

Pg's Hierarchy of Disagreement Represented Graphically - edw519
http://blog.createdebate.com/2008/04/07/how-to-write-strong-arguments/

======
kurtosis
The pyramid representation is possibly misleading - at first glance I took it
to mean that DH6 arguments stand on a foundation of ad hominem and name
calling :)

~~~
neilc
Yeah, I think that's exactly right: I think a pyramid naturally expresses a
hierarchy of categories, with the category at the top being inclusive of the
lower categories (think Maslow's hierarchy of needs: the higher needs are only
relevant once the lower needs have been satisfied). That's clearly not the
case here.

A misleading diagram is worse than no diagram at all.

------
jws
Is it just me, or do other people have a nearly uncontrollable urge to respond
to DH postings with an argument that uses all 7 categories?

I think I could succeed on this one, except for DH2. Still awaiting my perfect
opportunity.

~~~
jkush
I don't think you could succeed. First of all your self-abasing statement that
you could succeed _except_ for DH2 is an obvious ploy to catch us off guard.
Nice try.

Secondly, I don't like your tone. Not one bit, sir. Who, exactly are you to
try arguing using all 7 categories? Oh, you're a hacker you say? Well, of
_course_ a hacker would think they could argue using all 7 categories! I stand
corrected!

p.s.ur gay.

(I think you might be right, it IS hard to use all 7 categories and remain
coherent).

------
edw519
Real hackers do it in ascii.

    
    
                          /\
                         /  \
                        /    \
                       / DH6. \
                      / Refute \ 
                     /   the    \
                    /  Central   \
                   /    Point     \
                  /----------------\
                 / DH5. Refutation  \
                /--------------------\
               / DH4. Counterargument \
              /------------------------\ 
             /    DH3. Contradiction    \
            /----------------------------\
           /    DH2. Responding to Tone   \
          /--------------------------------\
         /         DH1. Ad Hominem          \
        /------------------------------------\
       /          DH0. Name Calling           \
      /----------------------------------------\

~~~
comatose_kid
Unfortunately, the average Digg poster will see this and apply the 'Food
Pyramid' rules - 'Today's posts will contain at least 15 DH0s, 8 DH1s,...' and
so on. DH6 will be used sparingly, since it is at the top of the pyramid.

~~~
jcl
Actually, the USDA revised the Food Pyramid so that all the food groups are
vertical slices, and there are steps up the side for jogging:

<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MyPyramid>

I suppose you could do the same for the Disagreement Hierarchy, but it would
be harder to draw in ASCII. On the other hand, you could have a diving board
sticking out of DH0 for jumping to conclusions.

~~~
dcurtis
Oh my god. That is just comical. They took the food pyramid and, to my utter
amazement, made it WORSE than before.

------
tptacek
Can it possibly be true that it's more substantive to comment on the tone of
an argument than the authority of the the arguer? Most arguments have coded
appeals to authority in them.

~~~
sethg
"You should trust X's judgement because X is an expert in his field" and "You
shouldn't trust Y's judgement because Y is acting like a crank" are both,
given the right context, completely reasonable arguments to make. They have no
place in a mathematics proof or another exercise in pure deductive reasoning,
but very few real-world arguments involve _pure_ deductive reasoning.

More on this from an old classmate of mine:
[http://legalminds.lp.findlaw.com/list/cyberia-l/msg19080.htm...](http://legalminds.lp.findlaw.com/list/cyberia-l/msg19080.html)

See also "Flamer Bingo":
<http://nielsenhayden.com/makinglight/archives/009186.html>

