How to Disagree — Paul Graham
The web has turned writing into a conversation. Disagreeing is more motivating than agreeing, and the web makes it easy. The result is more disagreement, measured by words. This doesn't necessarily mean more anger, but there's a danger it will make people angrier, especially online.
If we're going to disagree more, we should do it well. Most people can tell name-calling from a careful refutation, but there are intermediate stages worth naming.
The Disagreement Hierarchy
DH0. Name-calling
The lowest form, and probably most common.
Examples: "u r a fag!!!!!!!!!!"
More articulate versions have the same weight: "The author is a self-important dilettante." This is just a pretentious "u r a fag."
DH1. Ad Hominem
Attacking the person rather than the argument. Slightly stronger than pure name-calling because it might be relevant.
Classic: "Of course he would say that. He's a senator."
This may be relevant but doesn't refute the argument. If there's something wrong with the argument, say what it is.
A common useless variant: saying the author lacks authority to write on the topic. Good ideas often come from outsiders. The question is whether the author is correct. If lack of authority caused mistakes, point them out. If not, it's not a problem.
DH2. Responding to Tone
Disagreeing with how it was said rather than what was said.
Example: "I can't believe the author dismisses intelligent design in such a cavalier fashion."
Better than ad hominem, but still weak. It matters more whether the author is right or wrong than the tone. Tone is hard to judge objectively. Someone with a chip on their shoulder may find neutral tone offensive.
If the worst thing you can say is criticism of tone, you're not saying much. Flippant but correct is better than grave and wrong. If the author is incorrect, say where.
DH3. Contradiction
Finally responding to the content: stating the opposing case with little or no supporting evidence.
Often combined with DH2:
"I can't believe the author dismisses intelligent design in such a cavalier fashion. Intelligent design is a legitimate scientific theory."
Contradiction can sometimes carry weight simply by making the opposing case explicit. Usually evidence helps.
DH4. Counterargument
Contradiction plus reasoning and/or evidence. When aimed at the original argument, it can be convincing.
Common problem: counterarguments are often aimed at something slightly different. People arguing passionately are often arguing about two different things and may even agree without realizing it.
There can be legitimate reasons to argue a slightly different point (feeling the author missed the heart of the matter), but you should say explicitly that you're doing so.
DH5. Refutation
The most convincing form, and the rarest because it requires the most work.
To refute, you usually have to quote the author. Find a "smoking gun" passage you believe is mistaken and explain why.
Quoting doesn't guarantee refutation — some quote to give the appearance of refutation then follow with DH3 or lower.
DH6. Refuting the Central Point
The most powerful form: refute the author's central point (or something it depends on).
This requires explicitly committing to what the central point is.
Example structure:
"The author's main point seems to be x. As he says:
[quotation]
But this is wrong for the following reasons..."
Correcting grammar or harping on minor name/number mistakes is usually a sophisticated ad hominem unless the argument actually depends on them.
What It Means
DH levels classify the form of a statement, not whether it is true. A DH6 can still be completely mistaken. But they set an upper bound on convincingness: a DH2 or lower is always unconvincing.
Benefits:
- Helps readers evaluate what they read and see through intellectually dishonest arguments (a pin for popping demagogue balloons).
- Helps writers move up the hierarchy.
- Real points don't require meanness; moving up makes conversations (and people) better. Most people don't enjoy being mean when they have something real to say.
See its placement in the generalist reading list under interpersonal/organizational: a-reading-list-for-generalists-dylan-bowman.
The hierarchy is captured in the concept disagreement-hierarchy.