Something I just registered in a discussion with DanielLC. My feeling on reading his thread was, that he's not getting something, though I'm not certain what. I moved the mouse cursor to 'quote', to start typing in responses to his post, and suddenly felt the distinct sensation of my mind cementing that 'correct the wrong person' impression. In retrospect (though perhaps retrospectively) I remember experiencing something comparable in a couple of extended discussions I've been caught up with in the last week.

I don't know how strong the effect is, but it worries me enough that I closed the reply window, reopened the thread, and will not start replying line by line until I'm fairly confident I know what I want to say in advance. It's only speculation at the moment, but I suspect that barrier between thinking and writing will force me to consider my position more thoroughly.

Others feel this? Or if uncertain, would you want to try consciously experimenting next time you find yourself in an extended debate?

I don't understand. If I'm wrong, shouldn't you be correcting me? Is the problem that your instinct is simply to assert the correct statement, rather than to help me learn the cause of my error?

I don't know if what Arepo describes is a bad thing. Often, when I reply to something, I'm forced to think about it in a way that I wouldn't be if I were casually reading. Writing helps me understand. OTOH, maybe what Arepo means is that it would be better if he delayed writings his replies but still made sure to do them at some point.

Perhaps Arepo is also thinking of the "win the debate" mode of thinking rather than "figure out the right answer" mode of thinking. During a debate, I like to tell people what points of theirs I agree with, and when they make a new point that I hadn't considered, I find it's easier to give in to this fact than to try to still argue against it. It's like telling the truth: Doing so is so much easier than trying to maintain a lie. Suddenly you don't have to feel like you're arguing for something that's not true; you can instead realize that you were wrong and now argue for what is true, which is so much easier.

As Brian says - if I hit 'reply' before really digesting the argument, I get the conscious feeling that I've set my brain to a more combative approach, where to paraphrase XKCD (which might already have been quoting), I'm thinking in terms of proving I'm right rather discerning whether I am.