Suggestion How to discuss: Hierarchy of Disagreement

[MichaelMc]

A recent thread had me looking up ad hominem attacks. Which lead to Graham's hierarchy of Disagreement, which seemed useful.

Some things it points out are:
- Name calling is not a counter argument.
- I do x and haven't died doesn't address if x is generally (still) optimal.
- That's wrong, x is better, with no why. Is not an argument.

The lower levels are not counter arguments, and many are just noise. Only the top three are counter arguments, yet they differ in if they relate to some minor side point (noise) or to the central issue.

Graham's article, How to Disagree, describes them further.

There are likely other categorizations of arguments, but this seemed a useful one.

For example, in response to an off-track debate one might post:

"""
Your response:
- says Fred is wrong, but doesn't say why (contradiction), or
- Argues about something else besides the main point (counter argument), or
- Nit picks at a side issue, but ignores the central issue of discussion (refutation).

A further explanation is in Graham's Hierarchy of Disagreement.
Can you raise your response to a higher level?

"""

(Edited to make the last part an example post)

 

[MichaelMc]

This scheme, or one like it, seemed a concise way to point that they were off track without needing to repeat a long description of how they were off track. Though that seems more problematic with straw man or twisted words. But still useful to less egregious errors.

 

[Wibble]

Today I participated briefly in a scuba-related discussion on FaceBook before realizing how futile it was. A person started a discussion in a forum in which he expressed his anger about a common scuba operator practice, and I was one of the first to show him why it was common--universal, actually. Others joined in. Some of them were very knowledgeable. All of them said the same thing I did. None of that mattered. As people repeatedly pointed out in growing frustration, he was just repeating his argument over and over and over again. He apparently has a lot of time on his hands, because the thread is flooded with his comments--perhaps he hopes people will not notice he is just about the only one making them. Finally, I wrote a long detailed post with detailed and searchable example showing he was wrong. In response, he used a strategy not open to ScubaBoard discussions--as the owner of the thread, he had the power to delete posts, and he deleted that one of mine.

Ah, faecesbook. That’s where you went wrong

At least on here it’s normally a fair argument which has the backing of the moderators. The "opponent's" posts are permanently available (unless the mods have intervened) thus we can generally determine ass hats from the truth.

We came
We learned
We improved

 

[boulderjohn]

Ah, faecesbook. That’s where you went wrong

At least on here it’s normally a fair argument which has the backing of the moderators. The "opponent's" posts are permanently available (unless the mods have intervened) thus we can generally determine ass hats from the truth.

We came
We learned
We improved

Oh, I agree.

I am technically part of a popular FaceBook scuba forum, although I have not paid attention to it in a couple of years. What finished me off was a thread in which someone asked a very legitimate question. By the time I saw it, there had been maybe 40-50 responses with absolutely incorrect information. There were a few correct responses, but it was mostly repeated misinformation. The people (few) who knew what they were talking about tried a few times, as did I, but I doubt anyone read them. About 90% of the posts were dead wrong, and the person who asked the question had to choose whether to believe the 90% blabber or the few people who had no way of letting you know that they actually knew what they were talking about.

Last year the exact same question came up twice in rapid succession on ScubaBoard, and they ended so well that they probably should be in the information bank. Anyone reading through the thread would be well informed on the topic.

 

[Blackcrusader]

Confident divers are diplomatic in their responses. It's the recently indoctrinated divers who usually become hysterical.

When I worked in Australia's DFAT before I was posted to overseas missions I was taught that the art of being a Diplomat is being able to tell someone to go to hell, in such a way, they looked forward to the trip.

 

[tarponchik]

Here is an anecdote that will illustrate the central problem.

I was in a discussion with someone, and I planned out a sequence of logical steps leading to a point that would show that he was incorrect. I never got there, because he kept interrupting me. I could not complete a sentence. That led to some frustrated ill will. As we talked about it later, I said that his constant interruptions kept me from making my point. He said triumphantly that it was part of his strategy. He was smart enough to see where I was going, and he realized that if he let me get there, I would prove him wrong and win the argument. He therefore had to use constant interruptions to keep me from proving him wrong.

In summary, he had realized that I could prove that he was wrong, and in his view, the purpose of an argument is not to arrive at the truth but to have your original belief prevail. He felt he had "won" the argument by preventing me from making the point he knew would prove him wrong. He was quite happy about that.

I have been in more than a few ScubaBoard discussions like that, one in particular pretty recently. If the other side's view is to prevent your point from prevailing, then all logic and discussion ethics will go out the window.

This sounds like a classic piece from The O'Reilly Factor, but how can someone interrupt you here when you speak in writing?

 

[Alaskan Scuba Dude]

When I worked in Australia's DFAT before I was posted to overseas missions I was taught that the art of being a Diplomat is being able to tell someone to go to hell, in such a way, they looked forward to the trip.

 

[Wibble]

Oh, I agree.

I am technically part of a popular FaceBook scuba forum, although I have not paid attention to it in a couple of years. What finished me off was a thread in which someone asked a very legitimate question. By the time I saw it, there had been maybe 40-50 responses with absolutely incorrect information. There were a few correct responses, but it was mostly repeated misinformation. The people (few) who knew what they were talking about tried a few times, as did I, but I doubt anyone read them. About 90% of the posts were dead wrong, and the person who asked the question had to choose whether to believe the 90% blabber or the few people who had no way of letting you know that they actually knew what they were talking about.

Last year the exact same question came up twice in rapid succession on ScubaBoard, and they ended so well that they probably should be in the information bank. Anyone reading through the thread would be well informed on the topic.

I guess — I have to as I’m not on faecesbook since being banned for not using my real name as I enjoy controlling my privacy— that the ephemeral and non-searchable nature of the platform results in heavy use of blocking as it is the only action available. Accuracy for open forums will be dubious at best. The pathetically useless interface that focuses on new posts and reactions interspersed with invitations to leave that "page" and lack of supporting information regarding posters results in poor content.

The experience with ScubaBoard couldn’t be more different. Useful content even if there’s a massive pile-on. Trolls are quickly identified and refuted. Moderators have far more tools in their box, for example editing grossly misleading, offensive, or blatant trolling posts. Even being able to impose "cool-down restrictions, even closing a thread to comments.

Thus the quality of information on ScubaBoard— and other forums— tends to be dominated by accuracy and well considered facts. The focus is on quality of information — I present you with the recent example of diving in remote locations.

Faecesbook is dominated by trivia, inaccuracy and irrelevance. And massive knob-ends (ass hats). Fine for cat videos, discussing beautay tips, vaccine efficacy and ranting politics; utterly useless for improving your diving techniques.

 

[Wibble]

My desktop background picture.

(Credit -- 't intarwebs. Sorry artist, I don't know who you are but you are gifted and appreciated)

 

[divad]

No Ass-Hat ?...

 

[lermontov]

Its scuba board -once youve been on here a while you get to anticipate regular contributors responses, both good and bad. Personally I like observing the range of personalities and I think it adds to the colour, would hate to see a forum where were all bland academics with perfect grammar and PC opinions.

Please dont tell me scuba board is going 'woke'