How to Disagree
Paul Graham's 2008 essay proposes a disagreement hierarchy (DH0–DH6) ranging from name-calling to refuting the central point. Each level describes the form of a rebuttal, not its correctness: low levels (DH2 and below) are never convincing, while high levels (DH4 and above) can be. Most intellectual dishonesty is unintentional; awareness of the hierarchy helps debaters improve and reduces meanness. Useful for anyone engaging in online debate or technical commentary.
March 2008The web is turning writing into a conversation. Twenty years ago, writers wrote and readers read. The web lets readers respond, and increasingly they do—in comment threads, on forums, and in their own blog posts.
Many who respond to something disagree with it. That's to be expected. Agreeing tends to motivate people less than disagreeing. And when you agree there's less to say. You could expand on something the author said, but he has probably already explored the most interesting implications. When you disagree you're entering territory he may not have explored.
The result is there's a lot more disagreeing going on, especially measured by the word. That doesn't mean people are getting angrier. The structural change in the way we communicate is enough to account for it. But though it's not anger that's driving the increase in disagreement, there's a danger that the increase in disagreement will make people angrier. Particularly online, where it's easy to say things you'd never say face to face.
If we're all going to be disagreeing more, we should be careful to do it well. What does it mean to disagree well? Most readers can tell the difference between mere name-calling and a carefully reasoned refutation, but I think it would help to put names on the intermediate stages. So here's an attempt at a disagreement hierarchy:
2008年3月。网络正在将写作转变为对话。二十年前，作者写，读者读。如今网络让读者能够回应，并且越来越多的人正在这样做——在评论线程、论坛和自己的博客文章中。许多回应者不同意作者的观点。这在意料之中。同意往往不如不同意更能激励人们。而且当你同意时，能说的东西更少。你可以延伸作者说过的某些内容，但他可能已经探讨了最有趣的推论。而当你不同意时，你正在进入他可能未曾探索的领域。结果是，分歧越来越多，尤其是在字数上。这并不意味着人们变得更加愤怒。我们沟通方式的结构性变化足以解释这一点。但尽管增加的分歧并非由愤怒驱动，但分歧的增加有可能使人们更加愤怒。尤其是在网上，人们很容易说出面对面时绝不会说的话。既然大家都将更多地分歧，我们就应该注意如何做好分歧。什么才是好的分歧？大多数读者能区分纯粹的人身攻击和经过仔细推理的反驳，但我认为给中间阶段命名会有所帮助。因此，我尝试提出一个分歧层次：
DH0. Name-calling.
This is the lowest form of disagreement, and probably also the most common. We've all seen comments like this:
u r a fag!!!!!!!!!!
But it's important to realize that more articulate name-calling has just as little weight. A comment like
The author is a self-important dilettante.
is really nothing more than a pretentious version of "u r a fag."
DH0. 人身攻击。这是分歧的最低形式，可能也是最常见的。我们都见过这样的评论：“你是个傻逼！！！！！！”但重要的是要认识到，更文雅的人身攻击同样没什么分量。比如这样一条评论：“作者是个自命不凡的半瓶醋。”实际上不过是“你是个傻逼”的装腔作势版本。
DH1. Ad Hominem.
An ad hominem attack is not quite as weak as mere name-calling. It might actually carry some weight. For example, if a senator wrote an article saying senators' salaries should be increased, one could respond:
Of course he would say that. He's a senator.
This wouldn't refute the author's argument, but it may at least be relevant to the case. It's still a very weak form of disagreement, though. If there's something wrong with the senator's argument, you should say what it is; and if there isn't, what difference does it make that he's a senator?Saying that an author lacks the authority to write about a topic is a variant of ad hominem—and a particularly useless sort, because good ideas often come from outsiders. The question is whether the author is correct or not. If his lack of authority caused him to make mistakes, point those out. And if it didn't, it's not a problem.
DH1. 诉诸人身。人身攻击没有纯粹的人身攻击那么弱，它可能有一定的分量。例如，如果一位参议员写了一篇文章说参议员的工资应该增加，有人可以回应：“他当然会这么说，他是参议员。”这并没有反驳作者的论点，但至少与案情相关。不过，这仍然是一种非常弱的分歧形式。如果参议员的论点有问题，你应该指出问题所在；如果没有问题，那么他是参议员又有什么区别呢？说作者缺乏谈论某个话题的权威是人身攻击的一种变体，而且是一种特别无用的变体，因为好主意往往来自局外人。问题在于作者是否正确。如果他的缺乏权威导致他犯了错误，那就指出这些错误。如果没有，那就不是问题。
DH2. Responding to Tone.
