March 2008The web is turning writing into a conversation. Twenty years ago,writers wrote and readers read. The web lets readers respond, andincreasingly they do—in comment threads, on forums, and in theirown blog posts.Many who respond to something disagree with it. That's to beexpected. Agreeing tends to motivate people less than disagreeing.And when you agree there's less to say. You could expand on somethingthe author said, but he has probably already explored themost interesting implications. When you disagree you're enteringterritory he may not have explored.The result is there's a lot more disagreeing going on, especiallymeasured by the word. That doesn't mean people are getting angrier.The structural change in the way we communicate is enough to accountfor it. But though it's not anger that's driving the increase indisagreement, there's a danger that the increase in disagreementwill make people angrier. Particularly online, where it's easy tosay things you'd never say face to face.If we're all going to be disagreeing more, we should be careful todo it well. What does it mean to disagree well? Most readers cantell the difference between mere name-calling and a carefullyreasoned refutation, but I think it would help to put names on theintermediate stages. So here's an attempt at a disagreementhierarchy:DH0. Name-calling.This is the lowest form of disagreement, and probably also the mostcommon. We've all seen comments like this: u r a fag!!!!!!!!!!But it's important to realize that more articulate name-calling hasjust as little weight. A comment like The author is a self-important dilettante.is really nothing more than a pretentious version of "u r a fag."DH1. Ad Hominem.An ad hominem attack is not quite as weak as mere name-calling. Itmight actually carry some weight. For example, if a senator wrotean article saying senators' salaries should be increased, one couldrespond: Of course he would say that. He's a senator.This wouldn't refute the author's argument, but it may at least berelevant to the case. It's still a very weak form of disagreement,though. If there's something wrong with the senator's argument,you should say what it is; and if there isn't, what difference doesit make that he's a senator?Saying that an author lacks the authority to write about a topicis a variant of ad hominem—and a particularly useless sort, becausegood ideas often come from outsiders. The question is whether theauthor is correct or not. If his lack of authority caused him tomake mistakes, point those out. And if it didn't, it's not aproblem.DH2. Responding to Tone.The next level up we start to see responses to the writing, ratherthan the writer. The lowest form of these is to disagree with theauthor's tone. E.g. I can't believe the author dismisses intelligent design in such a cavalier fashion.Though better than attacking the author, this is still a weak formof disagreement. It matters much more whether the author is wrongor right than what his tone is. Especially since tone is so hardto judge. Someone who has a chip on their shoulder about some topicmight be offended by a tone that to other readers seemed neutral.So if the worst thing you can say about something is to criticizeits tone, you're not saying much. Is the author flippant, butcorrect? Better that than grave and wrong. And if the author isincorrect somewhere, say where.DH3. Contradiction.In this stage we finally get responses to what was said, ratherthan how or by whom. The lowest form of response to an argumentis simply to state the opposing case, with little or no supportingevidence.This is often combined with DH2 statements, as in: I can't believe the author dismisses intelligent design in such a cavalier fashion. Intelligent design is a legitimate scientific theory.Contradiction can sometimes have some weight. Sometimes merelyseeing the opposing case stated explicitly is enough to see thatit's right. But usually evidence will help.DH4. Counterargument.At level 4 we reach the first form of convincing disagreement:counterargument. Forms up to this point can usually be ignored asproving nothing. Counterargument might prove something. The problemis, it's hard to say exactly what.Counterargument is contradiction plus reasoning and/or evidence.When aimed squarely at the original argument, it can be convincing.But unfortunately it's common for counterarguments to be aimed atsomething slightly different. More often than not, two peoplearguing passionately about something are actually arguing about twodifferent things. Sometimes they even agree with one another, butare so caught up in their squabble they don't realize it.There could be a legitimate reason for arguing against somethingslightly different from what the original author said: when youfeel they missed the heart of the matter. But when you do that,you should say explicitly you're doing it.DH5. Refutation.The most convincing form of disagreement is refutation. It's alsothe rarest, because it's the most work. Indeed, the disagreementhierarchy forms a kind of pyramid, in the sense that the higher yougo the fewer instances you find.To refute someone you probably have to quote them. You have tofind a "smoking gun," a passage in whatever you disagree with thatyou feel is mistaken, and then explain why it's mistaken. If youcan't find an actual quote to disagree with, you may be arguingwith a straw man.While refutation generally entails quoting, quoting doesn't necessarilyimply refutation. Some writers quote parts of things they disagreewith to give the appearance of legitimate refutation, then followwith a response as low as DH3 or even DH0.DH6. Refuting the Central Point.The force of a refutation depends on what you refute. The mostpowerful form of disagreement is to refute someone's central point.Even as high as DH5 we still sometimes see deliberate dishonesty,as when someone picks out minor points of an argument and refutesthose. Sometimes the spirit in which this is done makes it moreof a sophisticated form of ad hominem than actual refutation. Forexample, correcting someone's grammar, or harping on minor mistakesin names or numbers. Unless the opposing argument actually dependson such things, the only purpose of correcting them is todiscredit one's opponent.Truly refuting something requires one to refute its central point,or at least one of them. And that means one has to commit explicitlyto what the central point is. So a truly effective refutation wouldlook like: The author's main point seems to be x. As he says: <quotation> But this is wrong for the following reasons...The quotation you point out as mistaken need not be the actualstatement of the author's main point. It's enough to refute somethingit depends upon.What It MeansNow we have a way of classifying forms of disagreement. What goodis it? One thing the disagreement hierarchy doesn't give us isa way of picking a winner. DH levels merely describe the form ofa statement, not whether it's correct. A DH6 response could stillbe completely mistaken.But while DH levels don't set a lower bound on the convincingnessof a reply, they do set an upper bound. A DH6 response might beunconvincing, but a DH2 or lower response is always unconvincing.The most obvious advantage of classifying the forms of disagreementis that it will help people to evaluate what they read. In particular,it will help them to see through intellectually dishonest arguments.An eloquent speaker or writer can give the impression of vanquishingan opponent merely by using forceful words. In fact that is probablythe defining quality of a demagogue. By giving names to the differentforms of disagreement, we give critical readers a pin for poppingsuch balloons.Such labels may help writers too. Most intellectual dishonesty isunintentional. Someone arguing against the tone of something hedisagrees with may believe he's really saying something. Zoomingout and seeing his current position on the disagreement hierarchymay inspire him to try moving up to counterargument or refutation.But the greatest benefit of disagreeing well is not just that itwill make conversations better, but that it will make the peoplewho have them happier. If you study conversations, you find thereis a lot more meanness down in DH1 than up in DH6. You don't haveto be mean when you have a real point to make. In fact, you don'twant to. If you have something real to say, being mean just getsin the way.If moving up the disagreement hierarchy makes people less mean,that will make most of them happier. Most people don't really enjoybeing mean; they do it because they can't help it.Thanks to Trevor Blackwell and Jessica Livingston for readingdrafts of this.Related:
