17 ms·

How to Disagree

109 points by rms 16y ago

disagreee 16y ago
I disagree because HN deletes all my post.
nopassrecover 16y ago
[2008]
po 16y ago
I was just imagining how different hacker news would be if there were tags on each comment/post indicating what levels of disagreement hierarchy are contained within. I can't imagine a practical way to implement it but imagine the effect it would have on discourse if people were constantly reminded what they were reading/writing.
- xlorm 16y ago
  That sounds like a fun NLP project. But given the less than stellar performance I've seen in those types of programs you'd probably either need to accept a lot of false positives or a lot of false negatives. Except for the clear "u r a fag!!!!!!!!!!" cases.
- cracki 16y ago
  It would make me feel constantly judged, arbitrarily even (because how would you ensure level-headed tagging?). It'd be as bad as downvoting, which is deliberately not possible on HN (with few exceptions).
  - xlorm 16y ago
    I was assuming po meant some automatic system. If you wanted to use humans maybe you could have moderators do it. I agree that it'd be dangerous to let anyone tag. People on YouTube usually mark anything they disagree with as spam. Hopefully it wouldn't be the same here though. After reading your comment I realized I've seen downvoted comments but I can't downvote. Is there a karma requirement?
    - djcapelis 16y ago
      Yes. After you hit a certain karma threshold a down arrow shows up and you are able to downvote. The specific threshold varies, but it's below a thousand and above a hundred.
      - patrickk 16y ago
        "The specific threshold varies..." around 200 points if I remember correctly
        wahnfrieden 16y ago
        500 now.
  - po 16y ago
    You're right to some extent... which is why I said I can't think of any practical solution. I disagree in that I think the biggest bar is not the judgmental nature of it (we're all being judged anyway) but the fact that it would be a ton of work to categorize comments along those rules if it were not automated. I just feel that part of the reason people descend to name-calling is because there's no feedback before they hit post. Nobody says "That's not a very good reply." Afterward, it takes someone motivated enough to call it out. In the meantime people see it and think "Lots of name calling on here." I think it's good that downvoted comments are still visible rather than removed so that people learn what is considered unacceptable.
CallMeV 16y ago
I haven't seen this essay for a while. I thought I'd lost it, and I could not find the bookmark which linked to it. Very useful. Thank you, rms.
- btilly 16y ago
  You can find all of pg's essays at http://www.paulgraham.com/articles.html http://www.paulgraham.com/articles.html. They are of good enough quality that it is worth browsing that occasionally.
runningdogx 16y ago
Complementing that essay somewhat, a list of fallacies: https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/wiki/List_of_fallacies https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/wiki/List_of_falla... And cognitive biases: https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/wiki/List_of_cognitive_biases https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/wiki/List_of_cogni... Although not all are equally bad.
- hasenj 16y ago
  I've found that a lot of the listed fallacies can have charitable interpretations. A strawman argument where A proposes X and B attacks Y instead of attacking X can often be a case where X indirectly leads to Y and person B assumes that it is known that X leads to Y. Or, X is just Y in disguise. So it's not necessarily a matter of being fallacious, but fully formalizing an argument is often not feasible, so you take shortcuts. If you formalized the argument too much, it gets boring and people stop listening/reading.
  - nika 16y ago
    I've seen this in action. I think if people would just be in the habit of saying "I believe X leads to Y" that would be sufficient, and doesn't require being too formal. But I think that habit is way above the level of discourse in America, where, near as I can tell ideologies and social news sites reinforce a partisan or "if you're not one of us you're not worth respecting" attitude.
nika 16y ago
DH0, upvoted to 5 (while my comments are 0 and -1): http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=2138625 http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=2138625 This was my first day. I stuck around for a day or two, then I just logged out and stopped participating. Just use this as a site to find links, and when you're not logged in there's no incentive to go see what people said in reply to you, and no focus on karma score or anything. I don't know if the site requires a certain level of karma to submit new items, but I don't really feel like submitting things here when I don't feel like they'll get a fair shake. (There were good discussions on some of my other comments, but another one where it became clear that I no real discussion was possible because of ideology combined with the "fucking idiot" comment were enough to have me stop participating. This is just FYI. I'd love for there to be a place to have good discussions with people. I don't know how to make HN that place, and so I'm just going to use it as a source of articles to read. I think all news sites that allow downvoting end up operating as a sort of "smear the queer" system for punishing people who have a minority viewpoint, without regard to how well they articulate it or even what they are actually saying (in some cases.) Edit: Yes this topic got me to log in, and I'll be logging out now. I don't really want to debate the topic that I got attacked over, as my original comment was actually trying to defend someone else's perspective. Please whether you agree with me or not, take this as "market feedback" of what a new user experienced, and why I'm not participating. Maybe I have thin skin in your opinion, that's fine. Maybe I'm way too wordy to participate on a site like this! That's fine too.
