

How to Disagree - rms
http://paulgraham.com/disagree.html

======
stcredzero
The truly intellectually honest way to disagree: Take the idea in question,
and give it some genuine love. Make an earnest attempt to make some form of
the idea work in the context of everything you know.

This is my litmus test for first-class minds. I've been using this for the
past 25 years and I've found that those who truly take this approach are 1)
uncommon, 2) impressively smart, 3) genuinely curious, and 4) seem to offer
the highest chance for truly profound and productive interactions.

Most often, people fail this test by not using this technique at all, or
trying to pass off its doppleganger.

Such people are very easy to spot. Simply pay attention to the possible
interpretations of what other people say. You are looking for the one who's
always interpreting what others say in the best possible light and who runs
with other's ideas, often in a delightful and surprising way.

EDIT: The fakers are easy to spot, by the their bias towards finding fault for
other's ideas or their eager gravitation towards straw-man interpretations
when more interesting alternatives are easily imagined.

~~~
ehsanul
That's an enlightening comment.

How can I stop being a "faker", as you call it? I, and probably some other
HNers, are often pretty critical or take things people say more literally than
they meant often, rather than giving them the benefit of the doubt with a more
liberal interpretation.

I realize this is usually not conducive to "profound and productive
interactions", but it is almost second nature for me, something of a gut
reaction and I'm not entirely sure how to go about fixing this problem.
Behavior change is difficult, just seeking advice.

~~~
telemachos
I think many of us here are the same way (or were at some point or sometimes
still are). I love to argue. Often that comes from a good place, but often it
comes from just that desire to win or to be difficult or whatever. I still
have to push myself to really listen to the other view. Then my first step
(when I'm in a better place) is to literally ask myself something like these
questions, in roughly this order:

\+ What does this person believe?

\+ Why does this person believe those things?

\+ What would I need to believe (first) in order to convince me of those
things?

Try to short-circuit evaluation: don't judge the thoughts at all. Don't ask if
you agree. Just figure out _what_ they believe and _why_ they might hold those
beliefs. What other beliefs seem to be required? What other beliefs would make
someone think that way? This already gets you fairly far into their mindset.

~~~
ehsanul
Great set of questions!

Also like your last bit of advice - think about the person's point of view
before evaluating what they've said. And by doing this, I see how one could
also get to the root of a disagreement, rather than just the surface, and
address that instead. Everything becomes philosophical from there I'm
guessing.

------
po
I was just imagining how different hacker news would be if there were tags on
each comment/post indicating what levels of disagreement hierarchy are
contained within. I can't imagine a practical way to implement it but imagine
the effect it would have on discourse if people were constantly reminded what
they were reading/writing.

~~~
cracki
It would make _me_ feel constantly judged, arbitrarily even (because how would
you ensure level-headed tagging?). It'd be as bad as downvoting, which is
deliberately not possible on HN (with few exceptions).

~~~
xlorm
I was assuming po meant some automatic system. If you wanted to use humans
maybe you could have moderators do it.

I agree that it'd be dangerous to let anyone tag. People on YouTube usually
mark anything they disagree with as spam. Hopefully it wouldn't be the same
here though.

After reading your comment I realized I've seen downvoted comments but I can't
downvote. Is there a karma requirement?

~~~
djcapelis
Yes. After you hit a certain karma threshold a down arrow shows up and you are
able to downvote. The specific threshold varies, but it's below a thousand and
above a hundred.

~~~
patrickk
" _The specific threshold varies..._ " around 200 points if I remember
correctly

~~~
wahnfrieden
500 now.

------
giberson
Tangent: When I was reading this essay I couldn't help myself from imagining a
counter essay (in satire) that argues a reverse valuing of the hierarchy of
argument quality indicated by Graham. Additionally the quality of the argument
to argue each tier's quality would be made using it's inverse tier's quality.

I.e. For DH0, name calling, a thorough argument would be made that it should
in fact be the highest tier of argument DH6. It would be elaborate, with
supporting examples and scenarios that would refute the central point of DH0
arguments being ineffective.

