In a classic essay, Paul Graham writes:
The web is turning writing into a conversation. Twenty years ago, writers wrote and readers read. The web lets readers respond, and increasingly they do – in comment threads, on forums, and in their own blog posts.
Many who respond to something disagree with it. That’s to be expected… when you agree there’s less to say… When you disagree you’re entering territory he may not have explored.
The result is there’s a lot more disagreeing going on, especially measured by the word. That doesn’t mean people are getting angrier. The structural change in the way we communicate is enough to account for it. But though it’s not anger that’s driving the increase in disagreement, there’s a danger that the increase in disagreement will make people angrier. Particularly online, where it’s easy to say things you’d never say face to face.
How, then, can you disagree well? Graham offers the following Disagreement Heirarchy:
- DH0. Name-Calling. The lowest form of disagreement, this ranges from “u r fag!!!’ to “He’s just a troll” to “The author is a self-important dilettante.”
- DH1. Ad Hominem. An ad hominem (“against the man”) argument won’t refute the original claim, but it might at least be relevant. If a senator says we should raise the salary of senators, you might reply: “Of course he’d say that; he’s a senator.” That might be relevant, but it doesn’t refute the original claim: “If there’s something wrong with the senator’s argument, you should say what it is; and if there isn’t, what difference does it make that he’s a senator?” Saying someone lacks authority is another kind of ad hominem.
- DH2. Responding to Tone. At this level we actually respond to the writing rather than the writer, but we’re responding to tone rather than substance. For example: “It’s terrible how flippantly the author dimisses theology.” As Graham says: “Is the author flippant, but correct? Better that than grave and wrong. And if the author is incorrect somewhere, say where.”
- DH3. Contradiction. Graham writes: “In this stage we finally get responses to what was said, rather than how or by whom. The lowest form of response to an argument is simply to state the opposing case, with little or no supporting evidence.” For example: “It’s terrible how flippantly the author dismisses theology. Theology is a legitimate inquiry into truth.”
- DH4. Counterargument. Finally, a form of disagreement that might persuade! Counterargument is “contradiction plus reasoning and/or evidence.” Still, counterargument is often directed at a minor point, or turns out to be an example of two people talking past each other, as in the parable about a tree falling in the forest.
- DH5. Refutation. In refutation, you quote (or paraphrase) a precise claim or argument by the author and explain why the claim is false, or why the argument doesn’t work. With refutation, you’re sure to engage exactly what the author said, and offer a direct counterargument with evidence and reason.
- DH6. Refuting the Central Point. Graham writes: “The force of a refutation depends on what you refute. The most powerful form of disagreement is to refute someone’s central point.” This refutation usually takes the form of: “The author’s central point appears to be X. For example, he writes ‘blah blah blah.’ He also writes ‘blah blah blah.’ But this is wrong, because (1) argument one, (2) argument two, and (3) argument three.” Even better, present the author’s argument in it’s most persuasive form as if you were trying to convince others of it, and then refute its central claims.
- DH7. Make the Argument Better, and then Refute Its Central Point. This highest level was added by Black Belt Bayesian. He writes: “When an argument is made, you learn about that argument. But often you also learn about arguments that could have been made, but weren’t. Sometimes those arguments work where the original argument doesn’t. If you’re interested in being on the right side of disputes, you will refute your opponents’ arguments. But if you’re interested in producing truth, you will fix your opponents’ arguments for them. To win, you must fight not only the creature you encounter; you must fight the most horrible thing that can be constructed from its corpse.” But of course this takes the most effort of all.
Even a DH6 disagreement could be wrong, but “while DH levels don’t set a lower bound on the convincingness of a reply, they do set an upper bound. A DH6 response might be unconvincing, but a DH2 or lower response is always unconvincing.”
The benefit of this Disagreement Hierarchy is that we can quickly label disagreements, and this will help us to choose what to bother reading and responding to. If this is done by enough people, it may even improve the quality of internet disagreement.
But the greatest benefit of disagreeing well is not just that it will make conversations better, but that it will make the people who have them happier. If you study conversations, you find there is a lot more meanness down in DH1 than up in DH6. You don’t have to be mean when you have a real point to make. In fact, you don’t want to. If you have something real to say, being mean just gets in the way.
If moving up the disagreement hierarchy makes people less mean, that will make most of them happier. Most people don’t really enjoy being mean; they do it because they can’t help it.
I’m going to give it a go. Feel free to join me, and link back to this explanation (or Graham’s) when you label disagreements according to this heirarchy.
Previous post: Meaning and Death