- yummyfajitas 16y ago
  I'd suggest not viewing karma as the reward, but rather your influence. Ad-hominem attacks and downvotes are typically a response to cognitive dissonance - your argument or facts forced someone to rethink views they are emotionally attached to, and they don't like it. You received at least 3 upvotes, and earl received 4. (Actually, most likely you both received a mix of both upvotes and downvotes.) Since I seriously doubt that those are coming from the same people, you influenced 7 people in some way. You made 4 people uncomfortable about their views, but they were unable to rationally respond. That pushes them a little closer to changing their views. Well done.
  - 16y ago
joubert 16y ago
The most convincing form of disagreement is refutation. The only "problem" is that it may be "objectively" convincing, but it rarely convinces the person who's opinion/belief you refute, especially if there are deep emotional or irrational underpinnings, e.g. religion/fear/indoctrination, etc.
- telemachos 16y ago
  A favorite passage about argument from Robert Nozick's Philosophical Explanations.[1] It's a long quotation, but worth it, I think: The terminology of philosophical art is coercive: arguments are powerful and best when they are knockdown, arguments force you to a conclusion, if you believe the premises you have to or must believe the conclusion, some arguments do not carry much punch, and so forth. A philosophical argument is an attempt to get someone to believe something, whether he wants to believe it or not. A successful philosophical argument, a strong argument, forces someone to a belief. Though philosophy is carried on as a coercive activity, the penalty philosophers wield is, after all, rather weak. If the other person is willing to bear the label of "irrational" or "having the worse arguments," he can skip away happily maintaining his previous belief. He will be trailed, of course, by the philosopher furiously hurling philosophical imprecations: "What do you mean, you're willing to be irrational? You shouldn't be irrational because..." And although the philosopher is embarrassed by his inability to complete this sentence in a noncircular fasion - he can only produce reasons for accepting reasons - still, he is unwilling to let his adversary go. Wouldn't it be better if philosophical arguments lef the person no possible answer at all, reducing him to impotent silence? Even then, he might sit there silently, smiling, Buddhalike. Perhaps philosophers need arguments so powerful they set up reverbarations in the brain: if the person refuses to accept the conclusion, he dies. How's that for a powerful argument. Yet, as with other physical threats ("your money or your life"), he can choose defiance. A "perfect" philosophical argument would leave no choice. (All emphases Nozick's.) [1] http://books.google.com/books?id=N4zH86WogYwC&lpg=PP1&ots=e7pynCwXH1&dq=%22philosophical%20explanations%22%20nozick&pg=PA4#v=onepage&q&f=false http://books.google.com/books?id=N4zH86WogYwC&lpg=PP1&#3...
jdp23 16y ago
"The most convincing form of disagreement is refutation... The most powerful form of disagreement is to refute someone's central point." This is a subjective statement, presented without evidence [DH6, DH5]. In any particular discussion, the most convincing forms of argument depends on the situation, the information both parties have available and their cognitive styles [DH4]. For example [DH3], sometimes highlighting a person's stake in the issue is often very effective. http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=2156623 http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=2156623 As an analytical thinker, Paul seems to be projecting his own preferences to others [DH1] -- and he's left out some techniques that are extremely effective such as appealing to the emotions.
stcredzero 16y ago
The truly intellectually honest way to disagree: Take the idea in question, and give it some genuine love. Make an earnest attempt to make some form of the idea work in the context of everything you know. This is my litmus test for first-class minds. I've been using this for the past 25 years and I've found that those who truly take this approach are 1) uncommon, 2) impressively smart, 3) genuinely curious, and 4) seem to offer the highest chance for truly profound and productive interactions. Most often, people fail this test by not using this technique at all, or trying to pass off its doppleganger. Such people are very easy to spot. Simply pay attention to the possible interpretations of what other people say. You are looking for the one who's always interpreting what others say in the best possible light and who runs with other's ideas, often in a delightful and surprising way. EDIT: The fakers are easy to spot, by the their bias towards finding fault for other's ideas or their eager gravitation towards straw-man interpretations when more interesting alternatives are easily imagined.
- krmmalik 16y ago
  Along the lines of the Carnegie school of thought, yes?
  - stcredzero 16y ago
    Probably similar, but it's my own formulation which came out of observing 1) how people are dishonest when they discredit other's ideas unfairly and 2) the actions of people I admire as intellectuals.
- telemachos 16y ago
  > Take the idea in question, and give it some genuine love. Something like this is often known as the principle of charity[1] or the principle of humanity[2]. There's a ton of interesting philosophical work on such principles (why they might be a good idea, whether they underpin all language use, whether they are part of our default belief-desire model for interacting with other people, etc.). But the best succinct version I know comes from a friend I went to grad school with: "Don't be an asshole." [1]: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Principle_of_charity http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Principle_of_charity [2]: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Principle_of_humanity http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Principle_of_humanity
richcollins 16y ago
The more interesting idea to explore is why people disagree in the first place. Most arguments that I witness are more about relationship positing than trying to prove a point. This includes jockeying for a better spot in the dominance hierarchy or identifying yourself as a part of a group.
awakeasleep 16y ago
If you liked this list, you might be interested in: Language in Thought and Action http://www.amazon.com/Language-Thought-Action-S-I-Hayakawa/dp/0156482401 http://www.amazon.com/Language-Thought-Action-S-I-Hayakawa/d... by S I Hayakawa http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SI_Hayakawa http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SI_Hayakawa) The Art of Conversation http://www.basicincome.com/bp/artofconv.htm http://www.basicincome.com/bp/artofconv.htm And Ben Franklin's Autobiography http://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/148 http://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/148
medwezys 16y ago
Sorry for offtopic, but (with all due respect to author and content) why da heck 95'ish buttons in website menu? They are burning my eyeballs and make me feel old.
- jsyedidia 16y ago
  The explanation is all here: http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=1597129 http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=1597129 Nobody criticize the Yahoo Store buttons!
giberson 16y ago
Tangent: When I was reading this essay I couldn't help myself from imagining a counter essay (in satire) that argues a reverse valuing of the hierarchy of argument quality indicated by Graham. Additionally the quality of the argument to argue each tier's quality would be made using it's inverse tier's quality. I.e. For DH0, name calling, a thorough argument would be made that it should in fact be the highest tier of argument DH6. It would be elaborate, with supporting examples and scenarios that would refute the central point of DH0 arguments being ineffective. Then by the end, DH6's counter argument would be of quality DH0. The argument would simply be "This is just dumb, Paul Graham is a fag." [disclaimer: inline with the example given in the DH0 tier. Not actually my opinion :)] On topic: Arguments that include DH0's tend to invoke a jerk-neck reaction from me, causing me to immediately discredit an entire (possibly well formed) argument. So much so, that even when only affiliated with such behavior good arguments lose all credibility. For example, in the 2008 election, when emails were constantly flying back and forth through the mailing list, I'd see forwarding of articles written in legitimate and well formed manner making valid statements. However, the forwarder would have prefix some DH0 level quip above the quote or article link which immediately made me write off the entire content. I.e "Barack Obama-bin-laden setting up death panels! <insert article link here>". Even if the article was bringing up valid concerns, and itself was well written--it was already sabotaged by being associated with infantile-ness.
sfphotoarts 16y ago
"Most people don't really enjoy being mean; they do it because they can't help it." I wish this point had been expanded upon, but I feel like I just saw a bunch of weasels sucking eggs. It would make a very interesting essay on the origins of meanness, clearly (citation needed) it has evolutionary advantage (or is a side effect of such). I wonder if a poll could be constructed that would given to enough people would support or refute pg's claim. Given limited resources and if it comes down to me feed my family or you feed yours I'm pretty sure the past 600million years of brain development would kick in and side with meanness, but we live in a time of relative plenty and given those conditions I truly wonder where human nature falls.
jimmyjim 16y ago
Older discussion: http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=1021060 http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=1021060
yason 16y ago
There's also the difference between disagreeing and trying to change the other person's opinion. Disagreeing is cheap: you just don't agree and that's it. You're not obliged to explain yourself to anyone but yourself.
derrida 16y ago
I disagree.

