81–90 of 238 posts
I'm really looking forward to seeing this hierarchy applied as a meme on news.yc.
I'm not really looking forward to seeing this hierarchy applied as a meme on news.yc. (DH3 ftw!) Edit: Irony.
I'm really looking forward to seeing this hierarchy applied as a meme on news.yc.
I'm really looking forward to seeing this hierarchy applied as a meme on news.yc.
A meme? How about a feature? I want to be able to rate things by DH level.
I'm really looking forward to seeing this hierarchy applied as a meme on news.yc.
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.
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 mode…
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…
Unfortunately this rarely works in the sense of eliciting a reply. But when it doesn't, it does at least tend to shut them up.
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 stronge…
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…
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 stronge…