42 ms·
Welcome to HN: A refresher course on how to disagree... (2008)
- amichail 17y agoPageRank is the biggest ad hominem attack of all time.
- elblanco 17y agoI do not understand why this witty, on-topic post has been downvoted so hard. I believe it added loads to the conversation.
- aristus 17y agoAt first glance it is non-sequitur. On second glance it is specious. It's also redundant: Amichail's other comment about theoreticians and conjecture proofs added whatever it added to the conversation already.
- elblanco 17y agoOutside of the side discussion about weather PageRank is an example of an ad hominem fallacy, (which is directly related to the OT btw as per DH1) >It's also redundant: Amichail's other comment about theoreticians and conjecture proofs added whatever it added to the conversation already So, people can only post precisely one comment on a given topic in a thread or risk downvotes? That's the most ridiculous thing I think I've ever read. Redundancy is not a reason to downvote. Amichail's post also received a plethora of downvotes if you notice.
- CodeMage 17y agoOutside of the side discussion about weather PageRank is an example of an ad hominem fallacy, (which is directly related to the OT btw as per DH1) I haven't downvoted amichail's other comments, even though I disagree with them, because they provoked a marginally interesting discussion on what does and what does not constitute an argumentum ad hominem. I did, however, downvote his comment on PageRank because, to me, it appeared to have been posted as a one-liner intended to make the author look witty without any regard to actual validity of the claim. To be brutally honest, I can go elsewhere if I want to hear or read people who want to sound witty and cool. I don't come to HN for posturing, I come for intelligent and insightful discussion. So, people can only post precisely one comment on a given topic in a thread or risk downvotes? That's the most ridiculous thing I think I've ever read. Redundancy is not a reason to downvote. Limiting people to only one comment would be ridiculous, yes. But downvoting excessive redundancy seems perfectly reasonable. If I state the same thing over and over in several comments, without adding anything useful to support, expand or modify my argument, then I'm just being loud and repetitive. That doesn't add any value and that's why I tend to downvote that stuff. Beating a dead horse falls into that same category, you know ;)
- elblanco 17y agoFirst, apologies for using the wrong "whether" prior. > I did, however, downvote his comment on PageRank because, to me, it appeared to have been posted as a one-liner intended to make the author look witty without any regard to actual validity of the claim. Which is surprising to me since PageRank is essentially an algorithm based on argument ad hominem (pages with a good reputation are better) and we all humbly accept that as being a reasonable thing to do. This questions the validity of tossing a concept like argument ad hominem into the rubbish bin of rhetorical devices. This is a both an interesting (at least to me) and unique spin on the perceptions of the fallacy in common usage. > But downvoting excessive redundancy seems perfectly reasonable. It would be, except by your definition and actions, you appear to consider any number of repetitions > 1 as redundant (please, correct me if I'm wrong and that number is really >2 ). I'm sorry, but you aren't the HN police, watching vigilantly for unnecessary redundancy, guideline violations and other such perceived infractions and policing as appropriate. > Beating a dead horse falls into that same category, you know Yes, I get that this is a reference to me and my particular grinding axe <bzzzzz!!!!!>. So long as people keep using the downvote unnecessarily and to the detriment of the discourse here, I'll keep happily grinding away. I've upvoted you for engagement. I don't mind that you used the downvote to express some kind of disapproval of a comment, what I mind is that it's provided with no commentary. Uncommented downvotes are not helpful or instructive and imho are a bit on the rude side. I'm using my upvote here to provide positive feedback that what you are doing right now, explaining your vote, is useful, interesting and drives discussion. It's also good form concerning arguing (as per the topic). :)
- amichail 17y agoAd hominem is used all the time by very smart people. Try getting a theoretician to look at a proof of a famous conjecture written by an unknown.
- wgj 17y agoTry getting a theoretician to look at a proof of a famous conjecture written by an unknown. That was an intentional ad hominem for humor/effect?
- btilly 17y agoI strongly doubt it because it is a well-known phenomenon. If you're a well-known mathematician then you'll get a constant stream of "solutions" to famous math problems that are a waste of time to read. Sure, it is possible that you'll find the great solution in that pile. It is more likely that you'll figure it out yourself in the time you save by not wading through that junk. If you actually take the time to read and respond to the solutions it can get much worse. There are some well-known cranks who, once they get a sense that they have an audience, Will Not Stop Writing. There are famous exceptions to the rule. Ramanujan being the best known. However they are famous because they are so exceptional.