The next level up we start to see responses to the writing, rather than the writer. The lowest form of these is to disagree with the author's tone. E.g.
I can't believe the author dismisses intelligent design in such a cavalier fashion.
Though better than attacking the author, this is still a weak form of disagreement. It matters much more whether the author is wrong or right than what his tone is. Especially since tone is so hard to judge. Someone who has a chip on their shoulder about some topic might be offended by a tone that to other readers seemed neutral.So if the worst thing you can say about something is to criticize its tone, you're not saying much. Is the author flippant, but correct? Better that than grave and wrong. And if the author is incorrect somewhere, say where.
DH2. 回应语气。再往上一个层次，我们开始看到针对文章本身而非作者的回应。其中最低级的形式是不同意作者的语气。例如：“我无法相信作者如此轻率地否定了智能设计。”虽然这比攻击作者要好，但仍然是一种弱分歧形式。作者是对是错远比他的语气重要得多。尤其是因为语气很难判断。某个对某个话题耿耿于怀的人，可能会被在别人看来中立的语气冒犯。因此，如果你能对某事物说的最糟糕的话就是批评其语气，那你其实没说出什么。作者是否轻率但正确？那比严肃但错误要好。如果作者在某些地方错了，就指出哪里错了。
DH3. Contradiction.
In this stage we finally get responses to what was said, rather than how or by whom. The lowest form of response to an argument is simply to state the opposing case, with little or no supporting evidence.
This is often combined with DH2 statements, as in:
I can't believe the author dismisses intelligent design in such a cavalier fashion. Intelligent design is a legitimate scientific theory.
Contradiction can sometimes have some weight. Sometimes merely seeing the opposing case stated explicitly is enough to see that it's right. But usually evidence will help.
DH3. 单纯反驳。在这个阶段，我们终于看到了对所说内容的回应，而不是对如何说或谁说的。回应一个论点最低级的形式就是简单地陈述对立观点，几乎没有或完全没有支持证据。这常常与DH2的表述结合，例如：“我无法相信作者如此轻率地否定了智能设计。智能设计是合法的科学理论。”单纯反驳有时可能有一定分量。有时仅仅看到对立观点被明确陈述就足以看出它是正确的。但通常证据会有帮助。
DH4. Counterargument.
At level 4 we reach the first form of convincing disagreement: counterargument. Forms up to this point can usually be ignored as proving nothing. Counterargument might prove something. The problem is, it's hard to say exactly what.
Counterargument is contradiction plus reasoning and/or evidence. When aimed squarely at the original argument, it can be convincing. But unfortunately it's common for counterarguments to be aimed at something slightly different. More often than not, two people arguing passionately about something are actually arguing about two different things. Sometimes they even agree with one another, but are so caught up in their squabble they don't realize it.
There could be a legitimate reason for arguing against something slightly different from what the original author said: when you feel they missed the heart of the matter. But when you do that, you should say explicitly you're doing it.
DH4. 对立论证。在第四级，我们达到了第一种令人信服的分歧：对立论证。到目前为止的形式通常可以忽略，因为它们证明不了什么。对立论证可能证明某些东西。问题是，很难确切说明它证明了什么。对立论证是单纯反驳加上推理和/或证据。当它直接针对原始论点时，可能具有说服力。但不幸的是，对立论证常常针对稍有不同的东西。更多情况下，两个热烈争论某件事的人实际上是在争论两件不同的事。有时他们甚至同意彼此，但陷入争吵而没有意识到。一个合理的反对理由可以是：你认为原作者遗漏了问题的核心。但当你这样做时，你应该明确声明你在这么做。
DH5. Refutation.
The most convincing form of disagreement is refutation. It's also the rarest, because it's the most work. Indeed, the disagreement hierarchy forms a kind of pyramid, in the sense that the higher you go the fewer instances you find.
To refute someone you probably have to quote them. You have to find a "smoking gun," a passage in whatever you disagree with that you feel is mistaken, and then explain why it's mistaken. If you can't find an actual quote to disagree with, you may be arguing with a straw man.
While refutation generally entails quoting, quoting doesn't necessarily imply refutation. Some writers quote parts of things they disagree with to give the appearance of legitimate refutation, then follow with a response as low as DH3 or even DH0.
