This is approached purely from a logical perspective and fails to take into account human emotion. This isn't a guide on how to disagree, it's a guide on how to be logically correct when...
This is approached purely from a logical perspective and fails to take into account human emotion. This isn't a guide on how to disagree, it's a guide on how to be logically correct when disagreeing. Being perfectly logical in your explanation of why something is okay that someone else finds morally despicable or inherently troublesome is not going to get you anywhere. Perfect logic and adherence to science won't change someone who's stance on masking during covid is derived from emotion, however, and is unfortunately a poor base for human communication.
That being said, this kind of knowledge is excellent and useful when you're dealing with scientific arguments such as those that would be presented in a journal article. It can be useful for debates and policy and other realms which involve humans and can sometimes be discussions devoid of emotion, but even in those realms (and especially in the realm of scientific debate, especially when we talk about issues such as climate change) you're likely going to have to call on some interpersonal and emotional skills.
Thanks for saying this. It's exactly what I was thinking when I looked at it. Furthermore, doing some of the things that are lower down in the pyramid are necessary. For example, responding to...
Thanks for saying this. It's exactly what I was thinking when I looked at it. Furthermore, doing some of the things that are lower down in the pyramid are necessary. For example, responding to tone can be appropriate when you're trying to assess if the other party is even taking the question at hand as seriously as you. A response that seems flippant may be an indication that the other party isn't taking you seriously, or it may be a misunderstanding in what they meant (or a typo or auto-correct that changed the meaning of their sentence).
I once watch a discussion about working for Disney spin out of control because one person said "working there is so bad I've heard it called 'mauschwitz'." They were trying to say that working there is akin to being in a concentration camp - i.e. the work conditions are awful. The other person thought they were saying, "Disney is run by Jews" (and that is somehow inherently bad). They spent 3 screens of text calling each other rude names before someone pointed out the misunderstanding. A simple "tone check" question of, "Are you suggesting that Disney is run by Jews and that would somehow be a bad thing?" would have cleared things right up.
I'm going to practice some concepts from the article here, hope you don't mind. I generally agree with this ("remember the human" is something I dwell on a lot when talking online), but also there...
I'm going to practice some concepts from the article here, hope you don't mind.
This isn't a guide on how to disagree, it's a guide on how to be logically correct when disagreeing. Being perfectly logical in your explanation of why something is okay that someone else finds morally despicable or inherently troublesome is not going to get you anywhere. [Emphasis mine]
I generally agree with this ("remember the human" is something I dwell on a lot when talking online), but also there has to be some point at which the exploration of a topic stops. Any topic can be nitpicked and broken down to a "sub-molecular" level given enough time (or ire)... especially something as broad as "Disagreeing". There are certainly more conversations that can be had about other aspects of crafting a convincing argument or disagreement, but using the problem domain that we've been given here - I can still apply the concepts the author talks about in a productive way that's not relegated to only scientific or political interactions.
In short, having strong interpersonal and emotional skills are absolutely one part of the puzzle for being an effective communicator, but I do not believe were meant to be the focus of the article above.
I think perhaps what I'm attempting to convey here is that interpersonal relations and emotional intelligence are far more important when attempting to convince someone else than the logic of...
I think perhaps what I'm attempting to convey here is that interpersonal relations and emotional intelligence are far more important when attempting to convince someone else than the logic of disagreement is.
What the article outlines are incredibly important for your own sense of internal consistency and questions you should be asking yourself when deciding whether an argument should or should not sway your own opinion. But when we are talking about two people interacting, both have to value logic in order for these to be important and both have to be a certain level of emotionally distant for these kinds of disagreement and their hierarchy to be considered or useful.
Through my own interactions and the current state of the world, it's quite clear that emotion plays a much larger part of disagreement than anything else. The article attempts to frame this through the lens of active communication, which requires 2 or more participants. Because the lens is framed as disagreement with others as opposed to internal disagreement, I believe the focus is misplaced as logical consistency plays a much smaller part than appeal to emotional state and having the interpersonal skills to address emotional state.
Graham is deeply concerned with logic. I don't think he would disagree that his post is focused on that, and that there are other relevant aspects of communication that he does not discuss.