- elblanco 17y agoA person's reputation has a strong quality signal associated with it.
- bmm6o 17y ago"He hasn't produced good work before, so there's a good chance it won't be worth my time to read his proof" is an imperfect way of allocating limited resources, not an ad hominem attack.
- amichail 17y agoAn ad hominem attack is a way of saving resources. Theoreticians use it to save time and effort.
- swolchok 17y agoCan you please add (2008) to this? I clicked, hoping for a new PG article.
- elblanco 17y agoToo bad it doesn't have a section on when and how to vote up/down. For example, "V1:voting down because you have no sense of humor and the poster made a joke" "V2:voting down because you nonspecifically disagree with the poster and don't actually have anything useful to say in response, in other words you downvote because you are angry at yourself."
- jodrellblank 17y agoV3: voting down because the comment is not relevant to the thread, through accidental posting in the wrong place or complete misunderstanding. V4: downvoting proper - You have a reason in mind, e.g. post is very aggressive, comment is incoherent, comment is trivial and could be answered with a Google query, yet the only way to express your desire for "fewer comments like this on HN" is funnelling through a single downvote, so that's what you do, because explanations all the time would add a lot of noise, and you accept that it's imperfect but will probably sort itself out if enough people vote.
- elblanco 17y agoIt is a small, but special source of pride, to see comments like my post, discussing the problems with the downvote, be downvoted into oblivion thus entirely confirming my statement.
- mquander 17y agoI downvoted your post because I viewed it as insubstantial and somewhat bitter. The two reasons you provide are obviously (?) not serious reasons; they're just caricatures, so it provides a pretty poor platform for a sincere discussion about why people downvote things. I don't really see how you can characterize it as "discussing the problems with the downvote." I would characterize it instead as "taunting people who downvote things."
- elblanco 17y agoI appreciate the explanation, thereby you are not in violation of notional guideline V2. I am dead serious about both of those. I'm actually convinced that HN is absolutely and completely devoid of humor. I've actually never seen anything like it. Given that the topic of downvotes constitute the vast majority of this entire topic and most of the threads, and that the only place pg has bothered to respond was regarding the brokeness of downvoting, it's quite obviously not an insubstantial point I was trying to make.
- chrischen 17y agoI would like to take this opportunity to bring up downvoting. Doesn't downvoting have the same end effect as DH0 (or DH3)? A downvote signals disapproval/discouragement, yet it requires no legitimate counterargument or reasoning for it. I haven't seen people calling each other "fags" here, but it seems the downvote is simply the HN version of calling people "fags."
- Ixiaus 17y agoI would agree with this sentiment, I find it immeasurably frustrating when I spend twenty minutes writing a cogent and thoughtful response to someone to only get downvoted with no refutation/counter argument. I can agree with downvoting when there are pointless one-liners that don't add any value, like "This post sucks" or "What was the author thinking?"; but not at all when someone has spent time constructing a chain of arguments.
- boredguy8 17y agoLots of words does not an argument make, and I'd bet often a downvote on a long post reflects that. Nor does length equal quality: a good one or two line post can speak volumes more than a poor wall of text.
- dasil003 17y agoJust because you spent time constructing an argument doesn't mean it's cogent. In some cases it may be indistinguishable from a troll. But even conceding that popular opinion will tend to suppress valid arguments, I think it's just a fact of human nature that no community can escape no matter how much the members may pride themselves on their [relative] objectivity.
- elblanco 17y agoThere's a well known relationship between comment length and comment quality. In general, longer comment have more thought and effort put into them. http://ignorethecode.net/blog/2009/09/29/comments_size_does_matter/ http://ignorethecode.net/blog/2009/09/29/comments_size_does_... In other words, you can only snark or troll for so long; there's only so many ways to call somebody an idiot.
- jimmyjim 17y ago>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." I completely disagree. One is a direct verbal attack, the other can very possibly be a reasonable assertion. If it's followed by a fair explanation, all the better.
- chrischen 17y agoIf it's followed by a fair explanation, then it's no longer the same argument. I think his point is that if you just say "The author is a self-important dilettante," then that by itself is no different from "u r a fag!!!!!!!!!!"
- jimmyjim 17y agoI think still there is a fundamental difference between calling someone a "fag" vs. a "dilettante". Calling someone a "dilettante" isn't quite name-calling. And if the subject at hand has a history of being a sham, then I don't think it even warrants the effort to spend the time writing an explanation.
