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

31–40 of 238 posts

Re: How to Disagree

#31

Post by xlnt »

pius wrote: post #15
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 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…

It's easy to at least get to DH3 in reply to anything. For example if they say, "you are an idiot" you can contradict them (close enough) by saying, "you haven't supported that statement". If they question your tone or authority, you can contradict by saying that isn't relevant to what position is true.

edit: btw my experience is that more often than not i get downvoted if i do this

Re: How to Disagree

#32

Post by xlnt »

wallflower wrote: post #20
aston wrote: post #12

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

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 t…

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.

Re: How to Disagree

#33

Post by wallflower »

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…

Text-based disagreements aside, I'd like to do an arc off this comment - to talk about the importance of perspective. Guess which two perspective(s) can fuel disagreement...

The God perspective (Yeah, you the expert?) "This restaurant is the best in town"

The 2nd person perspective (Why should you know what I should do) "You really should try this restaurant."

The 1st-person perspective (the only one you can truly own) "I really like this restaurant. I like the cooking and I feel like I am welcome here."

Re: How to Disagree

#34

Post by xlnt »

pius wrote: post #19
brlewis wrote: post #13

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.

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.…

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

Re: How to Disagree

#36

Post by nostrademons »

pius wrote: post #15
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 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…

It's possible, you just have to remember that there are many more lurkers than posters in any given discussion and write for the benefit of the lurkers that have not yet chosen a DH level.

Actually, I've used this as a fairly effective technique for arresting flamewars. It doesn't always work, but when it does, subsequent posts are usually at the DH level of your own response rather than that of the parent comment.

The key seems to be drawing 3rd-party onlookers in before the original flamer responds. If someone else responds to your comment at a high DH level, the original flamer has a choice. He can respond to your comment with another flame, which makes him look stupid and petty because there's a sibling comment that's much more well-reasoned. He can respond with a real argument, in which case you've raised the level of discourse. Or he can go away, which seems to be what happens most of the time. Regardless of what he does, you're free to ignore his reply and continue responding to the person who engages you with actual arguments.

A corollary is that educated, rational lurkers hold a lot of power on discussion boards. If you don't get directly involved in arguments but instead cherry-pick the comments you respond to, you can set the whole tone for a community.

BTW, the same trick works in face-to-face conversations, as long as there are more than 2 people involved. The person who asks the questions controls the conversation, by virtue of which questions they choose to ask. And the person who sits back and shuts up controls whose ideas get developed, by virtue of who they choose to respond to. That's why the quietest person at a meeting usually controls it, as long as they're not just a passive onlooker.

Re: How to Disagree

#37

Post by 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...

Re: How to Disagree

#39

Post by 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.

Re: How to Disagree

#40

Post by pius »

xlnt wrote: post #34
pius wrote: post #19

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.…

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

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.
Post reply on HN