to engage in debate over ideologies is a dangerous scary thing to do. We can think of not just families but entire nations where to question the orthodoxy is to risk your own safety if not life. But I still enjoy debate and the contest of ideas and probably to some extent inevitably provoke some hostility and personal attacks- and while they are disappointing can understand they are often about a respondents limited ability to feel safe in engaging in a reasoned way. The more we can examine and question the various points of view we hold and the different viewpoints others have I suggest the closer we can approach to the truth, even if it is a destination we can never arrive at, it is a journey that gives life meaning, purpose and hope.

100 sats \ 4 replies \ @moptosh 7 Jun

The ultimate force. Able to anticipate your every move to throw you off balance mentally and influence your decisions. he's gains the upper hand manipulates your emotions pushes you into doubt and hesitation. Always one step ahead and absolutely ruthless.

0 sats \ 3 replies \ @optimism OP 7 Jun

Interesting! How do you deal with that?

0 sats \ 2 replies \ @moptosh 7 Jun

Neuro-Linguistic Programming offers effective strategies to resist psychological influence and manipulation. https://www.youtube.com/watch?reload=9&time_continue=9&v=cNHwYkRrCss&embeds_referring_euri=https%3A%2F%2Fchatgpt.com%2F

0 sats \ 1 reply \ @optimism OP 7 Jun

Why does your embed say that the referral comes from chatgpt.com? lol

0 sats \ 0 replies \ @moptosh 7 Jun

drown the tracks.. lol

100 sats \ 2 replies \ @k00b 7 Jun

The person I disagree with the most is very skilled at perception engineering, and when it's used for good, it's very generative.

200 sats \ 1 reply \ @SimpleStacker 7 Jun

I actually think your so-called "perception engineers" are extremely valuable. For someone like me, there's nothing better than partnering with a philosophically aligned, skilled perception engineer

100 sats \ 0 replies \ @optimism OP 7 Jun

My best buddy since like 30 years calls himself "the glue", so I guess he's a perception engineer (or a "smooth, sneaky mf", lol). I often disagree with him philosophically but when we get to agree on a plan, we get things done. The disagreement most often helps fine-tuning the plan, because arguments are fine as long as there's respect. You can hash things out.

It's much harder to respect random people on the internet though, but it can definitely be done.

31 sats \ 0 replies \ @aPolitical 7 Jun freebie

My antagonist main strengths should be my weakness...