- chrischen 17y agoI can see where you're coming from, in that "dilettante" may be less outlandish than calling someone a "fag." It's a more refined description, but in the end both are still most likely unfounded claims. In most cases you are probably calling the person a "dilettante" or "self-important" without really knowing the person. And chances are such labels will be emotionally, rather than rationally motivated. So it's true that in some cases the claim can be legitimate, but given our setting in an almost anonymous internet discussion place, it's unlikely that those claims are ever founded on reason. I think that was Paul's point: that calling someone a "fag" vs "self-important dilettante" are similar in their usually unfounded bases. You're correct in that there is a fundamental difference because calling someone a "fag" is not only unfounded, it's also derogatory as well as irrelevant to any rational argument (irrelevant, unless it is an argument about their sexuality).
- vaksel 17y agomaybe just turn off downvoting all together? if someone is breaking the rules, they can be flagged if you disagree with someone don't vote them up. This way the top comments will go to the top as usual, and interesting discussions with 100s of upvotes won't have 3 points
- elblanco 17y agohttp://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=1013330 http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=1013330
- jordyhoyt 17y agoVery good, somehow hadn't seen this yet. Thanks! If all comments on HN were disagreements, this could be an interesting alternative to the simple karma score of a comment. Better yet, f we could tease the concepts of each level away from the disagreement element, we could have an interesting way of classifying comments. Maybe a Conversational Hierarchy: CH0 - Attack on a person CH1 - Statement concerning a person CH2 - Statement concerning a text CH3 - Statement concerning a point made CH4 - Reasoning/facts concerning a point made CH5 - Reasoned response to a point made CH6 - Reasoned response to the central point 5 and 6 could use a bit of beefing up, but you get the idea. They could each have karma scores assigned to them (negative for 0-2, neutral for 3, positive for 4-6) and the classification with the most votes wins. The "CH" appended to the beginning of the number makes it so noobs would be likely to the time to learn what they mean. The UI for this would have to be dead simple, maybe a dropdown. Thoughts?
- chronomex 17y agoThe only issue I see right now with this is that it doesn't promote interesting but (strictly speaking) off-topic discussions.
- JoelSutherland 17y agoThis community does a pretty good job of disagreeing. Even the occasional bit of name-calling is usually buried in something thoughtful. Irrelevance seems to be a greater danger to the comments here than the method of disagreements. The comments are a place for discussing the content of the submitted article. They are not a place for complaining about the NYTimes registration, light text on a dark background, etc...
- chrischen 17y agoIrrelevance can simply be ignored, or if necessary, flagged. It can then sink to the bottom of the page with little consequence. But a down-vote has negative social consequences. It affects the types of comment that show up and shapes and refines the tone here so that eventually only the popular types show up.
- akkartik 17y agoI see irrelevant but funny/praising/criticising comments upvoted to +4 or even +14 all the time.[1] The assumption that bad comments will get less votes is a canard. As the community grows, the same people adding comments also add their votes. If anything, they're more likely to vote since it's just a click, and so noob votes will drown old users even more. It's not just downvotes but any votes that have negative social consequences. Update [1] Exhibit A: http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=1021157 http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=1021157
- elblanco 17y agoThis is an important point. >It's not just downvotes but any votes that have negative social consequences. Upvotes also tend to select for popular modes of thinking. In the end, a system of only upvotes makes people want to only post things that will be perceived as popular by the community.
- chrischen 17y agoYes true, but it is at least positive reinforcement, whereas downvoting is negative reinforcement. Negative reinforcement is conditioning through fear. So ignoring the potential ethical problems of conditioning through fear, there have been studies to show that positive reinforcement is better: https://kb.osu.edu/dspace/bitstream/1811/4924/1/V63N02_087.pdf https://kb.osu.edu/dspace/bitstream/1811/4924/1/V63N02_087.p...
- kburn 17y agoI'm new here, but I've always assumed (by how they are used) that downvotes were for pure disagreement.
- CodeMage 17y agoAs far as I've always understood it, upvotes and downvotes relate to the value the voter perceives in an item (article or comment). If you think that the item adds value, you'll upvote it. In most cases, agreeing with something is a prerequisite for seeing it as adding value. As a consequence, since people mostly upvote what they agree with, one tends to equate upvoting with agreement and downvoting with disagreement. However, according to my understanding, downvoting should be used when you think that the item adds no value (or adds "negative value"). This is not the same thing as disagreement. Some examples of items that either add no or too little value are: name-calling, snarky one-liners with no useful content at all and very badly edited text (maybe the content has value, but the form negates it).
