u r a fag!!!!!!!!!!
What's the hierarchy level for failed attempts at humor?
How to Disagree
61–70 of 238 posts
Re: How to Disagree
#62Paul Graham does a good job outlining the different forms a disagreement can take and evaluating their effectiveness. I agree with his analysis. I'm going to expand on it. It seems this piece was written in response to the various criticisms he received because for his "You Weren't Meant to Have a Boss" essay. In addition to objecting to the form these criticisms took, I think he could also have talked about one of t…
Many times people will enter a passionate debate if they feel their lifestyle or livelihood is at stake. It's the same reason news media have long focused on crime, sex, and scandal - BAD THINGS COULD HAPPEN TO YOU!
But in forming an actual dialogue, such all-or-nothing viewpoints make people defensive. The behavior of monopolies that have been obsoleted by technology is little different from that of the Luddites - they try to stop the change, even when it's irrational to try. "Irrational self-interest" is a pretty neat term to sum it up.
"You Weren't Meant to Have a Boss" strikes keenly and precisely at the employed, because it primarily lists benefits of startup life, presenting an unbalanced picture. The title certainly doesn't help matters. That PG's arguments are pretty strong, and he has some established weight in online communities, makes him hard to dismiss out of hand, which further increases the tension.
Internet discussion tends to stay low on the hierarchy because the people replying are mostly stuck in defensive mode. Pragmatic, nuanced thinking doesn't seem to come naturally to humans.
Re: How to Disagree
#63The 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.
Re: How to Disagree
#64Earlier quoted context omitted.
As mascarenhas already posted, Aristotle spent quite a bit of time on the topic, and his ideas are still studied, though perhaps not as widely as they should be.
The way I read it, the PG essay was meant less as a statement about the absolute nature of reality and more as an attempt to get people to suck less. Even if Aristotle came up with some superset of these ideas 2400 years ago, I think there is still some value here.
I thought the essay was quite good. I wasn't trying to say that I thought pg was being redundant.
My point was merely that there has been plenty already written on the subjects of rhetoric and logic as ways of expressing ideas, and that the topic isn't as neglected as you seemed to believe in the post I responded to. If you're looking for more resources on the topic, they're out there.
Re: How to Disagree
#65The next level up we start to see responses to the writing, rather than the writer. The lowest form of these is to disagree with the author's tone. http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=123400
He's right. This is a weak form of disagreement. I wasn't trying to disagree convincingly, just to discourage people from using all caps on News.YC.
Re: How to Disagree
#66Mind 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…
Honestly I think you'd have to move his DH0 to DH-1 and then put flamebaiting as DH0. The straight up 'u r a fag!!!1' insults require much less effort than flamebait.
Although really, flamebaiting is just a more subtle way to call someone (or their idea) retarded, so maybe it's just a special (more eloquent) case of DH0.
Re: How to Disagree
#67The next level up we start to see responses to the writing, rather than the writer. The lowest form of these is to disagree with the author's tone. http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=123400
Aside from what appears to be an intentionally combative post, it's interesting that this illustrates how difficult it can be to avoid the trap of responding to the tone of a post, especially if you read the post you're responding to as impolite.
If anything, this illustrates the point from the current essay that it's easy to fall into the trap of responding to the tenor of an argument instead of the substance unless you pay careful attention. I expect we've all been guilty of this at one time or another.
You may or may not have meant it way, but thanks for the observation.
Edited to add: I hadn't seen pg's response when I posted this. Perhaps the observation is indeed superseded by the fact that pg's post wasn't intended as a refutation.
Re: How to Disagree
#68I'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.
Re: How to Disagree
#69WHY?
Re: How to Disagree
#70The next level up we start to see responses to the writing, rather than the writer. The lowest form of these is to disagree with the author's tone. http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=123400
Just so we have some variety on the DH's:
DH1: Hmm... Same author of the article and of the comment... :)
Honestly though, I don't think you should be too insulted. Everyone has moments when perhaps they aren't particularly prime to good comments, although I suppose it would be a bit better had pg said something along the lines of, "Support that instead of just saying it" or asked for an actual discussion instead of what seemed like a loud (from the caps) one-line outburst.