Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

How to Disagree

paulgraham.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

91–100 of 238 posts

Re: How to Disagree

#91

Post by xlnt »

pg wrote: post #90
tungstenfurnace wrote: post #85

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…

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.

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.

Re: How to Disagree

#94

Post by 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.

Re: How to Disagree

#95

Post by 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!!!!!!!!!!".

Re: How to Disagree

#96

Post by wehriam »

mixmax wrote: post #4

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.…

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.

Re: How to Disagree

#98

Post by icky »

pg wrote: post #59
edw519 wrote: post #6

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 considered making DH-1 be physical violence...

DH-3.5: Disagreeing with the author's Disagreement Hierarchy.

This category is particularly troublesome, as even when both parties agree, in principle, to disagree, they may still disagree on how to disagree.

One particular nuisance is the disagreer who seeks to impose a disagreement meta-hierarchy on the problem of agreeing on a disagreement hierarchy. That way is turtles, all the way down.

Re: How to Disagree

#99

Post by 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.

Re: How to Disagree

#100

Post by rms »

icky wrote: post #98
pg wrote: post #59

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I considered making DH-1 be physical violence...

DH-3.5: Disagreeing with the author's Disagreement Hierarchy. This category is particularly troublesome, as even when both parties agree, in principle, to disagree, they may still disagree on how to disagree. One particular nuisance is the disagreer who seeks to impose a disagreement meta-hierarchy on the problem of agreeing on a disagreement hierarchy. That way is turtles, all the way down.

Where do we end up if it goes to DH-infinities?
Post reply on HN