How to Disagree

109 points by rms 16y ago

disagreee 16y ago

I disagree because HN deletes all my post.

nopassrecover 16y ago

[2008]

po 16y ago

I was just imagining how different hacker news would be if there were tags on each comment/post indicating what levels of disagreement hierarchy are contained within. I can't imagine a practical way to implement it but imagine the effect it would have on discourse if people were constantly reminded what they were reading/writing.

xlorm 16y ago
That sounds like a fun NLP project. But given the less than stellar performance I've seen in those types of programs you'd probably either need to accept a lot of false positives or a lot of false negatives. Except for the clear "u r a fag!!!!!!!!!!" cases.
cracki 16y ago
It would make me feel constantly judged, arbitrarily even (because how would you ensure level-headed tagging?). It'd be as bad as downvoting, which is deliberately not possible on HN (with few exceptions).
- xlorm 16y ago
  I was assuming po meant some automatic system. If you wanted to use humans maybe you could have moderators do it. I agree that it'd be dangerous to let anyone tag. People on YouTube usually mark anything they disagree with as spam. Hopefully it wouldn't be the same here though. After reading your comment I realized I've seen downvoted comments but I can't downvote. Is there a karma requirement?
  - djcapelis 16y ago
    Yes. After you hit a certain karma threshold a down arrow shows up and you are able to downvote. The specific threshold varies, but it's below a thousand and above a hundred.
    - patrickk 16y ago
      "The specific threshold varies..." around 200 points if I remember correctly
      - wahnfrieden 16y ago
        500 now.
- po 16y ago
  You're right to some extent... which is why I said I can't think of any practical solution. I disagree in that I think the biggest bar is not the judgmental nature of it (we're all being judged anyway) but the fact that it would be a ton of work to categorize comments along those rules if it were not automated. I just feel that part of the reason people descend to name-calling is because there's no feedback before they hit post. Nobody says "That's not a very good reply." Afterward, it takes someone motivated enough to call it out. In the meantime people see it and think "Lots of name calling on here." I think it's good that downvoted comments are still visible rather than removed so that people learn what is considered unacceptable.

CallMeV 16y ago

I haven't seen this essay for a while. I thought I'd lost it, and I could not find the bookmark which linked to it. Very useful. Thank you, rms.

btilly 16y ago
You can find all of pg's essays at http://www.paulgraham.com/articles.html http://www.paulgraham.com/articles.html. They are of good enough quality that it is worth browsing that occasionally.

runningdogx 16y ago

Complementing that essay somewhat, a list of fallacies: https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/wiki/List_of_fallacies https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/wiki/List_of_falla... And cognitive biases: https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/wiki/List_of_cognitive_biases https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/wiki/List_of_cogni... Although not all are equally bad.

hasenj 16y ago
I've found that a lot of the listed fallacies can have charitable interpretations. A strawman argument where A proposes X and B attacks Y instead of attacking X can often be a case where X indirectly leads to Y and person B assumes that it is known that X leads to Y. Or, X is just Y in disguise. So it's not necessarily a matter of being fallacious, but fully formalizing an argument is often not feasible, so you take shortcuts. If you formalized the argument too much, it gets boring and people stop listening/reading.
- nika 16y ago
  I've seen this in action. I think if people would just be in the habit of saying "I believe X leads to Y" that would be sufficient, and doesn't require being too formal. But I think that habit is way above the level of discourse in America, where, near as I can tell ideologies and social news sites reinforce a partisan or "if you're not one of us you're not worth respecting" attitude.

nika 16y ago

DH0, upvoted to 5 (while my comments are 0 and -1): http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=2138625 http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=2138625 This was my first day. I stuck around for a day or two, then I just logged out and stopped participating. Just use this as a site to find links, and when you're not logged in there's no incentive to go see what people said in reply to you, and no focus on karma score or anything. I don't know if the site requires a certain level of karma to submit new items, but I don't really feel like submitting things here when I don't feel like they'll get a fair shake. (There were good discussions on some of my other comments, but another one where it became clear that I no real discussion was possible because of ideology combined with the "fucking idiot" comment were enough to have me stop participating. This is just FYI. I'd love for there to be a place to have good discussions with people. I don't know how to make HN that place, and so I'm just going to use it as a source of articles to read. I think all news sites that allow downvoting end up operating as a sort of "smear the queer" system for punishing people who have a minority viewpoint, without regard to how well they articulate it or even what they are actually saying (in some cases.) Edit: Yes this topic got me to log in, and I'll be logging out now. I don't really want to debate the topic that I got attacked over, as my original comment was actually trying to defend someone else's perspective. Please whether you agree with me or not, take this as "market feedback" of what a new user experienced, and why I'm not participating. Maybe I have thin skin in your opinion, that's fine. Maybe I'm way too wordy to participate on a site like this! That's fine too.

