
How to Disagree - PieSquared
http://www.paulgraham.com/disagree.html
======
gregfjohnson
Great article. Paul provides a useful illumination of the issue. The great
medieval theologian Thomas Aquinas operated at level DH6, often with
devastating effect. He would formulate and state the argument he planned to
refute with clarity, depth, accuracy, and precision. He often would make his
opponent's case better than the opponent had done! I believe his secret was
that he was humbly interested in the truth wherever it led. Given his lack of
a pre-conceived agenda, he could take a proposition and explore its
implications 20 plies deep, giving it the benefit of the doubt and making the
best case for it at each step. Having fully plumbed an idea and 'grokked' it,
then he could unwind the stack as it were, and state his conclusions in a
powerfully convincing manner. Humility, detachment, an agenda-free willingness
to listen and follow the truth where it leads, and strength in defending hard-
won truth when found all seem to be good places to start.

~~~
astine
Aquinas wasn't quite so thorough in all his works. It's mostly the Summa
Theologica which is so rigorous. I agree with the application however, for one
to brook disagreement with another, one should usually understand the subject
better than that person. This implies understanding your opponent's arguments
better than your opponent. If don't understand your opponents arguments better
than he, who are you to say that he is wrong in making them?

(trivia about Aquinas: his handwriting was so bad, that there are only about
10 people or so in the world today that can read it.)

~~~
mejohnsn
I am glad that people are thinking of Aquainas in this connection. In fact, I
_still_ think his book on logical fallacies is one of the best. For example,
he is the _only_ one to get the defintion of "amphigology" right.

Unfortunately, when you look at the link where you can find it online at
<http://www.corpusthomisticum.org/dp3.html>, you will see why so few people
still read this book:(

~~~
sixtorende
Do you find anything wrong in that online edition of the original Latin text?

------
edw519
Mind if I extend your Disagreement Hierarchy?

DH-1. Flamebaiting.

This is when you preempt that with which you would disagree by stating your
case in such a way as to elicit quick disagreement (in the form of DH0 to
DH6). Usually done by noticing a subset of all data, forming a hypothesis to
explain only that subset, and presenting it as a conclusion. Often done
without even realizing it.

    
    
       The relational database model is dead.
    
       There is no future in enterprise software.
    
       <Language du jour> is clearly the best.
    
       No one else is doing <xyz>, so it must be a deadend.

~~~
pius
I think the Flamebaiting category is a useful addition to PG's hierarchy.

The new category brings to mind an interesting property of this hierarchy
though, namely that it seems to be difficult to respond to an "argument" with
a higher order technique than that which was originally presented. For
example, if one were disagreeing with a purely ad hominem rant, one would find
it futile and nearly impossible to disagree with the rant at any higher level;
how can one truly refute an argument that has no central point? It's somewhat
depressing because, if true, it implies that a discussion is upper bounded at
the level of discourse that initiated the discussion.

The way out of this, as far as I can tell, is recognizing that statements are
not made in a vacuum. Sometimes the only way to raise the level of discourse
is to engage in a sort of meta-disagreement. In other words, sometimes the
point of a statement is not the content, but the context. While it works to
classify criticisms of tone, for example, as weak if one were dealing with a
substantive argument, the metadata (tone, speaker, etc) around the content of
a non-argument may allow one to say something intelligent about the statement
by tying it to the broader context in which it was made.

~~~
h34t
Another way out is to simply ignore poor arguments and spend one's scarce time
responding to the intelligent ones instead.

(Admittedly, this is not _always_ possible or desirable.)

~~~
ArcticCelt
Another way to not lose your time is to stop posting in troll infested
comunities; I don't post on Digg anymore for that and I am now slowly fading
out of Reddit for the same reason.

The problem on those sites is that their is not only poor comments but also
tons of users who upmod them.

~~~
apathy
_The problem on those sites is that their is not only poor comments_

This is a legitimate problem, and ironically it is a symptom that a news
concentrator is becoming a victim of its own success. As the signal-to-noise
ratio attracts a progressively larger crowd, the types of information that are
viewed as 'signal' broaden to appeal to the lowest common denominator. It's
similar to hiring in a small company -- but at least in that situation you
have control over the purse strings. (Even the trolls get dumber as time goes
by and a site grows more popular.) Thus the comments on an arbitrary story
suffer, and it requires more work to pick through them. However, if you
'listen' to subcommunities (eg. economics, programming, math on reddit) you
find that (unsurprisingly) the baseline rises again. If you have no interest
in those subsets, however, you're kind of out of luck. (But if you're here you
already knew that)

You could probably model this as a logistic process, provided that you account
for renormalizations (such as the literal renormalization that took place on
reddit recently).

 _but also tons of users who upmod them._

This part (or at least its independent, non-interaction effect) is irrelevant;
if you focus solely on people who have strong and demonstrated critical
thinking skills, you can learn a great deal, and also gain a different
perspective. Their input is much more harmful when it comes to filtering in or
out the news to be concentrated.

Most of the interesting threads in which I have participated eventually lost
the interest of the masses because they had descended into minutiae. But
that's where the interesting bits lay, so that's where they went.

Ignore the riffraff. Lord knows they'll usually ignore you if you're
presenting anything challenging. Even in a swamp like Slashdot, there is
occasionally a perspective-changing comment that is worth reading.

If you want to expose yourself to a wide variety of opinions, you have to be
willing to do a bit of work yourself, and determine which ones hold merit.
It's a two-way street, in many respects, and your priorities (in addition to
your time pressures) will determine how far you are willing to take it.

It appears to me that the 'social news' sites on the Web are simply
recapitulating the arc of the special-interest BBS nodes and Usenet cliques of
years past. Everything old is new again.

------
JoeBackward
Very nice post, thank you!

Here's something to think about. According to Aristotle's Rhetoric, a person
making a point to an audience has three things to offer:

\-- Ethos -- who they are and why they speak with authority. \-- Pathos --
empathy with the audience. \-- Logos -- the substance of the argument.

So, an opponent can try to undermine any of these three.

Undermining a person's ethos can be nasty "yo' momma" style language, or it
can be more sophisticated. If the person's argument relies on their ethos,
however, it may be legitimate. For example, when Nobel laureate William
Schockley argues for racial eugenics on the strength of his physics
background, it's legitimate to say "Professor, your expertise is in physics,
not genetics." This is helpful with anyone who says, effectively, "I'm a
bigshot so what I say must be true."

Undermining pathos can also be helpful. For example, "thus-and-such software
marketer doesn't want to help you and me, she wants to sell more software
licenses for her company. Do not blindly accept her claims that her product is
better."

Of course, undermining the logos -- the substance of the argument -- is a very
effective way to disagree.

But, my point is, undermining a speaker's pathos and ethos are also
legitimate, especially when their argument critically depends on those aspects
of their rhetoric.

~~~
murrayh
I don't think that undermining the speaker is a valid way of arguing. It is
irrelevant who states the argument; an argument is as equally as strong
whoever makes it. I can copy and paste another's argument verbatim, and then
change all the "I" references to "person X" references, and the argument would
be identical.

What you can do is refute evidence. So if the speaker presents one of their
own claims as evidence, you can sometimes invalidate that claim by undermining
the speaker's pathos and ethos.

NOTE: When I say valid, I mean it in terms of determining what is correct, not
what convinces people.

~~~
astine
Aristotle was speaking in terms of what convinces people. This is only his
'Rhetoric' however. His 'Logic' deals with correct arguments.

However, I do think that there are cases where an ad hominem is correct
however. If someone's argument is based on his own authority, and his
authority is widely acknowledged, then the only way to attack the argument is
to attack the arguer. One example is the repeated misuse of Einstein as an
authority om things like economics or theology.

------
tungstenfurnace
Nice article.

Not sure if it's significantly different from DH6, but Karl Popper's style of
debate might be termed DH7.

It's similar to DH6, but first you patch up the opponent's arguments to make
the best possible case. Then you find the central point in that case, even if
the author doesn't explicitly state it. It's what he really meant to say and
might indeed have said if he was on good form. (If there's a stronger or more
general version of that point you might select that instead.)

And _then_ you carefully demolish it.

~~~
pg
Actually I thought of making DH7 something similar: not merely refuting what
your opponent said, but also explaining what led him to make that mistake. But
I wasn't sure, so I left it out.

~~~
xlnt
Isn't psychoanalyzing the other person (and considering him an 'opponent'),
rather than focussing impersonally on ideas, more the stuff of the low numbers
than the top?

True it could help him, but only if appreciated. It frequently won't be in
public, or between strangers. And it runs a danger of polluting the main
discussion. Any personal help is strictly a separate issue than which of the
original ideas is true -- the person being helped could still have been right.

~~~
nostrademons
If it's a logical argument, you can explain where he went wrong without
psychoanalyzing him. Just point out the step in his reasoning that's
fallacious, or the premise which is incorrect.

Most people don't take well to having their fallacious reasoning questioned,
but they _do_ appreciate having incorrect premises pointed out, particularly
if it's done politely.

If you need to psychoanalyze the other person to explain the flaw in his
ideas, then chances are you're arguing over opinions rather than facts or
conclusions. Opinions, by definition, can't be right or wrong, so you're
wasting your time.

