How to express disagreement

The web turns the letter into a discussion. Twenty years ago, writers wrote, and readers read. The web allows readers to respond, and they are increasingly taking advantage of this opportunity - in the comment threads, in forums and posts in their own blogs.

Many responsible author disagree with him. It `s naturally. Consent is less motivating than disagreement. And when you agree, you have less to say. You can develop some of the thoughts of the author, but he probably already reviewed the most interesting moments. And when you do not agree - you are in an area that he most likely did not study.

As a result, there is much more disagreement, especially if you count the words. This does not mean that people are more angry. This is simply due to a structural change in how we communicate. But despite the fact that the growth of disagreement is not caused by anger, there is a danger that this will make people more evil. Especially online, where it's easy to say things that you never say face to face.

If there is less and less agreement between us, we'd better be careful and disagree correctly. What does this mean? Most readers can be distinguished by a simple name-calling and a thoroughly substantiated refutation, but I think it would be better to mark the intermediate stages. Here is an attempt to describe the hierarchy of disagreement:

DH0. Name calling

This is the lowest form of disagreement, and perhaps the most common. We have all seen comments like “ahtung, in fagots!” But it is important to understand that even a less offensive name-calling has just as little weight. A commentary like “the author is a self-confident amateur” is actually just a more pretentious version of the author — the mudag.

DH1. Ad Hominem - criticism of the author

Criticism of the author is not as weak as a banal name-calling. In fact, it can really have weight. For example, if a senator writes an article calling for raising senators ’salaries (approx. Lane: haha!), The commentator may reply:“ Of course, he wants it - he is a senator. ” This does not refute the author’s arguments, but at least may be relevant to the topic. Still, this is a very weak form of disagreement. If something is wrong with the senator's argument, you need to say what it is, and if everything is all right with him, what difference does it make whether he is a senator or not.

To say that the author is not authoritative enough to speak on this topic is also a variant of the author’s criticism, and especially meaningless, because good ideas often come from outside. The question is whether the author is right or not. If lack of authority has caused errors, point them out. And if not, in itself it is not a problem.

DH2. Answer to tone

A level above, we begin to see disagreement with the text, and not with the author. The lowest form of such disagreement is with the tone of the statement. For example: "I can not believe that the author so arrogantly denies the theory of reasonable creation."

Although this is better than attacking the author, this is still a weak form of disagreement. It is much more important, whether the author is right, than how he argues. This is also because the tone is so difficult to evaluate. Someone with specific problems can be offended by a tone that seems neutral to other readers.

So if the worst thing you can say about a text is to criticize its tone, that’s almost nothing you say. The author is not serious, but right? This is better than being serious and making mistakes. And if the author is wrong in something, say what.

DH3. Objection

At this stage, we finally get answers to what was said, not by whom or how. The lowest form of objection is simply to argue the opposite, not really bothering with evidence.

This is often combined with statements of the DH2 level: “I cannot believe that the author so arrogantly denies the theory of rational creation. This is a famous scientific theory. "

An objection can sometimes have weight. Sometimes just looking at an explicit objection is enough to understand its truth. But usually the confirmation of words is useful.

DH4. Counter argument

At the fourth level, we encounter the first form of convincing disagreement: the counter-argument. Objections from previous levels can usually be ignored, since they do not prove anything, unlike counter arguments. But their problem is the difficulty of determining what exactly they are proving.

A counter argument is an objection plus justification and / or confirmation. If he objects to just one of the author’s arguments, he can be convincing. But, unfortunately, very often they target a little more. People often argue with conviction, proving different things to each other. Sometimes they even agree with each other, but they are so passionate about trifles that they do not notice it.

One can argue about a slightly different argument from the author if one feels that the author has slightly deviated from the idea. But if you do that, you need to explicitly talk about it.

DH5. Denial

The most persuasive form of disagreement is refutation. It is also the rarest by virtue of its laboriousness. In general, a hierarchy of disagreement forms a pyramid in the sense that disagreement of a higher level is always less common than of a lower one.

To refute someone, you usually need to quote him. Find the "smoking barrel", the wrong phrase in the text, and explain why it is wrong. If you cannot find a piece of text suitable for this, you will most likely argue with yourself.

Despite the fact that refutation usually implies quoting, the reverse is not true. Some commentators cite passages with which they disagree, and then express their thoughts in a low form of DH3 or even DH0.

DH6. Denial of the main idea

The power of denial depends on what it is directed to. Best of all disagreement is expressed by a refutation of the author’s main idea.

Even at the DH5 level, we still sometimes see deliberate dishonesty, for example, when the commentator chooses irrelevant details and refutes them. Moreover, sometimes the spirit of such denials is close to criticism of the author. For example, correcting grammatical errors or minor inaccuracies in names or numbers. If the author's arguments are not based precisely on this, the only meaning of such corrections is to discredit the opponent.

For the present refutation it is necessary to disprove the main idea, or at least one of them. And for this you need to clearly express it. So a really effective refutation would look something like this:

It seems that the author wants to say X. Here are his words:

quote

But this is wrong for the following reasons: ...

The statement, called erroneous, does not have to be exactly part of the main idea. It is enough to refute the argument on which it relies.

What does it mean

So we have a way to classify forms of disagreement. Why do we need it? What it doesn’t exactly fit for is finding the winner of a dispute. These levels describe only the form of the utterance, not its essence. DH6's answer may still be completely wrong.

But despite the fact that these levels do not set the lower limit of persuasiveness, they set the upper limit. A DH6 response may be inconclusive, but a DH2 response below will always be inconclusive.

The most obvious advantage of classifying disagreement forms is that it will help readers evaluate what they read. Especially skillful, but dishonest arguments. An eloquent speaker or writer can create the impression of defeating an opponent by simply using strong expressions. Probably, this is how you can define a demagogue. By defining various forms of disagreement, we give the reader the opportunity to easily burst such bubbles (Lane comment: how can I say this in literary Russian?)

Classification can help and commenting. Most of the intellectual dishonesty is random, unintentional. Someone who objects to the tone of a text with which he disagrees can believe that he is really expressing an objection. Rising higher and seeing his current position in the hierarchy of disagreement, he can be inspired by a counter-argument or even a refutation.

But the biggest benefit of correct disagreement is not that it will make the discussion better, but that it will make the participants happier. If you study the discussions, you will notice that the bottom in DH1 is a lot more meanness than on top in DH6. There is no need to cheek if you have a good argument. In fact, this does not even want. The meanness just gets in the way if you want to protest the case.

If climbing up the hierarchy makes people less vile, it will make most of them happier. People usually do not get pleasure from dishonesty, and act so simply because they can not otherwise.