yummyfajitas 16y ago
I'd suggest not viewing karma as the reward, but rather your influence. Ad-hominem attacks and downvotes are typically a response to cognitive dissonance - your argument or facts forced someone to rethink views they are emotionally attached to, and they don't like it. You received at least 3 upvotes, and earl received 4. (Actually, most likely you both received a mix of both upvotes and downvotes.) Since I seriously doubt that those are coming from the same people, you influenced 7 people in some way. You made 4 people uncomfortable about their views, but they were unable to rationally respond. That pushes them a little closer to changing their views. Well done.
- 16y ago

joubert 16y ago

The most convincing form of disagreement is refutation. The only "problem" is that it may be "objectively" convincing, but it rarely convinces the person who's opinion/belief you refute, especially if there are deep emotional or irrational underpinnings, e.g. religion/fear/indoctrination, etc.

telemachos 16y ago
A favorite passage about argument from Robert Nozick's Philosophical Explanations.[1] It's a long quotation, but worth it, I think: The terminology of philosophical art is coercive: arguments are powerful and best when they are knockdown, arguments force you to a conclusion, if you believe the premises you have to or must believe the conclusion, some arguments do not carry much punch, and so forth. A philosophical argument is an attempt to get someone to believe something, whether he wants to believe it or not. A successful philosophical argument, a strong argument, forces someone to a belief. Though philosophy is carried on as a coercive activity, the penalty philosophers wield is, after all, rather weak. If the other person is willing to bear the label of "irrational" or "having the worse arguments," he can skip away happily maintaining his previous belief. He will be trailed, of course, by the philosopher furiously hurling philosophical imprecations: "What do you mean, you're willing to be irrational? You shouldn't be irrational because..." And although the philosopher is embarrassed by his inability to complete this sentence in a noncircular fasion - he can only produce reasons for accepting reasons - still, he is unwilling to let his adversary go. Wouldn't it be better if philosophical arguments lef the person no possible answer at all, reducing him to impotent silence? Even then, he might sit there silently, smiling, Buddhalike. Perhaps philosophers need arguments so powerful they set up reverbarations in the brain: if the person refuses to accept the conclusion, he dies. How's that for a powerful argument. Yet, as with other physical threats ("your money or your life"), he can choose defiance. A "perfect" philosophical argument would leave no choice. (All emphases Nozick's.) [1] http://books.google.com/books?id=N4zH86WogYwC&lpg=PP1&ots=e7pynCwXH1&dq=%22philosophical%20explanations%22%20nozick&pg=PA4#v=onepage&q&f=false http://books.google.com/books?id=N4zH86WogYwC&lpg=PP1&#3...

jdp23 16y ago

"The most convincing form of disagreement is refutation... The most powerful form of disagreement is to refute someone's central point." This is a subjective statement, presented without evidence [DH6, DH5]. In any particular discussion, the most convincing forms of argument depends on the situation, the information both parties have available and their cognitive styles [DH4]. For example [DH3], sometimes highlighting a person's stake in the issue is often very effective. http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=2156623 http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=2156623 As an analytical thinker, Paul seems to be projecting his own preferences to others [DH1] -- and he's left out some techniques that are extremely effective such as appealing to the emotions.

stcredzero 16y ago

The truly intellectually honest way to disagree: Take the idea in question, and give it some genuine love. Make an earnest attempt to make some form of the idea work in the context of everything you know. This is my litmus test for first-class minds. I've been using this for the past 25 years and I've found that those who truly take this approach are 1) uncommon, 2) impressively smart, 3) genuinely curious, and 4) seem to offer the highest chance for truly profound and productive interactions. Most often, people fail this test by not using this technique at all, or trying to pass off its doppleganger. Such people are very easy to spot. Simply pay attention to the possible interpretations of what other people say. You are looking for the one who's always interpreting what others say in the best possible light and who runs with other's ideas, often in a delightful and surprising way. EDIT: The fakers are easy to spot, by the their bias towards finding fault for other's ideas or their eager gravitation towards straw-man interpretations when more interesting alternatives are easily imagined.