------
nsrivast
Paul Graham does a good job outlining the different forms a disagreement can
take and evaluating their effectiveness. I agree with his analysis. I'm going
to expand on it.

It seems this piece was written in response to the various criticisms he
received because for his "You Weren't Meant to Have a Boss" essay. In addition
to objecting to the _form_ these criticisms took, I think he could also have
talked about one of the fundamental _causes_ of most disagreements on the
internet - lack of charitable interpretation.

Many interpreted his essay as an attack on big-company programmers - using as
evidence the analogies he used, the frankness of his writing style, etc. - and
reached the conclusion that he had an elitist attitude about his profession.
Now, this may or may not be true (having met him, my opinion is a firm "not
true"). But the point is that it doesn't matter. If we interpret charitably,
we remain agnostic on what his argument implies about him (thus abstaining
from DH1 and DH2 attacks) and instead focus on the actual argument. Some
critics managed to do that. But many didn't. And the worst part is that the
lack of charitable interpretation obscured their actual disagreements, so now
we've wasted time talking about "how to disagree" instead of "what are the
correlations/effects of company type on programmer
happiness/ability/prospects".

Of course, an author should be careful to frame his arguments in a way that
minimizes the danger from misinterpretation. In other words, an author should
try to write well.

~~~
rtf
Many times people will enter a passionate debate if they feel their lifestyle
or livelihood is at stake. It's the same reason news media have long focused
on crime, sex, and scandal - BAD THINGS COULD HAPPEN TO YOU!

But in forming an actual dialogue, such all-or-nothing viewpoints make people
defensive. The behavior of monopolies that have been obsoleted by technology
is little different from that of the Luddites - they try to stop the change,
even when it's irrational to try. "Irrational self-interest" is a pretty neat
term to sum it up.

"You Weren't Meant to Have a Boss" strikes keenly and precisely at the
employed, because it primarily lists benefits of startup life, presenting an
unbalanced picture. The title certainly doesn't help matters. That PG's
arguments are pretty strong, and he has some established weight in online
communities, makes him hard to dismiss out of hand, which further increases
the tension.

Internet discussion tends to stay low on the hierarchy because the people
replying are mostly stuck in defensive mode. Pragmatic, nuanced thinking
doesn't seem to come naturally to humans.

------
mixmax
One of the things I really like about YC news is the fact that it's a great
place to disagree. I would even say that it is one of the sites defining
characteristics. Whenever I hold an unpopular or controversial view here there
will of course be replies - but very rarely do I experience namecalling,
trollig or other fluff that doesn't add to the conversation. The replies are
always tactful, and often very insightful. Sometimes I even have to take my
words back, convinced by another user that I was wrong. And we all learn from
it.

You don't see that in many forums.

~~~
wehriam
Right behind you on this one. After reading the article I was terrified that
YC.News would line up behind PG - how refreshing to see that the community is
more than happy to dissent. I don't agree, but I really respect the forum
which he was instrumental in creating.

------
anewaccountname
The author's main point seems to be x. As he says:

    
    
        <quotation>
    

But this is wrong for the following reasons: Who is this guy and what
authority does he have to write about these topics? I haven't read the essay,
but there's no way anything so short and written in such an informal style
could have anything useful to say about such and such topic, when people with
degrees in the subject have already written many thick books about it.

~~~
xlnt
You're obviously lying when you say you didn't read the essay.

~~~
mrtron
You're obviously making a satirical criticism implying you aren't catching the
satire in his/her post.

Meta-satire, well done sir/mam.

------
Kaizyn
Well, the main problem with this essay is that sometimes mocking someone's
argument is the best way to disagree with it. The parody of PG's last essay on
having a boss was highly effective at this:
<http://www.jsequeira.com/blog/2008/03/24.html>

Is this a lower form of disagreement than DH6? Most definitely, however, the
English language has a rich tradition of satire and mockery going back at
least as far as Jonathan Swift.

~~~
pg
I thought about the relation to parody, and the answer is that it's an
orthogonal issue. Parody can be DH1 or DH6 depending on how well it's done.

~~~
tel
I'd say that (good) parody and satire frequently make use of DH1-4 in order to
effect an argument that's usually at DH6. It's the matter of creating straw
men or ad hominem attacks which are implicit criticisms on the actual content
of the argument.

------
mascarenhas
The more things change...
[http://etext.library.adelaide.edu.au/a/aristotle/sophistical...](http://etext.library.adelaide.edu.au/a/aristotle/sophistical/)

Edit: and on a more recent (and cynical :-) ) note:
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Art_of_Being_Right>

~~~
pg
These lists of rhetorical techniques are not quite the same thing. They're
tactics. What I was trying to figure out are the categories of tactics.

~~~
hussong
I think there's more from Schopenhauer than just a list of methods.

In his Eristic Dialectic, he described a system of stratagems, see
<http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eristische_Dialektik> (unfortunately, this
hasn't been translated to english yet).

The 38 Methods are said to have been added merely to provide examples. It is
also interesting that he wrote the manuscript around 1830, but never published
it. It was first published in 1864, four years after his death. See
<http://coolhaus.de/art-of-controversy/> for the full manuscript and an
excellent translation to english.

~~~
emmanuel81
The original title of Schopenhauer's “Art of Controversy” could be more
accurately translated as “The Art of being always Right” (Die Kunst, Recht zu
behalten). The reason why he described those stratagems was to prove his
point: that the goal of a controversy is not finding the truth. According to
him, it was like a fight where you just want to win.

PG advocates for controversies that help find the truth. Thus he makes a
difference between fallacies and real arguments. To Schopenhauer, real
arguments are actually fallacies, because mere humans have other goals than
the truth. Ironically, in <http://www.paulgraham.com/philosophy.html>, PG
followed Wittgenstein in that “most philosophical controversies are due to
confusions over language”. In a philosophical context, at least, this should
lead to a similar conclusion as Schopenhauer's.

Now, whether the case of philosophy should be extended to the rest of
controversies is an interesting question. My answer would be yes. I wonder
what PG would say. The fun part is that, whatever he says, Schopenhauer will
still be right (look: he doesn't care of the truth, he just wants to win the
argument!). That's the whole fun of controversies about controversy...

~~~
mejohnsn
I'll assume "To Schopenhauer, real arguments are actually fallacies, because
mere humans have other goals than the truth" is an accurate summary of
Schopenhauer's viewpoint. In that case, I _still_ have to say this is just a
more thanaverage level of sophistication for a form of solipsism. But I cannot
see it any other way than as solipsism.

That alone is reason enough to reject it. But here is another reason: his
point about other goals is irrelevant. Why? Because though yes, we "mere
humans" have other goals, at least _some_ of the time, those other goals
require that we get to the truth of some matter. And those are precisely the
fields of endeavor where rational argumentation still has some influence in
our confused and irrational society.

That said, we _do_ have to take great care: the dishonest dissemblers who
strive so hard to deceive us are _legion_, the honest reasoners who wish to
persuade us of the truth by legitimate means are rare gems. But they have not
disappeared completely yet.

------
mcc99
The authors are idiots. Of course they would write something like this, they
probably make their living off selling these sorts of pie-in-the-sky ideals to
people. The whole tone of this article is pretentious and insulting. Personal
attacks are perfectly valid forms of argument and communication. If you look
at these things in terms of effectiveness, they are usually more practical
approaches that yield results, especially in the political realm. One thing
they write is:

'If you can't find an actual quote to disagree with, you may be arguing with a
straw man.'

That isn't true. Using analog-situation arguments and reductions to absurdity
to point out the fallacies of a point is a long-used, valid practice. The
central point of their writing seems to be that addressing substance using
reason is the most effective way of arguing. They write:

"The force of a refutation depends on what you refute. The most powerful form
of disagreement is to refute someone's central point."

and point out that refutation is the strongest from of argument against some
other point, Well, "strongest" is a subjective evaluation and I would like to
point out that in the history of argument and in particular political
discourse, usually it is the loudest, angriest, and downright scariest people
in the argument who win; for example, look at the Nazis in Germany in the
1930s So these people have it just plain all wrong.

There, now, did I miss anything? =)

Great piece, really, I loved it. Thanks for putting it out there!

~~~
immohuneke
Yeah, nice parody.

Your reference to Nazis is apposite. I once heard veteran Labour politician
Tony Benn destroy an opponent's point of view in a televised debate by saying
"That's a fascist idea - it's exactly what the Nazis did in Germany in the
1930s". Thereby he simultaneously implied that his opponent in the debate was
a fool for not knowing this and made the suggested course of action untenable
by association.

In politics, but also in many other spheres of human activity, we have to ask
ourselves whether an argument is being advanced in pursuit of the truth or
simply to silence an opponent who could get in the way of reaching an ulterior
objective.

Stalin, Hitler, Idi Amin, Saddam Hussein, Robert Mugabe and countless others
had a very straightforward way of dealing with opposition. I'm sure that any
D6 or D7 disagreement would have been water off a duck's back for them.

------
pius
One thing that isn't mentioned in this essay is an appreciation of the concept
of having a "preponderance of evidence." In U.S. law, for example, this
concept is introduced directly through the burden of proof hierarchy (terms
like reasonable suspicion, clear and convincing evidence, reasonable doubt,
etc.).

While only DH4-DH6 can _strictly_ prove an argument wrong, there are many,
many situations in which it is infeasible to unilaterally determine "truth."
In these cases, DH1-DH3 can be used to determine the probability of a
statement being true.

Take ad hominem. Sure it's a weak form of argumentation, but it is reasonable
to exercise a certain amount of skepticism based on the nature of the speaker.
For example, the New York Post tends to be a more conservative newspaper,
while the New York Times tends to be more liberal. Obviously, neither of these
facts can definitively prove or disprove a statement, but they can inform an
analysis of these papers' claims.

If I'm making a counter-argument I care about, I try to take a "defense-in-
depth" approach and attack the original statement at all levels that are
useful and try to establish credibility in all the ways I can. I don't think
arguing well maps directly to using a higher form of rhetoric. At the end of
the day, it depends on your audience. Just ask Karl Rove and James Carville.
;)

~~~
jimbokun
"At the end of the day, it depends on your audience. Just ask Karl Rove and
James Carville. ;)"

I believe their area of expertise is propaganda, not argument.