DH5. 驳斥。最具说服力的分歧形式是驳斥。它也是最罕见的，因为需要的工作量最大。事实上，分歧层次构成了一种金字塔：层次越高，你找到的实例就越少。要驳斥某人，你可能需要引用他们的话。你必须找到一个“确凿证据”，即你不同意的内容中你认为错误的一段，然后解释它为什么错误。如果你找不到一个可以反对的实际引文，你可能是在与一个稻草人争论。虽然驳斥通常需要引用，但引用并不一定意味着驳斥。一些作者引用他们不同意的部分来制造合法驳斥的假象，然后接着用低至DH3甚至DH0的回应。
DH6. Refuting the Central Point.
The force of a refutation depends on what you refute. The most powerful form of disagreement is to refute someone's central point.
Even as high as DH5 we still sometimes see deliberate dishonesty, as when someone picks out minor points of an argument and refutes those. Sometimes the spirit in which this is done makes it more of a sophisticated form of ad hominem than actual refutation. For example, correcting someone's grammar, or harping on minor mistakes in names or numbers. Unless the opposing argument actually depends on such things, the only purpose of correcting them is to discredit one's opponent.
Truly refuting something requires one to refute its central point, or at least one of them. And that means one has to commit explicitly to what the central point is. So a truly effective refutation would look like:
The author's main point seems to be x. As he says:
<quotation>
But this is wrong for the following reasons...
The quotation you point out as mistaken need not be the actual statement of the author's main point. It's enough to refute something it depends upon.
DH6. 驳斥核心论点。驳斥的力量取决于你驳斥什么。最具威力的分歧形式是驳斥某人的核心论点。即使在DH5这么高的层次，我们有时仍然看到故意的欺骗，比如有人挑出论点的次要细节加以驳斥。有时这样做的心态使其更像是精巧的人身攻击而非真正的驳斥。例如，纠正别人的语法，或者纠缠名字或数字上的小错误。除非对方的论点确实依赖于这些东西，否则纠正它们的唯一目的就是诋毁对手。真正驳斥某事物要求你驳斥其核心论点，或至少其中之一。这意味着你必须明确承诺核心论点是什么。因此，真正有效的驳斥看起来像这样：“作者的主要观点似乎是X。如他所说：<引文>。但这是错误的，原因如下……”你指出为错误的引文不必是作者主要论点的实际陈述。驳斥其所依赖的某一点就足够了。
Now we have a way of classifying forms of disagreement. What good is it? One thing the disagreement hierarchy doesn't give us is a way of picking a winner. DH levels merely describe the form of a statement, not whether it's correct. A DH6 response could still be completely mistaken.
But while DH levels don't set a lower bound on the convincingness of a reply, they do set an upper bound. A DH6 response might be unconvincing, but a DH2 or lower response is always unconvincing.
现在我们有了对分歧形式进行分类的方法。它有什么好处？分歧层次没有给我们提供选出胜者的方法。DH级别只是描述陈述的形式，而不是其是否正确。一个DH6的回应仍然可能完全错误。但是，尽管DH级别没有给回应的说服力设定下限，它们确实设定了上限。一个DH6的回应可能不令人信服，但DH2或更低的回应始终不令人信服。
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.
对分歧形式进行分类最明显的好处是，它将帮助人们评估他们所阅读的内容。特别是，它将帮助他们看穿理智上不诚实的论点。一个雄辩的演讲者或作者可以仅通过使用有力的言辞就给人一种击败对手的印象。实际上，这很可能就是煽动家的定义性特征。通过给不同形式的分歧命名，我们给批判性读者提供了一个戳破这些气球的针。
Such labels may help writers too. Most intellectual dishonesty is unintentional. Someone arguing against the tone of something he disagrees with may believe he's really saying something. Zooming out and seeing his current position on the disagreement hierarchy may inspire him to try moving up to counterargument or refutation.
这些标签也可能帮助写作者。大多数理智上的不诚实是无意的。一个对不同意的事情的语气进行争论的人可能相信自己确实在说些什么。退一步看看自己在分歧层次上的当前位置，可能会激励他尝试向上移动到对立论证或驳斥。
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. If you study conversations, you find there is a lot more meanness down in DH1 than up in DH6. 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.
Thanks to Trevor Blackwell and Jessica Livingston for reading drafts of this.
但善于分歧的最大好处不仅仅是让对话变得更好，而是让参与对话的人更快乐。如果你研究对话，你会发现DH1中的恶意比DH6中多得多。当你有真正的观点要表达时，你不需要刻薄。实际上，你也不想要。如果你有真实的东西要说，刻薄只会碍事。如果沿着分歧层次向上移动能让人不那么刻薄，那将使大多数人更快乐。大多数人并不真正喜欢刻薄；他们这样做是因为忍不住。感谢Trevor Blackwell和Jessica Livingston阅读本文的草稿。