Central points versus name-calling

In Adam Grant’s book “Think Again” he references Paul Graham’s “hierarchy of disagreement”, saying:

“In the hierarchy of disagreement created by computer scientist Paul Graham, the highest form of argument is refuting the central point, and the lowest is name-calling.”

This hierarchy wasn’t one that I was familiar with, so I took some to understand what it looked like. Here is Graham’s essay that explains it, with the hierarchy going like like:

1. Name-calling: That’s easy to understand.
2. Ad hominem: Attacking the person, not the idea.
3. Responding to tone: Attacking how an idea was presented rather than the idea itself.
4. Contradiction: Essentially just disagreeing with an idea.
5. Counterargument: This is a contradiction with reasoning and the first form of a convincing disagreement.
6. Refutation: This is quoting someone and explaining why they’re wrong.
7. Refuting the central point: This is the most powerful form of disagreement. Prior to this level you have been unclear or, in the worst case, deliberately dishonest.

Why?

So why does this matter? Graham addresses it quite well, with two main thoughts:

The most obvious advantage of classifying the forms of disagreement is 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 vanquishing an opponent merely by using forceful words. In fact that is probably the defining quality of a demagogue. By giving names to the different forms of disagreement, we give critical readers a pin for popping such balloons.

But the greatest benefit of disagreeing well is not just that it will make conversations better, but that it will make the people who have them happier. You don’t have to be mean when you have a real point to make. In fact, you don’t want to. If you have something real to say, being mean just gets in the way.

If moving up the disagreement hierarchy makes people less mean, that will make most of them happier. Most people don’t really enjoy being mean; they do it because they can’t help it.

Disagreements can be a good thing if done right and, according to Graham, proper disagreements leave everyone happier because you can argue about the central points rather than attacking one another.

I encourage you to give it a read when you have a chance. I also found this write-up of it, which includes some examples and images to walk through it. Of course, as I said at the top, this comes from Adam Grant’s “Think Again” which is a must-read for most folks.