- kburn 17y agoIt seems though, that people are assigning an equivalence of "agree" to "has value", and "disagree" to "doesn't have value". At least this is how I've been registering the use of the vote. Opinions appear to vary wildly as to how it should be used, but the ones that appear to make sense to me are the ones that would make sense in an actual conversation: http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=1021371 http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=1021371 http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=1021634 http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=1021634
- pbh 17y agoThis article seems to me to conflate two things: how to have an exploratory discussion between two opposing viewpoints and how to win an argument. For example, in an exploratory discussion, using your opponent's terms can lead to quicker definition of those terms, and less talking past one another. On the other hand, when trying to win an argument, allowing your opponent to frame the debate (either by using their terms or addressing/refuting their central points) can be the worst possible strategy! I suspect that exploratory discussions where both parties are genuinely disinterested are rare in most contexts.
- ellyagg 17y agoYou shouldn't be trying to win arguments. That's the root of all argumentation evil, as far as I'm concerned. In fact, that's one aspect of debate competition I really despise, the fetishizing of winning arguments. (OTOH, the way debate teams work you're forced to fully understand opposing viewpoints in a way that few people ever do.)
- pbh 17y agoThis is a major point in legal philosophy (and presumably elsewhere). I don't think I agree with you (for example) that an adversarial system (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adversarial_system http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adversarial_system) is inherently worse than an inquisitorial one (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inquisitorial_system http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inquisitorial_system).
- resdirector 17y agoThe back button is my method of disagreement
- GrandMasterBirt 17y agoI use the backspace.
- seabee 17y agoUnfortunately it doesn't delete the text you disagree with :)
- me325r4534534 17y agomy boss deletes text by highlighting it and hitting space. it irritates me to no end.
- gruseom 17y agoThere are many comments claiming that it's somehow bad, rude, or inconsiderate to downvote comments you disagree with. I totally disagree. There is nothing uncivil about downvoting. It simply means that someone took issue with something about your comment: its tone, its logic, whatever. There's no reason to take offense at this; you could just as easily find it intriguing. Voting up or down is a nice, efficient mechanism for participating in a discussion when you do have a response, but it falls below the threshold of having enough time, enough interest, and enough worth saying to justify an explicit post. There's nothing illegitimate about responses that happen to fall below that threshold. In aggregate, they add great value to the site. To try to force people to make explicit comments that aren't naturally above the threshold would spread tedium, not civility. People sometimes allege that opinions are being downvoted to oblivion on HN merely because they're unpopular. In my observation, this is rare. There's almost always some obvious reason (rudeness, irrelevance, etc.). But it's more self-flattering to think that your brave independent thinking was run over by a mob. Egregious arbitrary downvoting does occur, of course, but it tends to get corrected. When I run across a comment at 0 or -1 that I see nothing objectionable about, I upvote it. Lots of other users do that too, so controversial comments tend to stay roughly at par. Lightweight self-correcting systems are hard to come by, so I think it's worth recognizing when you have one. That doesn't mean that experimentation is a bad idea, of course, but it will be hard IMO to come up with a better voting system. (The flagging system is a different matter.)
- elblanco 17y agohttp://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=1021116 http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=1021116 was immediately downvoted to oblivion (it's hit -6 I believe at one point), not a single comment as to why. While this one, http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=1021119 http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=1021119 while practically of the same content (though a hair less snarky) generated screens full of comments and is sitting at +10 as of this writing. I think it has to do with the fact that people were scared off of the other post because it went straight into the vote incinerator and thus they didn't want to get downvoted themselves. A downvote without a comment is just as rude online as a terse "no" is in real life.
- 17y ago
- stcredzero 17y agoOne phenomenon I've encountered here: There are times when I interject a neutral, but relevant point in a debate. Often one side assumes I'm arguing the other side and immediately tries to "counter" me. Then I have to explain that I'm merely pointing out an interesting point, not taking the side against. I take this as a sign that some here are more intent on "winning" than on having a discussion.