(But I suppose both could be a form of rhetoric.)

------
lunchbox
Philosopher Arthur Schopenhauer wrote a great book on tricks people use to
"win" arguments. You could call it the Bible of sophistry:
[http://ebooks.adelaide.edu.au/s/schopenhauer/arthur/controve...](http://ebooks.adelaide.edu.au/s/schopenhauer/arthur/controversy/chapter3.html)

"Conversational terrorism" outlines more techniques used by conversational
bullies: <http://www.vandruff.com/art_converse.html>

------
DocSavage
I thought this was a pretty good essay. Timely as well. There was considerable
disagreement over PG's last essay. You could see the hierarchy of responses on
both sides, including straw man arguments.

If comments could be tagged with hierarchy levels, it might raise the general
level of argument.

"Such labels may help writers too. Most intellectual dishonesty is
unintentional."

I totally agree with this, particularly on YC News where there are a lot of
smart people. When the words fly, there's a tendency to overreact and say
things that wouldn't occur if we were face-to-face. I admit having done this.
It would be great if some optional tagging feature were built into a comment
system, so writers could get some feedback when others thought they strayed.

~~~
PieSquared
Hmm... Doesn't Slashdot sort of do this? Not completely, but to some extent,
it does have "Flamebait" or "Interesting" or "Insightful" 'ratings' for
comments.

I don't really think that's too useful, because it's usually pretty obvious
what category the comment falls in after reading it anyway...

~~~
DocSavage
Those kinds of tags are too broad. I was thinking of some javascript to let
you highlight subparts of a comment then tag it with a more specific label,
like "Straw Man Argument."

People would probably view the comment differently, but readers (and the
author) could then see 60% of people thought part of his comment wasn't
useful. Ad hominem and straw dog attacks, for example, might be
unintentionally inserted in the heat of argument. Right now, comment rating is
very blocky.

~~~
jimbokun
Startup idea!

Make it so you can tag arbitrary pages from within your browser, and other
people visiting the page can see the tags if they wish. Imagine the fun of
doing this with the New York Times, Wall Street Journal, in addition to blogs
and discussion forums, etc. etc.

------
pauek
What I would love to read is an essay about "absolutism": the belief that
there's only One Truth and that it can be _really_ proved. I think many people
disagree precisely about this, they think that being an absolutist is bad.
Among programmers, the incidence of absolutism seems to be much higher (the
closer to math, the higher?).

So I think that PG's essay is quite good (as most others), in that it looks
for this "absolute truths", he tries to analyze stuff and make a contribution,
say something that will last. I find this very scientific, which is good in my
opinion. The problem is that many people don't see it that way. It is very
difficult to stick to the principle of "egoless disagreement".

------
rms
I'm really looking forward to seeing this hierarchy applied as a meme on
news.yc.

~~~
ken
A meme? How about a feature? I want to be able to rate things by DH level.

~~~
pg
I've thought of doing that. Maybe. But not all comments disagree, and frankly
I wouldn't want to do anything that increased the proportion that do.

~~~
zoltz
You seem to imply in the essay that disagreeing comments are more valuable
than agreeing ones, though:

" _And when you agree there's less to say. You could expand on something the
author said, but he has probably already explored the most interesting
implications. When you disagree you're entering territory he may not have
explored_ "

~~~
aikiai
That does not imply they are more valuable; rather, it is human nature to
respond to a statement that you feel you can "correct". It is an ego boost, if
nothing else.

To me, cooperative, exploratory statements are the most valuable.

 _"That is a interesting opinion, I've never heard that perspective. But what
about case xyz, have you considered that."_

In that context, it is much easier to build up interesting information trees,
rather than simply staying stuck on one (often minor or irrelevant) node.

------
iamelgringo
Is this the right room for an argument?
<http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k3HaRFBSq9k>

~~~
dcurtis
Thank you for that. A full six minutes of mindless humor.

------
Alex3917
I wish more people wrote stuff like this. There are a million writing books on
grammar and style, but god forbid someone ever write something about what
makes good ideas...

~~~
wanorris
As mascarenhas already posted, Aristotle spent quite a bit of time on the
topic, and his ideas are still studied, though perhaps not as widely as they
should be.

~~~
Alex3917
The way I read it, the PG essay was meant less as a statement about the
absolute nature of reality and more as an attempt to get people to suck less.
Even if Aristotle came up with some superset of these ideas 2400 years ago, I
think there is still some value here.

~~~
wanorris
I thought the essay was quite good. I wasn't trying to say that I thought pg
was being redundant.

My point was merely that there has been plenty already written on the subjects
of rhetoric and logic as ways of expressing ideas, and that the topic isn't as
neglected as you seemed to believe in the post I responded to. If you're
looking for more resources on the topic, they're out there.

------
zby
That's a fine hierarchy and all. But I have the feeling that a more efficient
way of conversation is to get rid of the notion of 'winning' and argument and
move to 'solving' the problem. That goes beyond the intellectual and into the
cultural - and that is makes it harder - but it would have also more leverage.

~~~
omouse
Winning is only a problem if your definition of it is fucked up. Winning an
argument means you have found or are closer to a particular truth.

The poisoning of various phrases and words leads to you focus on the emotions
that are evoked rather than the definition.

This is why I dislike arguing about politics or anything else. No one wants to
really argue (where the argument is a logical and reasoned debate), they want
agreement or acknowledgment that their beliefs are okay.

~~~
zby
"Winning an argument means you have found or are closer to a particular truth"
- no, it means that you _convinced others_ that you are closer to a particular
truth.

Definition of win from <http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/win>

transitive verb

1 a: to get possession of by effort or fortune b: to obtain by work : earn
<striving to win a living from the sterile soil>

2 a: to gain in or as if in battle or contest <won the championship> b: to be
the victor in <won the war>

3 a: to make friendly or favorable to oneself or to one's cause —often used
with over<won him over with persuasive arguments> b: to induce to accept
oneself in marriage <was unable to win the woman he loved>

4 a: to obtain (as ore, coal, or clay) by mining b: to prepare (as a vein or
bed) for regular mining c: to recover (as metal) from ore

5: to reach by expenditure of effort

For me the only matching definition is 2a - the argument is the contest and
what you gain is the recognition that you were right.

------
brlewis
This is a nice catalog of some common forms of disagreement, but I'm not
convinced that this set of six is exhaustive, nor am I convinced that if other
forms are added that the set will remain well-ordered.

~~~
pius
I agree that it's nowhere near exhaustive, most obviously because it doesn't
address the ways that writers try to directly deceive the audience (appeals to
flattery, conservatism, etc).

I remember being part of an Academic Games league in high school. One of my
favorite games was simply called "Propaganda." Everyone sat in a big room,
listened to arguments, and identified the type of rhetorical technique being
used. It may sound lame, but it was actually pretty fun and cultivated some
useful skills.

Anyway, here's the technique list they used:
<http://mlagonline.org/Prop_ABCE.pdf> [pdf]

and a more detailed but somewhat different list of logical fallacies:
<http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/>

~~~
xlnt
How do you directly deceive the audience via appeal to conservatism?

~~~
pius
In that case it wouldn't be deceit as much as it is manipulation. To avoid any
political insinuations, I could recast this as appeal to status quo. It's
common to argue against new ideas in this way.

~~~
xlnt
How can you question using conservative arguments? They have been used for
centuries, and they've served us pretty well. :)

~~~
pius
Funny. :D

------
ruricolist
How do you account for disagreeing, not with someone's conclusions, but with
the means that they used to arrive at them?

I usually think it in vain to post a comment on something that I fundamentally
disagree with, because I rarely find an author with a strong point of view who
has not already found a choir to preach to, so that speaking up would be
futile—I would be drowned out, or villanized.

The only kinds of comments which seem to me to be worth making are those in
which: You agree, and offer some novel corroboration; You agree with the
conclusion, but disagree with the means; Or you raise a question, without
treating of the conclusion at all.

The obvious possibility would be to reproduce the entire hierarchy, but to a
different purpose.

DH0: "Stop agreeing with me, you're making me look bad." DH1: "You should let
someone else make that argument." DH2: "That (arrogant,presumptuous,juvenile)
tone won't go over well." DH3: "You're going to offend people who believe X."
DH4: "I heard an argument Y against this," or "How do you solve problem Y"?
DH5: "Have you considered solution Z' to problem Z?" DH6: "You're formulating
your own belief incorrectly."

