Do Not Argue With Strangers on the Internet

Everyone knows that there are two kinds of superpowers: the useful and the shitty. Let’s imagine that you have just been granted a shitty one. Your new ability is to listen to any conversation happening right now, anywhere. There is a catch though. The only conversations you will hear will be arguments. You might catch Alice and Bob discussing economics, for example:

“By now there is no doubt that the invisible hand of capitalism will raise the living standard of everyone on the planet via the trickle-down effect,” declares Alice.
“You are wrong,” Bob retorts. “Only those who can provide value to capitalism benefit from it. As more labor is replaced by automation, more people will become economic roadkill.”

You are tempted to participate. Maybe you agree with one of them and want to support their position. Maybe you have a different take. Your mouth is ready to utter “hey guys, I believe…” but your brain stops it and makes you think. Who the hell are Bob and Alice? Where are they? Why do you want to convince them of anything? The phenomenon of attempting to persuade random individuals is new to us. We humans have been arguing about the most trivial things since forever, but we did it with those close to us. Our friends, family, colleagues. Some of us have tried to disseminate ideas via publication. In the first case, one could argue (heh) that there is value in convincing someone close to us. Likewise, sharing a new idea with an unlimited number of random people has been fundamental to our progress. On the other hand, why spend effort on a random person about which we know almost nothing? Because they are there. Because it feels good to prove that you are smart.

Those may not be the best reasons, but they are reasons. They could be applied to anything that is good in the short term. Snacks. Watching a show when we should be working. Buying things we don’t need. Tasks that require no preparation, are easy to do, feel good in the moment. The problem is that they come at a cost. In particular, arguing with strangers takes up time and mental energy. Have we decided that this is the optimal thing to do with our Personal Resource Budget of the hour? No, of course not. So I will propose a better replacement activity.

First, we must ask a crucial question. Am I an expert in this topic? No, all my economics knowledge comes from reading a few books. I have not studied the field in depth. I have not done any research, I have not read deep longitudinal studies about the effects of one policy versus another. It’s likely that Bob and Alice aren’t experts either. The three of us are random amateurs, and we won’t be learning much from our argument. Wouldn’t it be better to spend this time learning instead? Ok, we can search the pros and cons of trickle-down economics for example. What do its critics say? How about its staunchest defenders?

The second thing we can do is argue with ourselves. Why wait for a random person to rebut our half-baked idea when we can short-circuit the process, and learn while doing it? Here is where this article goes meta: I’m going to argue with myself about the potential benefits of arguing with others.

Me: “Diego, you’re wrong. Arguing with others on the internet can be fun. Sure, at times it can be enraging. But there is some pleasure in telling a random stranger that they are mistaken, and imagining them feeling dumb and frustrated.”
Also me: “Perhaps. But is that the most fun thing you can do on the internet? Would you rather not be playing some game, watching a show, learning something?”
Me: “They are not exclusive, you know. I could do all those things and still feel like I want to spend a few minutes telling some random idiot that they have no idea how geopolitics works and that they should read a book rather than tweet platitudes. Why not? It’s not like the guy will pop out of my laptop screen and punch me in the face. It’s the internet, not fight club. And if they hate me, so what? There are millions of single-serving sparring partners to alienate out there.”
Also me: “I concede that you might enjoy it, and the price might be right. I guess if you really have thought about it and decided the pros outweigh the cons, then knock yourself out. You made me rethink my position somewhat.”

Ok, after this argument with myself I must revise the premise of this article. I do not want to argue with strangers on the internet, and if what I said resonates with you then you don’t either. When tempted to argue, count to ten and decide if there is something better to do with that energy and time. But perhaps you are like Evil Diego, and decide that arguing with that person is better than solving a puzzle or watching a Youtube video. You have no interest in preparing or learning, you just want to call out the other person. Fine. I still suggest that you pick your arguing opponents carefully. Given that the choice is infinite, don’t engage with the first oaf that the Twitter algorithm brings to your attention. Try to argue with someone who:

a) seems smart and knowledgeable about the topic.

b) appears willing to exchange ideas. If you are going to argue, might as well do it with someone who forces you to be your best.

c) accept that the chances of convincing your opponent are low. The most likely outcomes are a dead end in which one of you stops responding, or perhaps the person will block you.

d) be aware of when it starts feeling like work, and know when to quit.

The internet has created some interesting pastimes that trigger all sorts of buttons in our brains. We can all pretend to be experts about everything, and role-play as policy makers, doctors, army generals, world leaders. In doing so, we are the protagonists of a never-ending soap opera that pays dividends to media corporations. The least we can do is be smart about it, and remember that we are all amateur actors. We are not getting paid for this, so it had better be fun. I suppose you could get paid for this too, if you’re good enough. May I interest you in a career in journalism or politics?