Graham is deeply concerned with logic. I don't think he would disagree that his post is focused on that, and that there are other relevant aspects of communication that he does not discuss.
I've noticed an evolution since 2008 when this was published. Particularly on Reddit, I think there is an increasing tendency for threads to attract like minded individuals. Contrarian views are...
Many who respond to something disagree with it. That's to be expected. Agreeing tends to motivate people less than disagreeing.
I've noticed an evolution since 2008 when this was published.
Particularly on Reddit, I think there is an increasing tendency for threads to attract like minded individuals.
Contrarian views are automatically downvoted. Sometimes it's based on the forum to which the post was submitted, other times the audience is self selected based on the title alone.
There is also this tendency to assume that votes indicate importance, accuracy or truth. I used to track the investing forums in reddit very closely. There are a lot of very smart industry experts. They all get downvoted unless they happen to be moderators. Part of that could be the fact that a novice is better able to explain to another novice a concept. Experts aren't always good at effectively teaching novices, and those unconsciously incompetent are just as self assured as those unconsciously competent (but a lot easier to understand.)
Overall I've noticed knowledgeable folks are less and less inclined to provide elaborate retorts that take a significant amount of time, and will either be ignored by a general 'hive mind' or not understood by novices.
I think HN is contrarian by default (and to some extent Reddit as well). Very rarely do you see a top comment that is fully supportive of the posted article unless its a show HN or an article that...
I think HN is contrarian by default (and to some extent Reddit as well). Very rarely do you see a top comment that is fully supportive of the posted article unless its a show HN or an article that is criticizing something else.
On a related note to what @HotPants was saying: as HN has grown more popular the SNR has decreased visibly and you see more 'novice' takes making it towards the top of the comments. Which is to be expected as the userbase grows I guess.
A graphical version of Graham's idea: https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/7/7c/Graham%27s_Hierarchy_of_Disagreement.svg/707px-Graham%27s_Hierarchy_of_Disagreement.svg.png I find...
I find myself thinking of this image when judging the soundness of arguments, particularly online. I can use it to determine whether someone is arguing something in good faith, or is simply trying to squirm their way out of their position. However, sometimes, on sites I generally trust - like this one - I find highly voted responses to controversial topics that fall into the bottom 3 of this pyramid. Clearly a lot of people are perfectly happy to accept these arguments.
What do you think of this way of framing arguments? Is it a good way of judging arguments? Does it have problems?
I believe that's an excellent pyramid. It might be more detailed, with more levels, but it might become less practical as a consequence. I really don't have anything of much value to add, this is...
I believe that's an excellent pyramid. It might be more detailed, with more levels, but it might become less practical as a consequence. I really don't have anything of much value to add, this is exceedingly clear and useful.
This is approached purely from a logical perspective and fails to take into account human emotion. This isn't a guide on how to disagree, it's a guide on how to be logically correct when disagreeing. Being perfectly logical in your explanation of why something is okay that someone else finds morally despicable or inherently troublesome is not going to get you anywhere. Perfect logic and adherence to science won't change someone who's stance on masking during covid is derived from emotion, however, and is unfortunately a poor base for human communication.
That being said, this kind of knowledge is excellent and useful when you're dealing with scientific arguments such as those that would be presented in a journal article. It can be useful for debates and policy and other realms which involve humans and can sometimes be discussions devoid of emotion, but even in those realms (and especially in the realm of scientific debate, especially when we talk about issues such as climate change) you're likely going to have to call on some interpersonal and emotional skills.
Thanks for saying this. It's exactly what I was thinking when I looked at it. Furthermore, doing some of the things that are lower down in the pyramid are necessary. For example, responding to tone can be appropriate when you're trying to assess if the other party is even taking the question at hand as seriously as you. A response that seems flippant may be an indication that the other party isn't taking you seriously, or it may be a misunderstanding in what they meant (or a typo or auto-correct that changed the meaning of their sentence).
