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.
How to Disagree
111–120 of 238 posts
Re: How to Disagree
#112Friendly 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!
Re: How to Disagree
#113It'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.
Re: How to Disagree
#114The more things change... 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
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.
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.
Re: How to Disagree
#115What 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.
Re: How to Disagree
#116I 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.
Re: How to Disagree
#117"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.
Re: How to Disagree
#118Great 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.
Re: How to Disagree
#119Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
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 p…
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...
Re: How to Disagree
#120The author's main point seems to be x. As he says: 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 i…
You're obviously lying when you say you didn't read the essay.
You're obviously making a satirical criticism implying you aren't catching the satire in his/her post.
Meta-satire, well done sir/mam.