But I don't think that your bounds hold here. DH0 is still maximally
unhelpful, but DH6 may be just as bad. DH1 may be the wisest advice that you
can receive. DH3 is less helpful than DH2 (better to be asked to express your
beliefs more politely, than to be asked to conceal them). And DH4 is more
polite than DH5 (better to solicit the author's opinion on a difficulty, than
to obtrude your own).

------
codinghorror
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Water_buffalo_incident>

Sometimes when you shout "shut up, you water buffalo", people misunderstand.

It might have been more effective to simply shout "shut up" and leave out the
part that can be misconstrued or misunderstood.

In other words, calling programmers "lions", referring to "zoos", and
anointing a certain set of activities as "natural".. do these things help or
harm the underlying message in the essay?

------
DavidGD620
This is all very well. However, an argument can be based on sound principles
and be can be totally supportable, and yet due to limited speaking or writing
abilities of the adherent, not be convincing. Of course the other is also
true, a good writer or speaker can successfully convince a reader or listener
of a totally false premise.

I see several skills necessary to successfully and accurately lay out a
position. They are:

1\. Ability to write or speak 2\. Depth of knowledge about the subject 3\.
Ability to listen to or read material and understand it to a depth beyond the
superficial. 4\. Ability to analyse--this implies an IQ at least as high as
the speaker or writer. 5, Access to additional material pertinent to the
subject 6\. A world view relatively free from preconceived notions of reality.

I am reminded that when I have arguments about politics, conservative versis
liberal; ie which is a better philosophy--the question has to be asked,
compared to what, for what purpose, etc. The argument to me can have no
resolution.

------
msg
People aren't defined by their arguments. They are defined by their
perspective. Winning arguments change no perspectives (unless you are arguing
with saints).

The reason they don't is that ideas are not trees. There is no root node. We
are not deductive thinkers. We do not trace out the implications of ideas to
their ends because they have no ends.

More often, we learn ideas that ripple a little in the neighborhood while the
rest of our knowledge remains unchanged. Further, in some cases, the evidence
may be mixed, and our idea graph won't change at all.

Kuhn would probably say that there is no way for a scientific revolutionary to
argue with a conventional scientist because the purpose of a revolution is to
change the context to a different set of concerns, a different language, a
different problem.

Einstein couldn't argue with Newtonian physics in Newtonian terms. The point
of general relativity isn't to refute the central point of Newtonian physics
(whether you think that's the inverse square law or gravitation or the laws of
motion, etc.). You might say Einstein was "refuting" some naive conceptions of
space and energy, but no one had proven they were naive before he exposed
them.

Einstein provided a fertile perspective that allowed others to see the old
science and data in a new way. But this has nothing to do with winning
arguments. It's DH{NaN}.

Acting like Einstein's work is a rung up the ladder to Final Physical
Knowledge is a positivist view akin to the belief that evolution is creating
the ubermensch (in some objective sense). There are lots of local minima out
there. There is always another perspective to take on the same data.

Refutation should be reserved for stuff that's obvious to clear-thinking
people.

Of course, that begs the question...

------
danielrm26
Correct me if I'm wrong here, but saying that a senator would vote for a
senate pay raise because they're a senator is not an ad hominem attack. This
argument is saying that there's a conflict of interest regarding what they're
requesting; that's not a personal attack that has nothing to do with the
argument, which is what an ad hominem attack is.

~~~
astine
It's an ad hominem attack if you are attempting to refute an argument they
made for the pay raise.

For example, if a senator gave a speech detailing why senators needed more
money and someone dismissed the arguments based on the senator's sentatorness
rather the quality of the argument's themselves.

Also, an ad hominem is not merely a 'personal attack.' For example, an insult
is not an ad hominem. An ad hominem is an attempt to discredit an argument
based on qualities of the arguer instead of the argument itself. Pointing out
a conflict of interest is an ad hominem attack if you are using it to
discredit an argument.

------
timburks
These are good distinctions, and all categories (especially the lower ones)
are well-represented on sites like digg, reddit, and this one.

But there's at least one more dimension to this that seems completely
orthogonal, and that's identity. If you want your opinion to be appreciated,
then I think that you should be willing to identify yourself. With so much
information competing for my attention, I'm much more willing to pay attention
to people that give me a way to track back to some background on them, whether
they are famous or not. So unless you're worried about your opinion triggering
a nighttime visit from the secret police, don't hide your identity. Mine's
here: <http://blog.neontology.com/about>.

~~~
halostatue
This is similar to my stance that I took last November in my own blog. I no
longer allow anonymous comments. It doesn't matter as much for me because I
don't get many comments, but I have to be able to identify you through an
established web site or via email as a real person before I'll allow comments.

------
gensym
There's a form of disagreement that I don't think fits into the hierarchy -
where, rather than arguing that the author is incorrect, you argue that the
author should not be saying that at all. This relates to the ideas in
<http://www.paulgraham.com/say.html>.

It can be the simple "Hey! I put my braces on the next line, and I take
offense at that!", to the "Arguing that all left-handed programmers write
unmaintainable code is irresponsible because ...".

It's like responding to tone, but you are responding to what is being argued,
rather than how it's written. It might not really be a disagreement since you
aren't saying that the author is incorrect, but neither is "u r a
fag!!!!!!!!!!".

------
interstar
Some time ago I tried to create a discussion forum software which embodied
this kind of classification. Users could write what they liked (including
trolling and name-calling) but all responses had to be given a"type" which
readers could use to sort and filter the threads. "Moderation" was only
through type-changing (ie. the supervisor could reclassify a reply from
"counter-argument" to "name-calling" meaning that it would probably get
filtered, but not delete it entirely)

The software didn't really make it, but there's some interesting discussion
here :
[http://www.nooranch.com/synaesmedia/wiki/wiki.cgi?TypedThrea...](http://www.nooranch.com/synaesmedia/wiki/wiki.cgi?TypedThreadedDiscussion)

------
zoltz
" _Even as high as DH5 we still sometimes see deliberate dishonesty, as when
someone picks out minor points of an argument and refutes those. Sometimes the
spirit in which this is done makes it more of a sophisticated form of ad
hominem than actual refutation. For example, correcting someone's grammar, or
harping on minor mistakes in names or numbers. Unless the opposing argument
actually depends on such things, the only purpose of correcting them is to
discredit ones's opponent._ "

How do you measure the spirit? An author may detect bad spirit everywhere and
take all DH5-but-not-DH6 disagreements as effectively DH1.

Anyway, the quoted paragraph seems very harsh on many small-point DH5
disagreers. Some people just feel the "duty" (xkcd.com/386) to correct
mistakes, without being deliberately dishonest. And there is a lot of
uncharted importance space between grammar mistakes and the central point. As
an example, what if the central point were correct and worthy but illustrated
by two examples, one of them bad? The argument doesn't depend on it, but is it
still clear that the only purpose of correcting the author is to discredit
him?

Why not generalize DH6 from "stating the central point and refuting it" to
"refuting a point and commenting on its importance"? Then you could even
correct grammar mistakes, just add explicitly that you're aware that as a
grammar mistake it's minor. DH6 would no longer imply power or effort, but, as
pointed out in the essay, it already doesn't imply truth.

------
jeremiah
What you are asking for pg is civil discourse. This does not come from
enumerating a disagreement hierarchy. It comes from a learned, well-read
education where public speaking and debate is a part.

In our wonderful country, even in our wonderful wider world, this is sorely
lacking. While your contributions are consistently wise and useful, we need to
work together as a society to fundamentally change the climate for education,
we need to ensure that an excellent education is enjoyed by all, that will
make your hierarchy moot.

------
novelist999
Great article! I'm struggling with how to respond to an argument from a
customer. The customer wrote me a long email, refuting an article I wrote on
the pros and cons of using CSS in web design--setting the priority to high, no
less. In her letter, she tooted her own experience and skills. Your article
helped me realize why her letter rankled me. It wasn't that she was
disagreeing--I'm not passionately for or against CSS and could care less what
she thinks about it. But by citing her credentials the way she did, I felt she
was calling my own into question and using that as her basis of an argument.
So I'd put her debate in the Variant of the DH1. Ad Hominem category.

And I've decided not to respond to her letter, customer or not. Not only
because it was demeaning, but also, because I don't have the time or energy to
launch round two.

This all got me thinking about how tired I am of the way that people on the
net feel they absolutely must write and argue about something-- anything--they
disagree with. So many out there are quick to express their contempt for other
people's ideas and opinions. Most such arguments seem pointless and are
usually fruitless.

If I read something I disagree with on the net, I take from it what I think is
of value and ignore the rest. Time is just to too short.

------
hussong
I think people disagree mainly for two reasons: 1\. rational objection 2\. bad
feelings

For rational objection we have a great system (logic) in place to work it out
and come to a conclusion. This can be very hard and take a lot of time, but it
works--as long as you stick to the path of rational arguments and objective
truth.

So let's take a look at the feelings side of things. Feelings are always true
and subjective. They are inherently irrational and often steer us towards dumb
actions we regret later. They interfere with rationality and usually distort
arguments.

