> What is the goal when you start arguing with someone online? Is that goal achievable?

For me the goal is twofold. I'm arguing for the people reading the comment chain, not necessarily the commenter's sake. I know it's nearly impossible to convince someone you are arguing with. But also I do try and have an open mind. It's not common that I change my position, but it does happen.

For example, I was once a climate change denier. It was debating with people online which caused me to reflect and change that position.

> What is the goal when you start arguing with someone online? Is that goal achievable?

I'm sure this is some sort of confirmation bias, I've noticed fewer stupid talking points for topics where I argue about online. I doubt it has any impact in people's political beliefs, but people end up being slightly less ideological and more hedgey. IMO, establishment figures are too dismissive about engaging with the public because they think they're above it, but this is how you end up with DOGE laying off departments only to beg for them back.

Also, honestly, I just enjoy the feeling of putting a dumb person in their place. Occasionally, I'm the dumb person, but I don't really mind that since I'm not really tied to any viewpoint. Being more informed also satisfies my mild superiority complex. Also, even if I don't learn from others, generally learn from the process of defining my arguments.

I waver between "I'm not going to convince anyone anyway, and they'll retreat to their echo chamber and be right back where they were" and "The world would be better if we fight for what's right, and speech is the only ethical way to do that".

I'm tired, Boss...

Check out the sceptic Sextus Empiricus. Hackett has a collection of his writings. Admittedly he was strongly opposed to the stoics as he considered them dogmatists, but at its heart scepticism is the idea that we should hold all arguments about non-evident things in suspension of judgement, because against any argument put forward we can balance an equally plausible argument. Instead, we should "turn our back upon the whole dispute and go back to talking and acting like a civilised, common-sensical man instead of a pedantic dogmatist".

I personally wasn't too convinced by scepticism but it was an interesting read nevertheless and I did take some bits away from it.

Put me in the Nietzsche camp: stoicism is self-tyranny. It's a denial of feeling disguised as overcoming it.

Do you have a recommendation to start reading about stoicism, but potentially not the early philosophers? A more modern text?

>They probably won't change their mind, and you're probably not going to either. If the outcome is foretold, what's the value produced from the effort?

The outcome is not foretold. I have learned a lot from being corrected by someone who knows more than me or points out a fault in my assumptions/logic. I have also learned from seeing subject matter experts arguing with each other.

> You don't better yourself by engaging in pointless squabbling

Not always, but it is at least always entertainment. If the alternative you would have chosen is watching a mindless movie then you're no worse off.

> and you don't enrich the other person or those around you by doing so.

It is inherently a solitary activity. You are right that the likelihood of a bystander gaining anything from it is nearly zero, but there was never any reason to think they would. It was never about them. Squabbling, as you call it, happens so you can learn about yourself.

The goal is karma farming and the feeling of smug superiority over others, especially when they get downvoted or flagged and you don't.

The value is in the feeling of euphoria you get when dominating the other person by being unequivocally right.

This isn’t philosophy. It’s biology. Every human feels good when this happens and millions of years of evolution has made most humans have feelings of euphoria when being right. The fact that this thread even exists speaks to the fact of the extremely high survival benefit this behavior confers onto a human.

So the question is why is there a survival benefit to humans almost universally having these emotions after taking the action of arguing (and winning)?

I think it’s more than just winning. You win in front of a crowd. And going in the technological direction you set and being more right then another heightens your value in the hierarchy. Your reputation in the crowd confers survival benefit to you and that is why arguing is in our genetics.

No philosophical analysis can beat one from a scientific and logical perspective.

But this begs the question why does this thread even exist? Why are there so many people against their own “programmed” nature of arguing? Because almost everyone who has “evolved” this trait also evolved the opposing trait of “agreeing” with that stoic philosophy.

If you lose an argument your survival benefit goes down because your reputation goes down. Being wrong all the time makes you look like an idiot.

So humans have dual opposing traits. We love to argue and we want to avoid it either. The push and pull between these two conflicts ultimately ends up in a singular decision that can go either way. That’s the ultimate meaning and reasoning behind all of this.

What is the best strategy? Find a system that wins arguments. Engage in arguments where you can win and dominate. It’s not as attractive as the stoic philosophy but I came to this analysis via raw logic using the biological universal mechanism that affects us all and I believe that makes my view point much stronger then stoicism which was arrived at via a less comprehensive mode of reasoning.

Boom.