Then by the end, DH6's counter argument would be of quality DH0. The argument
would simply be "This is just dumb, Paul Graham is a fag." [disclaimer: inline
with the example given in the DH0 tier. Not actually my opinion :)]

On topic: Arguments that include DH0's tend to invoke a jerk-neck reaction
from me, causing me to immediately discredit an entire (possibly well formed)
argument. So much so, that even when only affiliated with such behavior good
arguments lose all credibility. For example, in the 2008 election, when emails
were constantly flying back and forth through the mailing list, I'd see
forwarding of articles written in legitimate and well formed manner making
valid statements. However, the forwarder would have prefix some DH0 level quip
above the quote or article link which immediately made me write off the entire
content. I.e "Barack Obama-bin-laden setting up death panels! <insert article
link here>". Even if the article was bringing up valid concerns, and itself
was well written--it was already sabotaged by being associated with infantile-
ness.

------
joubert
_The most convincing form of disagreement is refutation._

The only "problem" is that it may be "objectively" convincing, but it rarely
convinces the person who's opinion/belief you refute, especially if there are
deep emotional or irrational underpinnings, e.g. religion/fear/indoctrination,
etc.

~~~
telemachos
A favorite passage about argument from Robert Nozick's _Philosophical
Explanations_.[1] It's a long quotation, but worth it, I think:

The terminology of philosophical art is coercive: arguments are _powerful_ and
best when they are _knockdown_ , arguments _force_ you to a conclusion, if you
believe the premises you _have to_ or _must_ believe the conclusion, some
arguments do not carry much _punch_ , and so forth. A philosophical argument
is an attempt to get someone to believe something, whether he wants to believe
it or not. A successful philosophical argument, a strong argument, _forces_
someone to a belief.

Though philosophy is carried on as a coercive activity, the penalty
philosophers wield is, after all, rather weak. If the other person is willing
to bear the label of "irrational" or "having the worse arguments," he can skip
away happily maintaining his previous belief. He will be trailed, of course,
by the philosopher furiously hurling philosophical imprecations: "What do you
mean, you're willing to be irrational? You shouldn't be irrational because..."
And although the philosopher is embarrassed by his inability to complete this
sentence in a noncircular fasion - he can only produce reasons for accepting
reasons - still, he is unwilling to let his adversary go.

Wouldn't it be better if philosophical arguments lef the person no possible
answer at all, reducing him to impotent silence? Even then, he might sit there
silently, smiling, Buddhalike. Perhaps philosophers need arguments so powerful
they set up reverbarations in the brain: if the person refuses to accept the
conclusion, he _dies_. How's that for a powerful argument. Yet, as with other
physical threats ("your money or your life"), he can choose defiance. A
"perfect" philosophical argument would leave no choice. (All emphases
Nozick's.)

[1]
[http://books.google.com/books?id=N4zH86WogYwC&lpg=PP1...](http://books.google.com/books?id=N4zH86WogYwC&lpg=PP1&ots=e7pynCwXH1&dq=%22philosophical%20explanations%22%20nozick&pg=PA4#v=onepage&q&f=false)

------
runningdogx
Complementing that essay somewhat, a list of fallacies:
[https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/wiki/List_of_falla...](https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/wiki/List_of_fallacies)

And cognitive biases:
[https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/wiki/List_of_cogni...](https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/wiki/List_of_cognitive_biases)

Although not all are equally bad.

~~~
hasenj
I've found that a lot of the listed fallacies can have charitable
interpretations.

A strawman argument where A proposes X and B attacks Y instead of attacking X
can often be a case where X indirectly leads to Y and person B assumes that it
is known that X leads to Y. Or, X is just Y in disguise. So it's not
necessarily a matter of being fallacious, but fully formalizing an argument is
often not feasible, so you take shortcuts. If you formalized the argument too
much, it gets boring and people stop listening/reading.

~~~
nika
I've seen this in action. I think if people would just be in the habit of
saying "I believe X leads to Y" that would be sufficient, and doesn't require
being too formal. But I think that habit is way above the level of discourse
in America, where, near as I can tell ideologies and social news sites
reinforce a partisan or "if you're not one of us you're not worth respecting"
attitude.

------
awakeasleep
If you liked this list, you might be interested in:

Language in Thought and Action [http://www.amazon.com/Language-Thought-Action-
S-I-Hayakawa/d...](http://www.amazon.com/Language-Thought-Action-S-I-
Hayakawa/dp/0156482401) by S I Hayakawa
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SI_Hayakawa>)

The Art of Conversation <http://www.basicincome.com/bp/artofconv.htm>

And Ben Franklin's Autobiography <http://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/148>

------
richcollins
The more interesting idea to explore is why people disagree in the first
place. Most arguments that I witness are more about relationship positing than
trying to prove a point. This includes jockeying for a better spot in the
dominance hierarchy or identifying yourself as a part of a group.

------
medwezys
Sorry for offtopic, but (with all due respect to author and content) why da
heck 95'ish buttons in website menu? They are burning my eyeballs and make me
feel old.

