Disagreement Pyramid

John Pope (l) expresses disagreement with supporters of President Donald Trump, near President Trump`s Mar-a-Lago Resort house, March 4, 2017, in West Palm Beach, Florida. President Trump spent part of the weekend in the house. (Photo by Joe Raedle/Getty Images) This document introduces Graham`s « hierarchy of dissent, » which lists several steps between the teen`s name and the careful refutation of an error in your opponent`s central point. This tactic is the « most powerful form of disagreement, » Graham said. It depends on what you`re talking about, but it`s mostly about refuting someone`s central point. This contrasts with the refutation of minor points of an argument – a form of « intentional dishonesty » in a debate. An example of this would be correcting a person`s grammar (which returns you to the DH1 level) or installing hardware errors in names or numbers. If these are not decisive details, the attack only serves to discredit the adversary, not his main idea. The hierarchy of disagreements is a concept proposed by computer scientist Paul Graham in his 2008 essay How to Disagree.

[1] Graham`s hierarchy has seven levels, from designation to « central point rebuttal. » The purpose of the concept is to help people find better arguments in favor of their beliefs and have more constructive disagreements with those whose opinions conflict with their beliefs. Preferably, the argument should be as high as possible on the pyramid, while being understandable, because arguments of this type are stronger. You may have heard of another hierarchy, often presented as a pyramid: Bloom`s Taxonomy. From the lowest level to the highest level of the cognitive domain classifies Bloom`s pyramid as we learn. He says this tendency to disagree is structurally embedded in the online experience, because people tend to say much more about rejection than if they simply say they agree. What`s interesting is that Graham points out that even if that`s the case, if you spend a lot of time in comment sections, the world doesn`t necessarily get any more angry. But it may well be that we do not take into account a certain reluctance in the way we disagree. To better contradict what will lead to better discussions and happier outcomes, Graham developed these seven levels of a hierarchy of disagreement (DH): this is the most convincing form of disagreement, Graham argues. But it takes work to ensure that people don`t do it as often as they should.

In general, the higher you climb the pyramid of disagreements, « the fewer cases you will find. » In between, the types of disagreement often take the form of logical errors. These have been beautifully catalogued here….

Ce contenu a été publié dans Non classé. Vous pouvez le mettre en favoris avec ce permalien.

Les commentaires sont fermés.