PAUL GRAHAMS ESSAY HOW TO DISAGREE

And that means one has to commit explicitly to what the central point is. Store” , co-founding the influential startup accelerator and seed capital firm Y Combinator , his blog, and Hacker News. Agreeing tends to motivate people less than disagreeing. YCombinator , Hacker News. To refute someone you probably have to quote them.

Though better than attacking the author, this is still a weak form of disagreement. The ability to have online discussions with people across the globe is a thrilling thing. Tools What links here Upload file Special pages Page information. So also the tongue is a small part of the body, and yet it boasts of great things. Does it advance the question, or muddy it?

Viaweb’s software, written mostly in Common Lispallowed users to make their own Internet stores. The question is whether the author is correct or not. Indeed, the disagreement hierarchy forms a kind of pyramid, in the sense that the higher you go the pauk instances you find.

Disagreeing with “How to Disagree”

View more global usage of this file. Many who respond to something disagree with it. It matters much more whether the author is wrong or right than what his tone is. After all, one must know the rule to break it well.

How to Disagree: Paul Graham’s Disagreement hierarchy

Previous Post Previous post: Japan—Korea Treaty of Talk: By using this site, you agree to the Terms of Use and Privacy Policy. Minister of the Right Talk: Sometimes the spirit in which this is done makes it more of a sophisticated form of ad hominem than actual refutation. The ability to have online discussions with people across the globe is a thrilling thing. As a former editor of hod newspaper and also of an online anonymous forum sincegdahams having kept blogs sinceI use the following general questions when deciding to allow or delete a comment: Unless the opposing argument actually depends on such things, the only purpose of correcting them is to discredit one’s opponent.

  HUBERT HADERTHAUER DISSERTATION

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. I can’t believe the author dismisses intelligent design in such a cavalier fashion.

More than pages use this file. Sometimes the spirit in which this is done makes it more of a sophisticated form of ad hominem than actual refutation. The result is there’s a lot more disagreeing going on, especially measured by the word.

File:Graham’s Hierarchy of – Wikipedia

But unfortunately it’s common for counterarguments to be aimed at something slightly different. In his words and from his essay, How to Disagree:. A comment like The author is a self-important dilettante. I appreciate the people on this blog who read and comment kindly even when disagreeing. No doubt as Admins of your own section of the graham, you have your own policies, standards, and benchmarks. Cornell University Harvard University.

Hierarchy of disagreement – RationalWiki

Intelligent design is a legitimate scientific theory. A DH6 response could still be completely mistaken. These studies would like to formally prove that a certain language is more or less expressive than another language.

  UOFC THESIS VAULT

paul grahams essay how to disagree

So here’s an attempt at a disagreement hierarchy: What does it mean to disagree well? It matters much more whether the author is wrong or right than what his tone is.

paul grahams essay how to disagree

Someone arguing against the tone of something he disagrees with may believe he’s really saying something. Better that than grave and wrong. 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.

In fact that is probably the defining quality of a demagogue.