My impression is that people get into emotional discussions and become mean in
order to feel better about themselves by a) expressing bad feelings caused by
a statement b) abreacting bad feelings rooted in something else (merely
triggered by a statement) c) getting positive attention from others (gain
value)

In order to add weight to their statement, people usually pretend to object on
rational grounds. Flamewars can be fun, but from a rational perspective, they
are a waste of time.

Looking at the underlying motivation can help to clarify a messy discussion.
The Harvard Negotiation Project provides an excellent framework for analyzing
and working what's behind the surface.

In the long run, I think we need forms to express bad feelings without
attacking the other or pretending to provide a rational argument. Forms to say
something like: "That hurt (and I don't even know why) and I'm afraid you're
right". This is really hard. The natural reaction would be to feel attacked
and fight back. It also requires trust. Being open about wounds increases
vulnerability and can only work with people you consider to have good
intentions in the first place.

------
Darmani
' The author is a self-important dilettante.

is really nothing more than a pretentious version of "u r a fag."'

This really illustrates to me how fuzzy the border between some of the
hierarchy levels (particularly those that involve orthogonal aspects of the
disagreed piece). If that statement was simply changed to "The author comes
across as a self-important dilettante," I'd classify it as DH2. Even without
the change, "is" can still be interpreted as "seems to probably be based on
what I've just read," and thus that statement can still be placed in both DH2.

As dfranke said elsewhere, rather than being a true linear hierarchy, this is
just hierarchies of various general classes of disagreement forced into a
linear hierarchy, and thus it's possible for a statement to have aspects of
one of DH0-DH1, DH2, and one of DH3-DH6 all at once. E.g.: "How can this idiot
so adamantly argue for intelligent design in the quoted paragraph, when the
presence of vestigial organs proves to the dullest that species descended from
ancestors where the full functions of the organ were beneficial?"

Perhaps the answer is separate hierarchies for the various aspects, or fuzzy
set theory.

------
spongefrob
" A comment like The author is a self-important dilettante. is really nothing
more than a pretentious version of "u r a fag."

Well, such a comment is only " a pretension version " if it is not true... and
in fact becomes trenchant if, in fact, the respondent IS a self-important
dilettante. Which would have bearing on whether or not to engage the person at
all... I would not disagree with a person because I thought them a faq, mainly
because I don't think a faq is either a bad thing or a thing relevant to many
issues I would normally discuss. I would most likely not engage with someone
if I thought they were a self-important dilettante, because I DO think that
both self-importance and dilettantism is bad. Or, at least, I would say to
them, "I think you are a self-important dilettante and I don't have hopes that
the conversation will be either enlightening or productive. If we are to
engage, you have to rise above your self importance."

Of course, the accusation of dilettantism might be as baseless and rude as
that of 'u r a faq' and likewise deserving of scorn. But not always and
dismissing it with equal scorn in every instance may be a way of avoiding
scrutinizing your own sense of importance and the meaning of dilettantism.

Graham also elides a whole cateqory of 'disagreement' with the implicit
assumption that everybody has something worthwhile to say and is therefor
deserving of being engaged. "u r a fag" is neither agreement nor disagreement,
but simple bad manners. "You are a self-important dilettante" might be a
necessary thing to say, especially if the dilettante in question may be in
possession of a good brain and otherwise discerning intellect (say on matters
not bearing on his/her self-importance...) Intellectual endeavor is approached
at with different skill sets, attitudes and skin thickness...

------
PieSquared
What do you gain by talking to someone on the internet anyway? Why am I even
responding to this essay, or to your comment?

It's probably because it's interesting for me to do so, to see others' views.
When I disagree, I tend to enjoy it if people come back and argue. I don't
really do it because I care whether the other person comes to see my point of
view - although it is more fun when they do, of course. Maybe some people
enjoy yelling things such as, "u r a fag!!!!", although personally I can't say
I understand those people...

It's useless to try and convince them otherwise for the most part - I don't
think they'd listen to you in the first place.

As for the essay itself, I just wish more people would consciously THINK about
how they talk to others. It would make the internet and the world a nicer
place. (Oh, and that first part, DH0, seemed to me as if it was addressed
directly towards Jeff's of Coding Horror response to PG's last essay. But I
can't say I disagree - I was actually rather shocked to see such a, umm,
'vehement', response. Another instance of what people probably wouldn't say in
person.)

------
trontonic
It's the other way around. Moving up the DH-hierarchy doesn't make people less
mean. It's just that less mean people have a tendency to move up the DH-
hierarchy. This is based on my personal experience. Since you're the one
making the original statement without supporting evidence, I feel that the
burden of finding evidence should be on you, that's why this isn't a
DH3-statement, but DH7. ;)

Thanks for the read.

~~~
nostrademons
"It's just that less mean people have a tendency to move up the DH-hierarchy."

How did you intend for that to be parsed, (fewer (mean people)) or ((less
mean) people)?

~~~
trontonic
((less mean) people)

------
startupcrazy
Indeed, to really address someone's arguments well enough to try to change
their opinion takes a lot of time and effort. The question is, what is the
benefit to you of doing that? If it is a real live friend that you are going
to spend a lot of time with it may be worth the effort as they become perhaps
a more enjoyable friend to spend time with (e.g. a friend who keeps telling
you what a Great job George Bush is doing may begin to grate on the nerves).
However, a stranger on the Internet you only know by a fake name, if you
refute their arguments and win them over, it is not clear that you gain much.
They go away. So, in casual conversation such as in these responses here or in
Reddit, where everything is anonymous and long term relationship is not
likely, it is easier and perhaps more satisfying just to call them an ass.
Perhaps this would change in a reddit embedded withing a facebook where there
is more relationship context for the conversation and where perhaps, there is
more to be clearly gained by changing someones mind about something.

------
ix
An interesting article, expanding from means of disagreeing to methods used
I'd add a few observations. There's the shotgun refutation where a poster
quotes almost every part of a post with a weak disagreement making responding
to every point almost impossible and there's the essayist who writes a
needlessly long response making finding and responding to their central point
much harder. Essayists often use deliberately ambiguous passages so they can
claim you don't understand rather than explaining clearly.

Another internet or more general debate strategy is to refer to the voluminous
works of others as if you've read them and behave as if your opponent cannot
respond until they've read every last page, often with little attempt to
explain or apply the supposed arguments and facts that come from those
sources.

Most internet posters are unable to state things clearly, partly because
people are taught to obfuscate and because they're embarassed to put their
points in view so nakedly.

~~~
cabalamat
ix: <i>"Most internet posters are unable to state things clearly [...] because
they're embarassed to put their points in view so nakedly."</i>

This is even more true of politicians. From Orwell's <i>Politics and the
English Language</i>:

In our time, political speech and writing are largely the defense of the
indefensible. Things like the continuance of British rule in India, the
Russian purges and deportations, the dropping of the atom bombs on Japan, can
indeed be defended, but only by arguments which are too brutal for most people
to face, and which do not square with the professed aims of the political
parties. Thus political language has to consist largely of euphemism,
question-begging and sheer cloudy vagueness. Defenseless villages are
bombarded from the air, the inhabitants driven out into the countryside, the
cattle machine-gunned, the huts set on fire with incendiary bullets: this is
called pacification. Millions of peasants are robbed of their farms and sent
trudging along the roads with no more than they can carry: this is called
transfer of population or rectification of frontiers.

------
potatohead
Nicely done, and thank you as always for the thought provoking read.
Absolutely love your essays.

Enjoy your weekend!

Another thing, along the same web conversation line is the dodge. I have found
this very curious and am always fascinated by it.

Essentially, there is a conversation going on. Somebody has posted up
something they characterize as factual, the truth, majority view, correct,
etc... Somebody else then has their say and after some banter back and forth,
it's clear one or the other just isn't correct.

This does not mean the other parties are correct either, just that we have one
that is known not to be correct in the conversation.

At this point, we should then expect to see some acceptance, but we don't.
That's the dodge right there. A successful dodge means being able to bring
that battered point up, in a given venue, over and over and over again.

Frustrating, and also highly entertaining, if you like seeing new forms
manifest!

Some that I've seen play out: (some are likely subsets or minor variations of
others -->this is just a list compiled over a coupla years talking politics
with a close circle of people)

1\. Subject change

2\. Claim of too many opponents

3\. Claim to either be a member of, or opponents of discussion being members
of club, with said membership somehow required to complete what is otherwise a
non-rational conclusion.

4\. Silence

5\. Claim of overall subject and or implications of subject complexity being
greater than scope of discussion

6\. Invoke false comparison

7\. Transform rational argument into emotional one

8\. The Bible says...

9\. Invoke redefinition of common words

10\. Invoke slippery label to redefine winners primary point at hand

11\. Claim of invalid higher authority / Claim of no high authority

12\. Obsfucation, where some degree of acceptance is seen, but wrapped in
difficult to reference terms

13\. "I forgot, could you remind me again?", used to force other parties to
tire of the subject and move on.

14\. Necessary party unavailable for comment.

Some of these could be valid, depending on the context. I've got those listed
here, with the assumption that it's really a dodge and that context is not at
issue.

------
Rcomian
This is a good basic model and reminds me somewhat of the levels used in
spiral-dynamics and similar systems, see the table in:
<http://www.spiraldynamics.org/aboutsd_overview.htm>

However, only levels DH3 and upwards follow the model of including the
previous levels and adding enhancements, the first 2 levels are another mini-
hierarchy, and DH2 is almost a category on it's own. Perhaps this might be
modelled better with a dimension-level mapping. This also follows the ethos,
pathos and logos.

This will allow analysis and levelling of each form of argument: DH0 -> DE:0
DH1 -> DE:1 DH2 -> DP:0 DH3 -> DL:0 DH4 -> DL:1 DH5 -> DL:2 DH6 -> DL:3

I also like the concept of DH7 which explicitly argues against the strongest
form of the statement. DH7 -> DL:4

------
jcphill
The style of argument you call "Ad Hominem" should really be called "Attacking
the author's credibility". The original meaning of ad hominem was not
attaching the author but rather appealing to the readers emotions rather than
logic. Hence, "think of all the children who will starve due to biofuels",
which contains the embedded assumption that biofuels will cause starvation but
does not support that argument. In most cases attacks on the author's
credibility are useful and valid, since the reader will tend to rely on
evidence as presented. In addition, the motivation of the author is relevant
since most people decide their position on an issue and then seek supporting
evidence rather than surveying all of the evidence before making up their
minds.