~~~
jsyedidia
The explanation is all here: <http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=1597129>

Nobody criticize the Yahoo Store buttons!

------
jdp23
"The most convincing form of disagreement is refutation... The most powerful
form of disagreement is to refute someone's central point." This is a
subjective statement, presented without evidence [DH6, DH5]. In any particular
discussion, the most convincing form _s_ of argument depends on the situation,
the information both parties have available and their cognitive styles [DH4].
For example [DH3], sometimes highlighting a person's stake in the issue is
often very effective. <http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=2156623>

As an analytical thinker, Paul seems to be projecting his own preferences to
others [DH1] -- and he's left out some techniques that are extremely effective
such as appealing to the emotions.

------
sfphotoarts
"Most people don't really enjoy being mean; they do it because they can't help
it."

I wish this point had been expanded upon, but I feel like I just saw a bunch
of weasels sucking eggs.

It would make a very interesting essay on the origins of meanness, clearly
(citation needed) it has evolutionary advantage (or is a side effect of such).
I wonder if a poll could be constructed that would given to enough people
would support or refute pg's claim. Given limited resources and if it comes
down to me feed my family or you feed yours I'm pretty sure the past
600million years of brain development would kick in and side with meanness,
but we live in a time of relative plenty and given those conditions I truly
wonder where human nature falls.

------
nopassrecover
[2008]

------
yason
There's also the difference between disagreeing and trying to change the other
person's opinion. Disagreeing is cheap: you just don't agree and that's it.
You're not obliged to explain yourself to anyone but yourself.

------
CallMeV
I haven't seen this essay for a while. I thought I'd lost it, and I could not
find the bookmark which linked to it. Very useful. Thank you, rms.

~~~
btilly
You can find all of pg's essays at <http://www.paulgraham.com/articles.html>.
They are of good enough quality that it is worth browsing that occasionally.

------
jimmyjim
Older discussion: <http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=1021060>

------
derrida
I disagree.

------
nika
DH0, upvoted to 5 (while my comments are 0 and -1):
<http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=2138625>

This was my first day. I stuck around for a day or two, then I just logged out
and stopped participating. Just use this as a site to find links, and when
you're not logged in there's no incentive to go see what people said in reply
to you, and no focus on karma score or anything. I don't know if the site
requires a certain level of karma to submit new items, but I don't really feel
like submitting things here when I don't feel like they'll get a fair shake.
(There were good discussions on some of my other comments, but another one
where it became clear that I no real discussion was possible because of
ideology combined with the "fucking idiot" comment were enough to have me stop
participating.

This is just FYI. I'd love for there to be a place to have good discussions
with people. I don't know how to make HN that place, and so I'm just going to
use it as a source of articles to read.

I think all news sites that allow downvoting end up operating as a sort of
"smear the queer" system for punishing people who have a minority viewpoint,
without regard to how well they articulate it or even what they are actually
saying (in some cases.)

Edit: Yes this topic got me to log in, and I'll be logging out now. I don't
really want to debate the topic that I got attacked over, as my original
comment was actually trying to defend someone else's perspective. Please
whether you agree with me or not, take this as "market feedback" of what a new
user experienced, and why I'm not participating. Maybe I have thin skin in
your opinion, that's fine. Maybe I'm way too wordy to participate on a site
like this! That's fine too.

~~~
yummyfajitas
I'd suggest not viewing karma as the reward, but rather your influence. Ad-
hominem attacks and downvotes are typically a response to cognitive dissonance
- your argument or facts forced someone to rethink views they are emotionally
attached to, and they don't like it.

You received at least 3 upvotes, and earl received 4. (Actually, most likely
you both received a mix of both upvotes and downvotes.) Since I seriously
doubt that those are coming from the same people, you influenced 7 people in
some way. You made 4 people uncomfortable about their views, but they were
unable to rationally respond. That pushes them a little closer to changing
their views.

Well done.

~~~
nika
Thanks to you and "TheAmazingIdiot" (ugh, his name makes me call him a name,
the delima!) for the feedback. I'm going to try sticking around a bit.