I once watch a discussion about working for Disney spin out of control because one person said "working there is so bad I've heard it called 'mauschwitz'." They were trying to say that working there is akin to being in a concentration camp - i.e. the work conditions are awful. The other person thought they were saying, "Disney is run by Jews" (and that is somehow inherently bad). They spent 3 screens of text calling each other rude names before someone pointed out the misunderstanding. A simple "tone check" question of, "Are you suggesting that Disney is run by Jews and that would somehow be a bad thing?" would have cleared things right up.
I'm going to practice some concepts from the article here, hope you don't mind.
I generally agree with this ("remember the human" is something I dwell on a lot when talking online), but also there has to be some point at which the exploration of a topic stops. Any topic can be nitpicked and broken down to a "sub-molecular" level given enough time (or ire)... especially something as broad as "Disagreeing". There are certainly more conversations that can be had about other aspects of crafting a convincing argument or disagreement, but using the problem domain that we've been given here - I can still apply the concepts the author talks about in a productive way that's not relegated to only scientific or political interactions.
In short, having strong interpersonal and emotional skills are absolutely one part of the puzzle for being an effective communicator, but I do not believe were meant to be the focus of the article above.
I think perhaps what I'm attempting to convey here is that interpersonal relations and emotional intelligence are far more important when attempting to convince someone else than the logic of disagreement is.
What the article outlines are incredibly important for your own sense of internal consistency and questions you should be asking yourself when deciding whether an argument should or should not sway your own opinion. But when we are talking about two people interacting, both have to value logic in order for these to be important and both have to be a certain level of emotionally distant for these kinds of disagreement and their hierarchy to be considered or useful.
Through my own interactions and the current state of the world, it's quite clear that emotion plays a much larger part of disagreement than anything else. The article attempts to frame this through the lens of active communication, which requires 2 or more participants. Because the lens is framed as disagreement with others as opposed to internal disagreement, I believe the focus is misplaced as logical consistency plays a much smaller part than appeal to emotional state and having the interpersonal skills to address emotional state.
Graham is deeply concerned with logic. I don't think he would disagree that his post is focused on that, and that there are other relevant aspects of communication that he does not discuss.
I've noticed an evolution since 2008 when this was published.
Particularly on Reddit, I think there is an increasing tendency for threads to attract like minded individuals.
Contrarian views are automatically downvoted. Sometimes it's based on the forum to which the post was submitted, other times the audience is self selected based on the title alone.
There is also this tendency to assume that votes indicate importance, accuracy or truth. I used to track the investing forums in reddit very closely. There are a lot of very smart industry experts. They all get downvoted unless they happen to be moderators. Part of that could be the fact that a novice is better able to explain to another novice a concept. Experts aren't always good at effectively teaching novices, and those unconsciously incompetent are just as self assured as those unconsciously competent (but a lot easier to understand.)
Overall I've noticed knowledgeable folks are less and less inclined to provide elaborate retorts that take a significant amount of time, and will either be ignored by a general 'hive mind' or not understood by novices.
I think Graham's statement still holds true for Hacker News, though.
I think HN is contrarian by default (and to some extent Reddit as well). Very rarely do you see a top comment that is fully supportive of the posted article unless its a show HN or an article that is criticizing something else.
On a related note to what @HotPants was saying: as HN has grown more popular the SNR has decreased visibly and you see more 'novice' takes making it towards the top of the comments. Which is to be expected as the userbase grows I guess.
A graphical version of Graham's idea: https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/7/7c/Graham%27s_Hierarchy_of_Disagreement.svg/707px-Graham%27s_Hierarchy_of_Disagreement.svg.png
I find myself thinking of this image when judging the soundness of arguments, particularly online. I can use it to determine whether someone is arguing something in good faith, or is simply trying to squirm their way out of their position. However, sometimes, on sites I generally trust - like this one - I find highly voted responses to controversial topics that fall into the bottom 3 of this pyramid. Clearly a lot of people are perfectly happy to accept these arguments.
What do you think of this way of framing arguments? Is it a good way of judging arguments? Does it have problems?
I believe that's an excellent pyramid. It might be more detailed, with more levels, but it might become less practical as a consequence. I really don't have anything of much value to add, this is exceedingly clear and useful.