~~~
cabalamat
You say "The original meaning of ad hominem was not attaching the author but
rather appealing to the readers emotions rather than logic."

I don't think you're right here; "Ad hominem" in Latin means "to the man",
implying attacking the original author.

~~~
kerrynitz
appealing "to the man", perhaps?

~~~
mejohnsn
Interesting guess, but no. The preposition 'ad' in "ad hominem" carries an
_adversarial_ connotation. In this sense, it is like "adversus".

------
lukeprog
Epic. In my dreams, this article will become so popular that political
commentators will use your Disagreement Hierarchy to evaluate political
speeches. (Most political debate rarely rises above DH4.)

I'm going to reference your article every time I respond to criticism. Thank
you.

Love your other stuff, too, Paul.

------
patternator
I wonder if the scale doesn't go high enough. It's hard to say because it's
not clear what the goal of "disagreeing" is. If it's to convince the other
person of your own perspective, then I humbly submit that none of these is
likely to get you there.

What about the dialectic? What about appealing to common values or goals, and
drawing connections between these common values or goals and your own
argument? Maybe these approaches are too large in scope to be contained -- or,
for that matter, likely to succeed -- within a single comment or comment
thread, but I believe it's "higher" on the scale and, when practiced well,
more likely to pursuade others than simply demolishing their arguments or
employing the other tactics on down the list.

Or perhaps I've missed the goal of the essay?

------
cabalamat
As well as having a hierarchy of disagreement it seems to me useful to have a
categorisation of statements (both in original essays, and disagreements with
those essays). Such a categorisation might include:

* [1] statements of how the world is. These are statements that can in principle be tested by experiment. e.g. "broken glass is good to eat"

* [2] statements of how one would like the world to be. These obviously can't be tested. e.g. "Everyone should like cats."

* [3] definitions of terms. Where people describe how they are defining a term they'll b e using for the rest of the essay.

It seems to me that with poorly-written arguments, it's often hard to decipher
which category a particular statement belongs to; and i suspect in many cases
the writer doesn't know either.

~~~
kerrynitz
In economics they call type [1] positive and type [2] normative - the
implication being that economics only deals with positive questions and tells
us nothing about normative questions (how should the world be). When I studied
a bit of sociology they took an approach borrowed from philosophy in
categorising methods (and effectively split up type [1]): they were interested
in how the theory (substitute argument here) addressed the questions of [a]
what is the nature of the problem (ie ontology or how the world is), and [b]
what can we know about it (ie epistemology). How you answer questions of type
[b] determines whether type [1] statements can "be tested by experiment" - ie
not everything that is in the world can "in principle be tested by
experiment". For example, often whilst we can say that A is generally followed
by B, and so infer that A at least partially causes B (whilst causation does
not imply correlation we usually infer it does if we have some plausible
mechanism in mind for why it should), but that in itself can not reveal
precisely to us exactly why A causes B - ie how the mechanism works exactly.
Most writers tend not to explicitly reveal their views on [b] and so we are
left to infer them. As to identifying type [2] statements, the verbs "want",
"should", "prefer" are dead give-aways but the problem lies when they are
dropped from the sentence - eg cabalamat's example becomes "Everyone likes
cats". Using [b], we can ask whether it is possible to know this, which might
help identify it as a type [2].

~~~
cabalamat
kerrynitz: but the problem lies when they are dropped from the sentence - eg
cabalamat's example becomes "Everyone likes cats"

Or even better a statement like "all decent people like cats". This has the
form of a type [1] statement but the meaning of a type [2] statement.

------
jkhart
As I began to read Paul's essay, I couldn't help but be reminded of a book I
read about a year ago, "Crimes Against Logic" by Jamie Whyte. DH1 Ad Hominem
almost defines our political system. From the book: "The motive fallacy is so
common in politics that serious policy debate is almost nonexistent. The
announcement of a new policy is greeted, not with a discussion of its alleged
merits, but with a flurry of speculation from journalists and political
opponents regarding the politician's motives for announcing it. He wants to
appease the right wing of his party, or is trying to win favor in marginal
rural states, or is bowing to the racist clamoring of the gutter press, or
what-have-you."

------
dfranke
I think there's a lot of useful criticism of arguments that falls outside this
hierarchy. You can attack an argument without ever disagreeing with it, such
as by challenging its interestingness or applicability or its relevance to the
rest of the discussion. Where does this comment fall in the hierarchy?

I think what's really going on here is that the hierarchy isn't actually a
hierarchy. In a proper hierarchy, each level should necessarily entail the
previous. Here DH1 entails DH0 (I call DH0 "ordinary ad hominem" and DH1
"circumstantial ad hominem") and DH6 entails DH5 entails DH4 entails DH3. But
DH2 has nothing to do with any of the others, and DH3 has nothing to do with
any of the previous.

------
mynameishere
_The next level up we start to see responses to the writing, rather than the
writer. The lowest form of these is to disagree with the author's tone._

<http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=123400>

~~~
PieSquared
Just so we have some variety on the DH's:

DH1: Hmm... Same author of the article and of the comment... :)

Honestly though, I don't think you should be too insulted. Everyone has
moments when perhaps they aren't particularly prime to good comments, although
I suppose it would be a bit better had pg said something along the lines of,
"Support that instead of just saying it" or asked for an actual discussion
instead of what seemed like a loud (from the caps) one-line outburst.

------
mt
What about objections? Specifically, what about implicit objections of the
form "What about [thing you did not mention but by implication ought to have,
in light of which your argument is incomplete and/or inelegantly articulable
and therefore as good as refuted for the purposed of this forum]?"

Also, do you not believe in refutation by _reductio ad absurdum_? I'm thinking
your system is liable to classify a reductio as a mere contradiction, if not
"mean."

And how about "meta" comments regarding the framing of the issue or whether an
assumed issue really is an issue or can be addressed properly prior to some
other issue?

------
mejohnsn
Speaking of disgreeing, I found a lot to disagree with in this article. But
since I see many of my objections have already been stated by others adding
comments, I will restrict myself to a few comments:

1) I have been surprised at what a _variety_ of definitions I have found the
for terms PG uses to describe fallacies. People do _not_ agree on the
definition for, say, "ad hominem". See, for example, the differing definitions
on the following sites, which purport to give definitions for the major
fallacies:

a) <http://theautonomist.com/aaphp/permanent/fallacies.php#adhom>

Ad hominem fallacy - (against the man). Ad hominem is the attempt to impugn an
argument by attacking the arguer's character, motives, personality,
intentions, or qualifications. b)
[http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/mathew/logic.html#hom...](http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/mathew/logic.html#hominem),
which gives not only a very different definition, but a much wordier one. c)
<http://www.galilean-library.org/manuscript.php?postid=43794>

No two give the same definition!

2) That " u r a fag" is NOT equivalent to " The author is a self-important
dilettante." has already been mentioned by others, and it hardly requires more
substantiation.

3) I am by no means convinced that the proposed hierarchy of disagreement even
sets an "upper bound". There is too much overlap, the boundaries are vague (as
has already been pointed out by others), and it is much, _much_ too easy to
make your argument _look_ like DH6, when it is really nothing like it.

Surely this is a common experience. I have often seen some public speaker make
a rousing speech to encourage people to do something, yet the _entire_ speech
had only either exhortation or fallacious arguments, yet his intended audience
swallowed it whole, taking it for a DH6 level refutation.

4) Finally, it is too easy to sink to a low level of non-argument, lower than
even DH1, without fitting into any of these categories. If you don't know how
to do this, go into advertising; you will learn quickly;)

------
danclarke_2000
Who the hell does this guy think he is? A background in programming does not
make somebody qualified to broadly classify and stereotype as invalid entire
classes of arguments. Frankly the entire piece can be summarised as a self-
gratifying ego inflationary tripe that serves only to reinforce the authors
misguided belief that people care enough about what he says to discount
anecdotal evidence and millenia of debating technique evolution.

Can someone else continue through levels 4-7 ?

------
Torley
Friendly greetings! Just wanted to say thanks for writing this, it raises many
good points, some which I wanted to see articulated a _lot_ more. I'm not a
fan of "BLAHBLAHBLAH WORDWARS" on forums and such where people are vehemently
disagreeing and not getting anything done... what a sucky time-sink.

The "Name-calling" section is terribly true, as there are sadly mistaken folk
who think gussying up words will make for more "refined" insults, but in the
end, it just shows contempt and is not an actual barometer of intelligence or
purpose.

Cheerz!

------
pickleops
In high school debate, DH4:Counterargument is displayed all the time by novice
debaters. The phenomenon on my team was taught and cautioned against as "two
ships passing in the night." Imagine a debate: each case was strong and big
and impressive but the debaters' responses to one another were off the mark.
Their arguments never met and rebuttals hit upon phantom contentions as each
debater misunderstood or misconstrued the essential points of the opposing
case/debater like "two ships passing in the night."

------
BillDrissel
Paul, I like your DH scale. Something too little appreciated: the DH1
argument: Dr XXX is wrong because he's a tool of the YYY industry is an "ad
hominem" argument but so is Dr XXX is right because he's a Distinguished Prof
at ZZZ University.

People who can't understand an argument are reduced to "who ya gonna believe?"
Then we begin to hear about sources of funding, motivation, nationality,
religion etc.

I'm glad to see that you place all these arguments down near the name-calling
level.

I enjoy your essays, Bill Drissel Grand Prairie, TX