- RiderOfGiraffes 17y agoI've found that, many times over, and not just here. Specifically, I've found it important to set expectations before setting out a point or comment. People read things with their prejudices and viewpoints at the fore. If you are to get a neutral reading, you must work to create a neutral setting first. This then makes your comment long-winded and apparently initially rambling, off-topic or irrelevant. To counter that problem one must write very, very succinctly, but clearly. This is all hard work. However, if you think it's worth making your point, it's the best way to give it a chance.
- elblanco 17y agoI always liked Tolkien better than Hemingway myself.
- dunstad 17y agoSarcasm? I can't tell.
- elblanco 17y agoNo. Hemmingway is usually used as a model for direct and concise writing while Tolkein is often used at the other end of the spectrum. Both are widely considered masters of the language. I prefer reading and writing the Tolkein end, verbose colorful, almost baroque, writing that exercises the language without feeling archaic vs the Hemmingway method which I always felt was overly restricted and terse.
- 17y ago
- timwiseman 17y agoIt has been a long time since I have read this one and it is a very good description of the forms of disagreement. I do think that PG gives slightly too little weight to ad hominem attacks though. It is true they may be no better than name calling, but they can be highly informative and relevant too. I know he says they can carry some weight, but even there I do not think he gives at least the right kind of ad hominem attack its due. For instance, in a technical field it can often be very difficult to understand much less evaluate a fully reasoned argument. In this case, to a laymen reader saying (truthfully of course) "The author of this piece has been shown to commit scientific fraud" may be more effective than trying to go through the entire argument in detail. Similarly with say financial advice being able to truthfully say "The author has been involved in con games in the past" can be more persuasive (when true!) than trying to analyze his latest claims. Even pointing out something like "This man's PHD is in <nonrelevant field>, not <relevant field>." can add value to a discussion. Of course it does not invalidate the original argument from the original author, but it does point out the readers that they should read it carefully and not give limited weight to the author's authority. This is especially true since it can be easier in some technical fields to bring up evidence that sounds good superficially but that an expert knows is false than it is justify the truth. This is because understanding the truth often requires a detailed technical grounding already whereas the pseudoscience does not.
- elblanco 17y agoI once had a discussion about this topic with a colleague. >For instance, in a technical field it can often be very difficult to understand much less evaluate a fully reasoned argument. I think at the time I had fluffed a response to the question this answers which is "well how do I know that xyz guy really knows his stuff and isn't just a so-called-expert in his field, why should I believe him?". But this sums it up nicely, it can take decades to learn enough about a field to understand the arguments properly.
- gfodor 17y agoCommunication can be used for emotional stimulus as much as intellectual stimulus, so it is not necessarily ideal that all arguments fit into some rigid ranking valuing objective refutations over emotionally driven spasms. "u r a fag" says a lot with a little: it's efficient. I mean, if everyone always strove towards perfectly clean refutations of central points, think about how boring the internet would be! It's simply not the case that everyone should just be looking to refute arguments with specifics. And besides, this way of looking at it reeks of elitism, like most Paul Graham articles. How can we trust what he's saying anyway? It's just to get hits to his blog. What a self-important dilettante. :)
- RyanMcGreal 17y agoThe very highest level of the Disagreement Hierarchy, of course, is DHH: http://www.flickr.com/photos/planetargon/127984254/ http://www.flickr.com/photos/planetargon/127984254/
- deleted 17y ago[deleted]
- meelash 17y agoI think it should be stressed that these ideas are necessarily flexible based on the quality of the thing being disagreed with. Basically, Paul's assumed that the post being argued against is ideal, and against that has built his hierarchy. In real life, an effective argument, in fact sometimes the only possible argument, against a poorly formed thesis is a poor response. For example, the conclusion that, "a DH2 or lower response is always unconvincing" is not true in the following case: Suppose someone posited that there is a blue species of monkey living in the basement below the U.S. Senate and the only reason he gave for us to believe him is that he is a trustworthy U.S. Senator. In disagreeing with him, if we bring an ad hominem attack against his trustworthiness it is entirely acceptable and relevant because his trustworthiness is the only proof he's brought in the first place.
- forkandwait 17y agoThe next step beyond refutation is synthesis; often intractable arguments are sustained because both sides have a good point that should be acknowledged but is all mixed up with not so valid assumptions. I also think that "neutrality" or "objectivity" is an impossibility, especially in arguments about social problems. We would all benefit by admitting that we have interests at stake, and that EVERY argument usually has outcomes in terms of who gets what, no matter how "objectively" the arguers try to frame it.