How to disagree in a technical thread

[LiquidFeet]

Technical threads are known for generating hot spots. Disagreements happen, as do train wrecks and explosions. Recently I ran across Paul Graham's "Disagreement Hierarchy." You can find his thoughts explained in detail here:

How to Disagree

www.paulgraham.com

Graham has given names to different ways people disagree online and arranged those types of disagreement into an ascending order - from worst to best. Pyramids with his system are easy to find online; this hierarchy has found traction. What do you think of what he's put in each category?

Note: the top three ways of disagreeing address the content that is being disagreed with. The bottom four do not.

A quote from that link above by Graham:
"If moving up the disagreement hierarchy makes people less mean, that will make most of them happier."

 

[raytseng]

lol, this guy is a true programmer, cuts straight to the chase of the crux and mechanism of the disagreement and purely as a computer would parse the statements.

I think he ignored the entirety of emotional intelligence and how the disagreement was presented.
To speak in this similar quantitative terms , the art of how the idea is conveyed, I guestimate has 2x or 3x the impact as the point itself.
This makes this hierarchy secondclass, as a "worse" method presented well can change more people minds than the "best" method presented poorly.
Ultimately the point of a argument is to convey an idea to another human, and however much you may try you cannot disentangle the human emotion element when dealing with humans.

(i believe my statement above is of type 2 or 3 in his pyramid? i cant even tell)
Anyway im bot an instructor, thread looked interesting though.

 

[crgildart]

There's only one way to settle this...

 

[slowrider]

Ski off!!!!

 

[raytseng]

Ja, It. is. the only way.

 

[Dakine]

 

[LiquidFeet]

....I think he ignored the entirety of emotional intelligence and how the disagreement was presented.
To speak in this similar quantitative terms , the art of how the idea is conveyed, I guestimate has 2x or 3x the impact as the point itself.
This makes this hierarchy secondclass, as a "worse" method presented well can change more people minds than the "best" method presented poorly.
Ultimately the point of a argument is to convey an idea to another human, and however much you may try you cannot disentangle the human emotion element when dealing with humans.....

I'm not sure Graham ignored this factor. He wrote in that link:
"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."

He also said in that link that when someone refutes someone else's claim by using the top approach on that pyramid they could still be wrong. And he says that using that top method also doesn't guarantee an audience will be more convinced.

 

[Dakine]

"If you cannot wow them with brilliance, baffle them with bullshit."

 

[raytseng]

Even in that explanation, i feel he's too interested in objective truth, where the argument is to be logically judged/ scored by perfectly logical judges to determine a "winner" and ostensibly "losers", vs the subjective goal of an argument which is too convince people and even your opponent to your side (which might not be the same thing as finding truth).
I suppose my take is this is all fine and true, but just a matter of importance/priority since we're making pyramids. If as I believe all the human eq stuff of how to win friends and influence people is a 2x or 3x multiplier it should be the heart of the analysis and not just the epilogue.

 

[François Pugh]

That guy would say that! He's full of crap? That's not how to disagree!
How am I doing?

 

[Mike Thomas]

Paul Graham is an ass hat.

 

[raytseng]

That guy would say that! He's full of crap? That's not how to disagree!
How am I doing?

You cast DH.1 attack for 5. Paul graham defends with 80% mitigation and takes 1 point damage.

 

[HDSkiing]

Technical threads are known for generating hot spots. Disagreements happen, as do train wrecks and explosions.

Great topic! I often wonder why this is the case, where people who would otherwise be deferential to each other in real life seem to go out of there way to be dismissive, even snarky or worse during an online discussion. I spend a lot of time in clinics, leading clinics, talking and collaborating with our staff, or just free-skiing with them. It’s always cordial, and disagreements, when they do arise, often occur out of misunderstanding a point of view, or perhaps an inarticulate communication when we get into “the weeds.”

Then there are the forums...

Online conversations about Skiing are abstract at best, we are removed from the environment of the topic and engaged through text about a physical process that we try to visualize while compartmentalized in our own echo chamber...it’s easy to see why the other person is soooo wrong...

I literally spend more time skiing than walking November through April, and while it is a full time job and I consider myself a “Professional” (whatever that means) I am a student of skiing first. In person I think most of us in the industry think that way, taking our time to listen to what a colleague is saying, or advocating: Listening for information rather than focusing on formulating a response.

Away from the mountain it’s tricky at best to do that, often just our writing skills get in the way. The elephant in the room here boils down to ego, not wanting to be wrong in front of so many, or to show how right we are. On the mountain we gather in smaller groups, either you can do it or you can’t, and If you can’t it’s not about judgement, but rather how can I help you do that better? Or what can I learn from you to improve my skills?

I enjoy the technical discussions a great deal and have learned things from them, and it’s always disappointing when someone feels the need to call someone else out in a less than cordial manner. I find the best technical threads are with pictures/videos where we all can see something in actuality as opposed to having to use our imaginations.

It could just be that being on the mountain makes us happier, better people, and I get that too.

 

[scott43]

In these things, I generally let the magnificent Dr Feynman be my guide...

 

[crgildart]

 

[mister moose]

Wondering what must happen to transition a thread from constructive to argumentative.


This format reduces the separation of distance and time, and creates a dynamic group that otherwise wouldn't exist, but increases the potential for misunderstanding due to using unintentional ambiguity, lack of tone & gestures, and using words that a number of us interpret differently. And adds in ego and anonymity. I think it's more complicated that it appears on the surface. Sorta like skiing.

Also, everyone may not bring the same goals to the sandbox. Some might want discussion. Some might want to move and shape dirt. Some might want to kick sand up.

Good discussion is like anything else, it's a skill, and it can be learned.

 

[RobSN]

In these things, I generally let the magnificent Dr Feynman be my guide...

So, rather than getting pulled into the weeds, you play bongo drums instead? Or, crack a safe or two?

 

[scott43]

So, rather than getting pulled into the weeds, you play bongo drums instead? Or, crack a safe or two?

If I can't explain it to a ten year old maybe I don't really understand it, or maybe they're younger than ten..

 

[RobSN]

I didn't know he'd said that, but it certainly sounds like the sort of thing he would have said ...

 

[scott43]

I didn't know he'd said that, but it certainly sounds like the sort of thing he would have said ...

He was a remarkable person..