Learning to Disagree: Paul Graham and the Hierarchy of Argumentative Quality

Graham is famous for creating a hierarchy of disagreement, ranking attitudes according to their quality.

Disagreement and disagreement are as inherent to human beings as the need to eat. The mere fact that we are rational animals predisposes us to doubt and disagree with any opinion with which we do not fully identify.

However, not all people have the capacity to do this correctly. Paul Graham noticed this fact and created a "hierarchy of disagreement" that orders the way in which people express their disagreement.

Who is Paul Graham?

Paul Graham is a British computer programmer and essayist who became known after his work with Lisp, a family of programming languages. He also co-founded what was the first application service provider (ASP) company.

After acquiring a notable reputation in the computer and programming world, Graham began his career as an essayist. From his own website, he published essays on a variety of subjects, ranging from texts about the ranging from texts about programming languages to the reasons why nerdy people never achieve popularity. These writings are collected in the publication Hackers and painterswhich came out in 2004, although he had previously published books on programming.

However, one of his most acclaimed and widely disseminated essays was his study How to disagree written in 2008. In it Graham graphically depicts the "hierarchy of disagreement"which shows the different levels at which a person can express disagreement or disagreement with any issue.

However, before explaining what this hierarchy is about and how it is organized, it is necessary to know what the discrepancy consists of and how the dynamics of the discrepancy work.

What is discrepancy and how does it work?

The Royal Academy of the Spanish Language defines "discrepancy" with two different meanings:

Therefore, and according to this definition, a person who disagrees is a person whose beliefs, thoughts or behaviors do not agree with him/her. whose beliefs, thoughts or conduct do not coincide with those of some other person or group.

However, disagreement is a social fact. That is, in order to disagree with something, it is necessary to have the presence of another person or group of people with whom to compare opinions and disagree; and, in addition, to have a group of followers who support our point of view..

Thus, at the social level, disagreement follows a path. A series of guidelines that go from the origin of the disagreement to the disagreements generated within this first discrepancy. Although complex, this process is much easier to understand if we follow each of the steps:

Because the tendency to disagree is something natural to human beings, by the mere fact of possessing the ability to reason, these dynamics are maintained over time and appear in all areas of life.

Graham's hierarchy of discrepancy

Once we know how discrepancies work, we can go on to describe how these disagreements can manifest themselves in each of the people who experience them. It is not the same to express a disagreement by means of an insult, as it is to do so by resorting to solid and rational argumentation.

To this end, Graham creates a triangular-shaped graphical representation in which these levels of disagreement are arranged. According to this triangular graph, the higher a person's position on the pyramid, the more powerful his or her own position or argument, while the higher the level of disagreement, the more powerful the position or argument. those who place themselves at the lowest levels use weak and banal arguments to justify themselves..

However, a person is capable of evolving or moving between the different levels. Thus, the higher people are placed in the levels, the more edifying and profitable the exchanges of opinions will be, the more edifying and profitable the exchanges of opinions will be.

Below we explain the different levels of the hierarchy of discrepancy from the lowest to the highest of all.

7. Insult

The lowest level of argumentation is the one in which all those who resort to insult as a form of opposition are installed, since they are incapable of offering any kind of argument, no matter how poorly reasoned it may be.

Graham exemplifies this with the phrase "you are an idiot".

6. Ad hominem

The author places on this rung all those who "attack the characteristics or authority of the opponent without considering the substance of the argument".

This means that the person is only capable of rebutting another by means of attacks or negative statements about his person, with the intention of discrediting him or her but without providing any valid arguments that demonstrates the weakness of the other's reasoning and assertions. In other words, the person is attacked, not what he/she says.

An example of this discrepancy would be: "What would you know if you don't even have an education?

5. Responding to tone

In these cases the person focuses on or uses the tone of the opponent's message to try to disprove or refute it, regardless of the basis of the message.without taking into account the basis or the essence of what is being discussed.

A typical statement in these cases would be: "By shouting so much no one will take you seriously".

4. Contradiction

The person who uses contradiction to refute an opinion tends to express an opposing idea but with very little content or no evidence at all.

In these cases the arguments used are expressed in the form of universal truths that, according to the same person, do not need explanation..

Thus the example would be: "Everyone knows that this is not so".

3. Counterargument

From this level onwards, the reasoning begins to present a greater richness and quality.. However, in the counterargument the person exposes proofs or evidences that support his opinion, but that have been said or written by others before.

The ideas used to debate any topic are not the result of the person's own reasoning, but rather he/she uses third party approaches and explanations to support his/her beliefs.

For example: "You're not right, because as Socrates said..."

2. Refutation

In this second level of discussion the person is able to reason and disagree with his or her own ideas and beliefs but without taking too much account of the basis of the argument or the beliefs of the other person. Rather, it is based on details or very specific ideas of the other's discourse, not being able to refute the central idea.

1. Refuting the central point

Finally we come to the highest level, and therefore the most constructive when it comes to holding a discussion. At this point the person has the necessary resources to refute the central issue or the basis of the discussion explicitly and directly, using his or her own experiences and arguments, andAt this point the person has the resources to refute the central theme or basis of the discussion explicitly and directly, using his or her own experiences and arguments and being able to integrate the other person's ideas into his or her discussion.

• "Personal dissent in opinions or conduct".
• Existence of an ideology or thought supported by numerous followers.
• Within this same group of people someone generates a discrepancy, propagating a belief or opinion of his own and creating a separation within the first group..
• Both parties acquire a sufficiently large following to maintain their opinions over time.
• Within the groups themselves, discrepancies continue to appear, generating new groups of people that generate new groups of people, thus ending the original groups.. This dynamic is repeated successively.
Wikipedia Commons.