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]

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'

Neither grammar, PC nor woke were the point.

 

[lermontov]

Neither grammar, PC nor woke were the point.

and humour... thats another thing I like on scubaboard

 

[MichaelMc]

and humour... thats another thing I like on scubaboard

Also not the central point. Nor criticism.

A further explanation is in Graham's Hierarchy of Disagreement.

 

[Akimbo]

Also not the central point. Nor criticism.

In broad terms, I would boil your point down to productive versus non-productive discussion. For example, nobody learns anything useful from "I like X" — beyond my inability to communicate. "I like X because..." can be informative even when you disagree with my compromises on weighting the variables.

Staying on topic is a hard one. Answering questions like "Should I buy X or Y" should be open to other options like "Consider buying Z because...", "Neither, increase skills by...", or "Modify what you already have by...".

To be fair, expressing yourself well in writing is hard work. Pulling it off is gratifying, but is rarely a easy.

 

[fantarara]

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.

"Subsequent to our meeting in March attended by all signatory parties where xxx was recommended as the requisite next steps, you elected to pursue an alternate course of action resulting in the decimation of the local population of x species, an outcome in line with predictions made by the plenary and for which you will be fully briefed by the pertinent team of experts."

Personally I love ignore buttons in forums.