I’ve read Paul Graham’s “How To Disagree” essay, and I have to say, I disagree. There are some good ideas in there, but it’s clearly the work of a pretentious has-been.
First, why would anyone take advice of this sort from Paul Graham? His web site and blog are very different from most people’s, so of course he’s going to see a biased view of the sorts of conversations that go on around the web. He’s so wrapped up in his little bubble view of the world that he’s the last person whose preaching we should pay attention to.
Second, you really have to look at the faux authority in which he couches his words. I’m sorry, but I’m not going to look at any stone tablets Moses Graham brings down from the mountain.
Third, nobody needs to be told how to dissect online arguments. There’s just no need to match everything up against some hierarchy, unless you like the mental exercise.
Fourth, the idea that people think that way is absurd. If Bob is writing up his disagreeing comment, he’s not thinking “ooh, should I attack the author, or should I deliberately misinterpret some part of his argument so I can show how obviously flawed it is?” People just don’t do that! They write what they think, and I don’t want to live in Graham’s alternate universe of semantic logician automatons, thank you very much.
Fifth, disagreements don’t fit into a rigid hierarchy. A given disagreement will usually have elements of all of his levels of hierarchy. You might think that this legitimizes Graham’s particular taxonomy, but really, there are many other ways of categorizing disagreements that would work equally well. Heck, you could judge them by tiered levels according to what percentage of the letters are vowels!
Sixth, even if people are willing to fit their arguments to Graham’s hierarchy, they aren’t going to change behavior. Going back to Bob, he might be perfectly aware that he’s discrediting the author rather than the argument, but so what? He’s living the online life, man, and that’s how it’s done! You knock down the people you disagree with so that the ones left standing are right. It may not be pretty, but it’s how human society works. So there’s really no point in this kind of clinical dissection — it might be great if the goal were actually to drive discussions forward, but it’s kind of irrelevant if you’re just trying to gain influence and authority.
So, Mr. Graham, here’s what I have to say to you: you missed the boat on why people write stuff in common spaces in the first place, your hierarchy doesn’t fit, we don’t think the way you seem to think we think, and the mental exercise of hierarchy-fitting is pointless. Stop preaching to people who don’t care and get down off your pedestal so you can see what’s really going on.
Then maybe you won’t be such a poopyhead argument nazi.
[Warning: do not comment on this post without reading the original essay first, and perhaps playing a little number matching game. Otherwise, people will think you’re a poopyhead.]