It’s still a very weak form of disagreement, though. Files are available under licenses specified on their description page. In fact, you don’t want to. An eloquent speaker or writer can give the impression of vanquishing an opponent merely by using forceful words. We’ve all seen comments like this: Minister of the Right Talk:
March The web is turning writing into a conversation. But the greatest benefit of disagreeing well is not just that it will make conversations better, but that it will make the people who have them happier. Width Height But just in case, here is some food for though I believe is well-stated and interesting. Views View Edit History.
Public domain Public domain false false.
But they do take time as anger increases and civility falls by essya wayside, many bloggers are turning off comments. Rocket grants anyone the right to use this work for any purposewithout any conditions, unless such conditions are required by law.
Retrieved 14 April In this stage we finally get responses to what was said, rather than how or by whom. Koos van den beukel Usage on ru. It might actually carry some weight.
Store”co-founding the influential startup accelerator and seed capital firm Y Combinatorhis blog, and Hacker News.
Hierarchy of disagreement – RationalWiki
What does it mean to disagree well? The most powerful form of disagreement is to refute someone’s central point. Retrieved 28 April A triangular graphic representing a “hierarchy of disagreement” from clear refutation to mere vituperation, based on the essay “How to Disagree” by Paul Graham.
Maurice Carbonaro User hlw The most obvious advantage of classifying the forms of disagreement is that it will help people to evaluate what they read.
Indeed, the disagreement hierarchy forms a kind of pyramid, in the sense that the higher you go the fewer instances you find. The most convincing form of disagreement is refutation.
How to Disagree: Paul Graham’s Disagreement hierarchy
You could expand on something the author said, but he has probably already explored the most interesting implications. I am large, I contain multitudes. This is a file from the Wikimedia Commons. There could be a legitimate reason for arguing against something slightly different from what the original author said: The structural change in the way we communicate is enough to account for it. Files are yrahams under licenses specified on their grajams page.
When aimed squarely at the original argument, it can be convincing.
Graham’s Hierarchy of Disagreement – PEARLab
All structured disagre from the file and property namespaces is available under the Creative Commons CC0 License ; all unstructured text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License ; additional terms may apply. A DH6 response could still be completely mistaken.
Retrieved 23 January Retrieved from ” https: When aimed squarely at the original argument, it can be convincing.
YCombinatorHacker News. The source code of this SVG is valid. Even as high as DH5 we still sometimes see deliberate dishonesty, as when someone picks out minor points of an argument and refutes those. grauams
The web lets readers respond, and increasingly they do—in comment threads, on forums, and in their own blog posts. As a former editor of a newspaper and also of an online anonymous forum sinceand having kept blogs sinceI use the following general questions when deciding to allow or delete a comment: But it’s important to realize that more articulate name-calling has just as little weight.
Minister of the Right Eisagree Width Height Most readers can tell the difference between mere name-calling and a carefully reasoned refutation, but I think it would help to put names on the intermediate stages.