~~~
mejohnsn
Ah, another example of how A"ad hominem" is misused;) Please see my other
reply listing three different sites using three different definitions of "ad
hominem". None of those definitions support your example. Rather, saying it is
so because "he's a distinguised prof" is an appeal to authority, which is not
_always_ a fallacy.

------
mejohnsn
As I read this, I now feel an even stronger need to take exception to DH4.
Graham has used the same 'DH4' to classify both the legitimate
counterargument, and the fallacy, so well described by another commentator as
"two ships passing each other in the night".

Then again, this particular form of DH4 cannot happen unless generously
supported by some _other_ fallacy or fallacies. Otherwise it would be too
obvious that they were "passing each other in the night", and no one would be
convinced by the arguments.

------
christefano
Personally, I think the essay is a poor abbreviation of "A List of Fallacious
Arguments" with too much emphasis on eristics and not enough on human nature
and psychology.

<http://www.don-lindsay-archive.org/skeptic/arguments.html>

Then again, the essay was written with a specific audience in mind. As it
happens, I'm pretty sure I'm more a part of that audience than not.

------
JesseAldridge
On my to-do someday list is a site for recording and organizing debates.
Arguments would appear as boxes of text, organized into a tree structure.
Opposing arguments could be added as children to a parent node. Arguments
could be filtered by up/down voting or some other system. Debate trees could
be searched. Etc...

Somebody really should make this. I remember messing with some Flash site
somewhere that did something similar, but the interface was pretty lowzy.

~~~
wallflower
I think you're on to something here. If the debates weren't structured (e.g.
on a single site) but distributed across blogs.

Something that can automatically categorize the blogosphere discussion - e.g.
who's agreeing/who's disagreeing (what's the median level of
agreement/disagreement). I'd like it for the sole feature of finding/filtering
out the (sometimes useless) echo-chamber opinions - to surface the divergent
disagreements/opinions

User-originated voting is good but combining it with intelligent algorithmic
appraisal (what they are voting by what they are saying) might be interesting

------
valz
Thank you for your good advice. However, I respectfully disagree with your
last point: "...the greatest benefit of disagreeing well is ... that it will
make the people who have them happier." While disagreeing well undoubtedly
does remove ill temper from discussions, I see a much greater benefit, one
that everything else in your illuminating article leads towards: reasoned
disagreement helps us arrive at the truth.

------
kgb4pl
One type Paul hasn't mentioned here is the who-are-you-to-talk. Particularly
when responding to a moral argument, plenty of people love to point out how
the author herself may have transgressed at some stage in life. It is as if
honest confessor has no business opining strongly against what he once did.
This appears to me as the most tangential of all forms of disagreement.
Thoughts?

------
steck
Curiously, I've heard DH1 (ad hominem) invoked in Computer Science circles.
More than once, I've heard someone say that it's likely that P != NP, because
lots of Very Smart People who've Worked Very Hard on the problem, and haven't
able to collapse them. Of course, this isn't really a use of ad hominem
argument in disagreement, it's a use in support of a claim.

------
projectshave
On a related note, I saw an old interview with William F Buckley about his
show Firing Line. He mentioned that he had a chapter in an earlier book that
described various debate tactics used by his guests. He described a few in the
interview that I immediately recognized in online comments, too. Sadly, I
don't know which book has this chapter.

------
R_S_Martin
I saw a diagram for Graham's Hierarchy of Disagreement on wikipedia
(<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Resolving_disputes>). I typed the
title into Google search engine and found this article. This is going to make
my life better. Thanks!

------
suvrochatterjee
I find not only the essay itself delightful but the fact that there are
apparently many people around still (as the comments which have already come
in show) who are still able and willing to argue sensibly, politely and in an
informed manner over serious things! Many thanks, Paul. Mind if I link your
blog to mine?

------
stevetose
I believe the author, who is self-important, is calling me a dilettante
(clearly he would say that, he's a writer). He's wrong. He thinks people
shouldn't argue. His main point seems to be that people will be happier if
they agree with him, but I'm enjoying this post anyway. And he said, "people
are getting angrier". Jerk.

------
matthewencinas
For anyone interested in learning about arguments and how to spot common
logical fallacies like the ad hominem attack i would recommend the podcast
"LSAT Logic in Everyday Life" from the Princeton Review.

<http://www.princetonreview.com/podcasts/lsat.asp>

Great post by the way!

------
wrf3
You might want to consider adding:

DH2.5. Denial

The form of this response is the basic "no, it isn't", without any other
supporting details. As such, it falls below "DH3. Contradiction", which at
least tries to advance the argument, even if not very well. Monty Python's
"Argument Clinic" provides a well-known and amusing example of this.

------
chrisl
I think the interesting part about this is how simple it is. It's easy enough
to call someone out on a bad argument, but having this implies that we could
simply point people to a reference number, thus saving intelligent people from
being forced to reexplain logical errors made over and over again.

------
brentrockwood
While some of the lower forms may not be effective in refuting an argument,
they may be effective in its discussion. For example, pointing out bias may be
considered an ad hominem attack. However, it may also be useful to others
while forming their own opinions on the validity of a statement.

------
pixcavator
If you want DH5-DH6, my advice is: stay away from metaphors! People will react
to your metaphor first ("so-and-so is dead", "so-and-so is a lion in a cage"
etc) instead of your main thesis. Metaphors aren't "isomorphisms", sorry. They
make things more colorful but can't be refuted rationally.

------
Onofreiciuc
The word "mean", has contradictory means: "the more mean [a person is], the
less means [it provides]". This creates a new type of contradiction: language
disagreement; with the easiest solution translation in a second language.

English is an awful language; Paul, I would prefer to read you in Latin or
Greek.

~~~
mejohnsn
Sed quare? Latina autem lengua tenet haec difficultates.

------
heteronymous
I definitely appreciated this articulate and concise article.

I feel quite strongly that what you've described about "the web" is in fact
symptomatic (probably not causal, however) of what ails communication as a
whole, in this country - with regard to coherent dialog & debate, or lack
thereof.

------
mattmaroon
u r a fag!!!!!!!!!!

~~~
jimbokun
What's the hierarchy level for failed attempts at humor?

~~~
mattmaroon
It might have been a little obvious, but it was still funny.

~~~
xlnt
It was pretty nub. You forgot the 1's mixed in!!!1!111

~~~
mattmaroon
I pasted from PG's article, but yeah, there should be some 1's.

------
uscgrad
If you wish to see DH6 in action and completely for religion, Berkeley, Kant
and the scientific exploration of the grand unificaiton theory at LCH, purchse
"The Nightmare Treacheries" by Scott St. Clair Henderson

------
jjobrien
The Disagreement Hierarchy has now been included in Wikipedia. Please see
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Disagreement_Hierarchy> .

------
lcm133
Check out this essay in the form of a graphic:
[http://blog.createdebate.com/2008/04/07/how-to-write-
strong-...](http://blog.createdebate.com/2008/04/07/how-to-write-strong-
arguments/)

------
MikeB1
I can't disagree. Your first paragraph seems like an extension of Linus's Law
("Given enough eyeballs, all bugs are shallow") from the realm of software
development to the realm of public discourse.

------
Web_Design_Firm
Very informative article. Even most of the comments here provide good insight
into the matter. I, for one, would surely pause for a few seconds from now on
before submitting comments.

------
xufycius
Lovely essay, I have translated it into swedish:
<http://kyrkansframtid.se/2008/07/hur-man-ar-oense/>

------
uscgrad
If you wish to read DH6 in action and completely for Religion, Science and the
grand unification theory at LHC, read the Nightmare Treacheries by Scott St.
Clair Henderson

------
trekker7
I thought this was one of PG's best essays. A lot of the other ones are
motivational or thought-provoking, but in terms of usefulness and clear
thinking, this was it.

------
qdub
Just looking at these comments, Paul should follow up with an article on how
to be succinct. People can be such drags when they are trying hard to sound
intelligent.