krmmalik 16y ago
Along the lines of the Carnegie school of thought, yes?
- stcredzero 16y ago
  Probably similar, but it's my own formulation which came out of observing 1) how people are dishonest when they discredit other's ideas unfairly and 2) the actions of people I admire as intellectuals.
telemachos 16y ago
> Take the idea in question, and give it some genuine love. Something like this is often known as the principle of charity[1] or the principle of humanity[2]. There's a ton of interesting philosophical work on such principles (why they might be a good idea, whether they underpin all language use, whether they are part of our default belief-desire model for interacting with other people, etc.). But the best succinct version I know comes from a friend I went to grad school with: "Don't be an asshole." [1]: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Principle_of_charity http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Principle_of_charity [2]: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Principle_of_humanity http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Principle_of_humanity

richcollins 16y ago

The more interesting idea to explore is why people disagree in the first place. Most arguments that I witness are more about relationship positing than trying to prove a point. This includes jockeying for a better spot in the dominance hierarchy or identifying yourself as a part of a group.

awakeasleep 16y ago

If you liked this list, you might be interested in: Language in Thought and Action http://www.amazon.com/Language-Thought-Action-S-I-Hayakawa/dp/0156482401 http://www.amazon.com/Language-Thought-Action-S-I-Hayakawa/d... by S I Hayakawa http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SI_Hayakawa http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SI_Hayakawa) The Art of Conversation http://www.basicincome.com/bp/artofconv.htm http://www.basicincome.com/bp/artofconv.htm And Ben Franklin's Autobiography http://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/148 http://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/148

medwezys 16y ago

Sorry for offtopic, but (with all due respect to author and content) why da heck 95'ish buttons in website menu? They are burning my eyeballs and make me feel old.

jsyedidia 16y ago
The explanation is all here: http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=1597129 http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=1597129 Nobody criticize the Yahoo Store buttons!

giberson 16y ago

Tangent: When I was reading this essay I couldn't help myself from imagining a counter essay (in satire) that argues a reverse valuing of the hierarchy of argument quality indicated by Graham. Additionally the quality of the argument to argue each tier's quality would be made using it's inverse tier's quality. I.e. For DH0, name calling, a thorough argument would be made that it should in fact be the highest tier of argument DH6. It would be elaborate, with supporting examples and scenarios that would refute the central point of DH0 arguments being ineffective. Then by the end, DH6's counter argument would be of quality DH0. The argument would simply be "This is just dumb, Paul Graham is a fag." [disclaimer: inline with the example given in the DH0 tier. Not actually my opinion :)] On topic: Arguments that include DH0's tend to invoke a jerk-neck reaction from me, causing me to immediately discredit an entire (possibly well formed) argument. So much so, that even when only affiliated with such behavior good arguments lose all credibility. For example, in the 2008 election, when emails were constantly flying back and forth through the mailing list, I'd see forwarding of articles written in legitimate and well formed manner making valid statements. However, the forwarder would have prefix some DH0 level quip above the quote or article link which immediately made me write off the entire content. I.e "Barack Obama-bin-laden setting up death panels! <insert article link here>". Even if the article was bringing up valid concerns, and itself was well written--it was already sabotaged by being associated with infantile-ness.

sfphotoarts 16y ago

"Most people don't really enjoy being mean; they do it because they can't help it." I wish this point had been expanded upon, but I feel like I just saw a bunch of weasels sucking eggs. It would make a very interesting essay on the origins of meanness, clearly (citation needed) it has evolutionary advantage (or is a side effect of such). I wonder if a poll could be constructed that would given to enough people would support or refute pg's claim. Given limited resources and if it comes down to me feed my family or you feed yours I'm pretty sure the past 600million years of brain development would kick in and side with meanness, but we live in a time of relative plenty and given those conditions I truly wonder where human nature falls.

jimmyjim 16y ago

Older discussion: http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=1021060 http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=1021060

yason 16y ago

There's also the difference between disagreeing and trying to change the other person's opinion. Disagreeing is cheap: you just don't agree and that's it. You're not obliged to explain yourself to anyone but yourself.

derrida 16y ago

I disagree.