The following is based mainly on an essay by Paul Graham, a hacker who can write:
Here are the seven levels at which you can disagree with an argument, listed here from worst to best:
Level 0: Name-calling
Call the author of the argument names:
u r a fag!!!!!!!!!!
You can dress it up:
The author is a self-important dilettante.
But even if true it proves nothing about whether the argument is true or false.
Level 1: Ad hominem
Question the author’s motive, character, authority, education, etc.
For example, if a senator argues for a pay raise you might say:
Of course he would say that. He’s a senator.
But that fails to point out what is wrong with the senator’s argument. Arguments stand or fall on their own merits, not on who makes them.
That applies even to arguments made by authorities and experts. Good ideas often come from outsiders. If the argument is wrong there will be a mistake in it somewhere – no matter who made it.
Level 2: The tone argument
Make it not about what the author said but how he said it: too angry, too arrogant, etc. Again, this does not point out why the argument is wrong. Even an arrogantly stated argument can be right.
Level 3: Contradiction
State the opposing case but without any facts to back it up. Sometimes this will be enough, but in most cases it is not that simple.
Level 4: Counterargument
State the opposing case but this time back it up with facts and reasons. This can work, but because it does not tear apart the author’s argument directly it often winds up being aimed at something slightly different and becomes, in effect, a straw man argument. This leads to people talking past each other.
Level 5: Refutation
Quote part of the author’s argument and say why it is wrong. The trouble here is it might be something the main argument does not depend on. A fact might be wrong, for example, but it might make little difference to the main argument. It is like shooting someone in the arm instead of the heart.
Level 6: Refuting the Central Point
Directly quote something the main argument stands or falls on and show why it is wrong. Go after the facts and reasons that the main argument depends on.
Arguably there is another level, level 2.5: derailment: trying to throw the argument off its tracks.
Conclusions:
- When reading throw out lower level disagreements: name-calling, ad hominems and tone (and derailment too). They prove absolutely nothing. For the higher level arguments ask yourself if they destroy the main argument or any of the facts and reasons it depends on.
- When writing you shoot to kill: go straight to level 6 – the rest is so much ankle-biting.
Note that good writers and speakers can sound right just by the force of their words, especially if you trust them and they speak with passion. You get carried away by their rhetoric. But in the end all that matters is the truth and that depends on facts and reasons, nothing else.
See also:
Interesting that you should post this, abagond. 😉 So many folks disagreeing lately.
LikeLike
Ha! Looks like a Maslow hierarchy.
LikeLike
Two words overused on the net “ad hominem” and “meme.”
Not all comments on a post is an argument, you just might want to say to that personality, “you suck.”
It amuses me when I have been accused, because is it assumed I’m engage in an argument. There are times in a discussion with others, when you just tire of the SOS.
I also get tire of those assume that the net is really serious discourse and every word they say is profound. It is like the geeks created the rules and it is heresy to violate them. LIKE USING ALL CAPS. I remember the time when there wasn’t any lower case input into a computer.
I hate when I’m reprimanded about my argument and logic; when most don’t know the difference in plagiarizing and paraphrasing, rarely use citations or don’t know when their references are circular.
LikeLike
Huh. I knew ad hominem, of course, but I wasn’t aware of this triangle. I like this.
Someone should hand this out to the news media. I’d say most are stuck around a four–Glenn Beck and crew at a one or two. ;))
LikeLike
Two words overused on the net “ad hominem” and “meme.”
And “debate” and “disingenuous” and “rhetoric” and “ignorant”….
LikeLike
Nice post Abagond. On a topic we all could learn from. I personal always try to start from level 4 upwards.!!!
However, I agree with SW6’s comments:
All levels are valid and can be used in some respect. Everyone probably has their own personal example where they witnessed a level 0 -1 work to great effect. They all can add to the enjoyment, entertainment and the communication of getting the main thrust of your argument across. Its all a question of balance though and how respectfully you treat yourself as well as your audience.
Also, the effect you seek to create. I mostly assume that people comment honestly but just reading through the comment sections of blogs like Abagonds shows how this can be a really shaky assumption to make at times!!!
I just believe the art of detachment or learning not to take things personal can be a great skill sometimes. Something I believe Abagond displays quite well here…most of the time!!!
LikeLike
Paul Graham is a computer programmer, someone who deals in logic and data. Therefore he tends to see arguments in terms of facts and reasons. Which is fine if the purpose of a reasoned argument is to reach the TRUTH.
But if the purpose of an argument is to PERSUADE others then it is not so simple. You need more than facts and reasons. In that case you need to gain the trust of your listeners or readers and you need to appeal not just to their heads but also their hearts.
From that point of view the name-calling and ad hominems and tone arguments make sense: they are an attempt to discredit the speaker or writer, to destroy the trust others have in him, making it harder for him to persuade.
LikeLike
Maybe it’s all down to ethos, pathos, and logos.
LikeLike
I love you work! Thank you all, brilliant ppl!
LikeLike
Reblogged this on HaifischGeweint and commented:
Yup.
LikeLike
@ Kwamla & SW6,
i completely agree. sometimes levels 1-3 are helpful, even necessary depending on to whom you’re talking and your intention. not completely sure about 0 but it may have its uses. there are people in the world who see a calm professional demeanour as a sign of weakness and untrustworthiness, so for those people levels 1-3 are more appropriate.
as usual abagond has done it again. well-written piece.
LikeLike
[…] The following is based mainly on an essay by Paul Graham, a hacker who can write: Here are the seven levels at which you can disagree with an argument, listed here from worst to best: Level 0: Name… […]
LikeLike
..kinda just ripped it off him, no?
LikeLike
[…] Image by abagond 26 July 2010, from How to Disagree, by Paul Graham, March 2008. […]
LikeLike
Reblogged this on Utopia – you are standing in it!.
LikeLike