------
gavagai
Nice article, and timely. But I believe your senators' salary example is
technically a genetic fallacy, not ad hominem. Could be wrong - it's happened
before ;-)

------
markaa
Wow! So needed, but probably only 1% of those who need this will read it.
Helps me understand why there is so much negative response on the internet.
markaa

------
Kisil
It's a brilliant essay, but then what do you expect from Paul Graham? It's
eloquently put and finely crafted. This is a really interesting analytical
tool.

I think there's some amusement to be found in an agreement hierarchy:

    
    
      AH-0: Raw compliments.
      AH-1: Ad hominem compliments.
      AH-2: Compliments on style.
      AH-3: Agreement with the main point.
      AH-4: Extension of a minor point.
      AH-5: Major corollary; extension of the main point
      AH-6: Citation to make another, more overarching point.
    

Can anyone beat me up the ladder to AH-5?

------
thelifeexamined
This is superb; thank you for taking your time to write a meaningful post that
is not only applicable to the internet, but normal life!

------
frymaster
I really shouldn't comment because I haven't read through this mountain of
comments. So I won't. But thanks all the same.

------
jayf
there's also: Questioning the assumptions upon which an argument is being
made. This isn't so much refuting an argument, central or otherwise. Rather it
is exposing (potentially) flawed logic and/or uncovering fallacies or creative
embellishments upon which a seemingly sound argument may rest.

------
jeffbeck
I disagree with the article. I have no basis for disagreement other than the
need and desire to be contrary.

------
smitty
i am loving this razor sharp thinking and critique; it must be emblematic of
the hacker type but i appreciate it. i am from the music world where
everything is fuzzy and sort of. i mean, who writes a critique of
disagreements? coolest thing ever. nice contribution to elevation of species.

------
ddelony
It seems that things you can't say seem to trigger the lower levels of the
disagreement hierarchy the most.

------
Picayune
Satire! You need to examine more the value of Mark Twain's ability to
enlighten thru same.

------
potatohead
Just saw the DH2.5 - Denial comment. That's where the list of dodges is aimed
at.

------
summertime
EXXXXCELLENT. Thank you. Got here from Unfair Doctrine blog. Sail on!

------
delfin
Brilliant, worth a read "the Art of Controversy by Arthur Schopenhauer".

------
davidw
Maybe "DHH" could be responding with insults, like "f __* you" ? ;-)

------
wallflower
If you "win" an argument (especially in person), are you really winning?

~~~
aston
Are you questioning whether it's important to argue, or whether it's important
to win?

~~~
wallflower
I was hanging out the other day at a mixer and the subject of travel came up.
There were some well-traveled people but it evolved into a pissing contest,
their travel resume vs. the other person's. It seemed almost they were trying
to one-up the other even when talking about their personal experiences (e.g.
Punta Cana is alright for scuba. But. Have you been to Dominica? No? Well let
me tell you...)

Reading this YC thread, I was reminded of observing this party talk/jousting
and had the deep thought that if we hold an agenda (e.g. He's wrong or I'm
better than that guy) we lose out when it comes down to it - we don't really
listen or learn anything from the other person because we're too focused on
proving the muzak in our head that we're right

~~~
xlnt
if one side "wins" an argument that means the losing side gets ruled out. thus
you _both win_ in the search for the truth, because you've discovered that a
particular position is false.

~~~
wallflower
"The truth isn't always beauty, but the hunger for it is." Nadine Gordimer,
Nobel Prize laureate

------
noonespecial
Oh nice! Now instead of wasting all of that typing on _"u r a fag"_ and other
namecalling, I can just use:

author <\- DH0;

Thanks Paul!

~~~
xlnt
are you _sure_ that's shorter?

------
varkenjaaba
Dear PG,

u r a fag!!!!!!!!!!

There. Somebody had to do it.

------
soyapi
Impressed to see that no-one here is suggesting a Disagreement Hierarchy: DHH.

And no I didn't.

------
wallflower
"You do not truly know someone until you fight them" Seraph, The Matrix

~~~
wanorris
Pithy quote, but do you believe the substance of it in this instance?

~~~
wallflower
In the context/situation, talking about disagreement, I think a little
conflict/drama is necessary to demonstrate how a person reacts and reveal a
little more about who he/she is.

I like the quote because it reminds me that even the most logical people may
default to reacting non-logically/emotionally in a stressful situation (where
they may feel their ego is threatened e.g. have to "fight" to protect
themselves)

------
rags
u r a fag!!!!!!

------
ProkofyNeva
I couldn't disagree more. This cultivated and mannered ideal that you espouse
is rarely practiced on any real blog or forum with a passionate community, or
an intelligent community versed in the issues, and that's _ok_. And your
effort to put this out here like the 10 Commandments is just a typical male,
geeky bloggy power play. And there, that may be an intolerable insult; it may
even be incorrect! but it's not an ad hominem attack, what would be an hominem
is to say that your argument is discredited because your name is Paul or you
are white. Geeks and males and bloggers need to be characterized, judged, and
condemned where necessary, without fear of favour.

It's all about trying to _control other people_ when you put up one of these
classic manipulative blog how-tos deliberately in a format to guarantee
constant Google-fetching and repasting. These various Internet memes like "OMG
don't have a flamewar!" OR "OMG don't feed the trolls" -- these are just
tribalist imperatives that lead to horridly dull conformity and spread an
awful pall over most social media. Argument is very, very important, and if it
gets heated, and sparks fly, good! It's real!

Times vs. Sullivan, the landmark Supreme Court case that is a keystone of a
lot of media freedom in the US, says basically it is ok to call someone a
name. It's ok. It is allowed speech. And that's the sort of robust speech that
occurs in a democracy.

It's very important to respond instantly to tone. Tone is what people think
they can smuggle in, often, in the emotional medium of forums and blogs, and
imagine they can get away with leaving these emotional trapdoors around for
people to respond to instinctively, and it's good to bring it to light. They
need to be called on it. Instantly. And fiercely sometimes. The tone you are
taking here is preachy and hortatory. But one can only say, oh, stop it. Are
you smug about all the fanboyz below, about all the people who will cut and
paste your link like some latter-day Dear Abby?

Neuralgic types often imagine there is an ad hominem attack, when in fact
there's a quite unbiased report. And they often call "ad hominem" something
that is a much needed judgement about a person that really needs to be made.

Gregfjohnson is good to remember Aquinas here. But Aquinas also conceived of a
number of ways for virtuous men to reach Heaven even if they were not
believers or baptised or following the scriptures; had the different
categories of those "saved" met each other and converse, the one might be
astounded at the heresy and dissent of the other!

Re-stating people's arguments often infuriates them precisely because they
don't want to be summarized and fed back in stark form, or take consequence
for the tone and the hidden agendas they try to smuggle into forums and blogs.
So it's not a magic bullet.

The surest way for a forums discussion to go downhill is for some smug nit to
go and pull up some "rules of rhetoric" and beginning banging on somebody's
head that they are breaking some arcane "law of logic". Oh, _do_ stop it.
People need to express themselves. They know exactly what they are hearing in
tone and implication, and they are right to respond to it.

~~~
Rcomian
I think you might be on to something, if you're saying that a personal or
tonal response might be necessary to certain articles. Someone earlier
mentioned the Ethos, Pathos and Logos vectors for disagreement, which I love.
I read what you're saying as that just because an attack is on the person,
doesn't mean it's irrelevant, which I think might be true. This means that
there's different targets here and qualities of argument on each target. I've
got a comment somewhere on adding dimensions to these levels and splitting
them out, although the examples I gave can be improved on I'm sure. I think
it's fair to say that most name calling on the internet is of a low level
variety, hence why it might get munged into a single list like this and placed
at a low level, however a personal attack may take a higher and more-
legitimate form, although I've not come to any examples of that. There is a
question on the legitimacy of arguing against anything other than the actual
logic of the argument - I'll leave that to others to work out, I'm happy to
say that there are different lines to attack on, and different qualities of
attack on each level. I'll assume that the relevant line is dependant on the
post and the respondent. What I think is worth taking away from this is that
the level of argument raised in the response should be as high as possible.

~~~
scrathberry
u r a fag

------
albertcardona
Some thoughts. I often wonder what is Paul Graham currently doing, what
captures his interest at the moment. I have developed a "social consequences"
approach to both the planning and observation of human interactions -and I
think Paul does as well, in his own way. [So does Clay Shirky too.]

Recently we've seen comments and motions here that, on hindsight, explain the
new article: Paul is working on keeping this forum healthy, creative, useful,
attractive, alive. Thanks man, I am learning.

------
joshua_steffan
"You can't call me an idiot", cried the idiot. That's Ad Hominem, y'know!

------
vlad
WHY?

~~~
xlnt
BECAUSE!

------
DayTradersWin
I like where you are going with this business of disagreeing. I'm drawn to the
subject.

Question is - what are you (and now, we) really trying to accomplish here -
the issue/concern disagreeing?

As Well: What's the context (purpose) for all this disagreeing you talk about?
For bringing this subject up for view, in the first place?

    
    
       Is it to be right (a bit of arrogance) and try to make the other guy wrong? 
       Is it to get to what works - to learn to say or do something better together (personally or professionally)
    

What are you looking for - what do you want to change or happen - as an end
result of the discourse - disagreement?

John McLaughlin, Day Traders - Consultant / Coach www.DayTradersWin.com

