How to Disagree - The Diigo Meta page

• 01 Aug 09
  

  Karoly Sz
• 11 Jul 09
  

  Tomáš Holas

  web

  • Most intellectual dishonesty is
    unintentional. Someone arguing against the tone of something he
    disagrees with may believe he's really saying something. Zooming
    out and seeing his current position on the disagreement hierarchy
    may inspire him to try moving up to counterargument or refutation.
• 15 Apr 09
  

  Rob Anderson

  TOK

• 11 Apr 09
  

  Steven Yamanaka

  communication

• 04 Dec 08
  

  Ross McKay

  debate

• 25 Oct 08
  

  loonquawl
• 04 Oct 08
  

  Yossi Rosenberg

  good politics

• 22 Sep 08
  

  Cristian Cabezas

  moderacion comunidades

• 01 Aug 08
  

  interstices

  argument disagreement hierarchy writing

• 09 Jun 08
  

  indrani

  language information discourse

• 29 May 08
  

  Bo McFarland

  Logic

• 25 May 08
  

  mimi .

  debate howto

• 11 May 08
  

  Jonathan Tepper

  An essay that gives tips on how to structure online debate to avoid lack of etiquette.

  resources articles del.icio.us

  • The web is turning writing into a conversation. Twenty years ago,
    writers wrote and readers read. The web lets readers respond, and
    increasingly they do—in comment threads, on forums, and in their
    own blog posts.
  • Now we have a way of classifying forms of disagreement. What good
    is it? One thing the disagreement hierarchy doesn't give us is
    a way of picking a winner. DH levels merely describe the form of
    a statement, not whether it's correct. A DH6 response could still
    be completely mistaken.
• 02 May 08
  

  Simon Bricolo

  Les différentes manières de ne pas être d'accord avec quelqu'un (par écrit, mais également valable oralement)

  Article Disagree Argument

• 30 Apr 08
  

  Tracy P

  disagree

• 27 Apr 08
  

  J Rice

  An essay about the hierarchy of forms of disagreement.

  Rhetoric

• 26 Apr 08
  

  arllennium arllennium

  Title self-explanatory

  debate discussion disagree howto

• 15 Apr 08
  

  Zach Harkey

  psychology

• 07 Apr 08
  

  Warren Ediger

  Netiquette Blogging

• 04 Apr 08
  

  David Feld

  "If we're all going to be disagreeing more, we should be careful to do it well. ... 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."

  argument conversation communication writing language blogging criticism debate discourse

• 03 Apr 08
  

  KO -

  blogging communication writing

• 

  Natalie Cowie
• 

  richbro61

  Discusses a hierarchy of ways to disagree, e.g., on the internet in blog conversations -- and argues that choosing methods higher up on the hierarchy makes everyone happier....

  blogs debate rhetoric writing

• 02 Apr 08
  

  Art Gelwicks

  Discusses a hierarchy of ways to disagree, e.g., on the internet in blog conversations -- and argues that choosing methods higher up on the hierarchy makes everyone happier....

  blogs debate rhetoric writing

  • 
    March 2008
    
    The web is turning writing into a conversation. Twenty years ago,
    writers wrote and readers read. The web lets readers respond, and
    increasingly they do—in comment threads, on forums, and in their
    own blog posts.
  • The result is there's a lot more disagreeing going on, especially
    measured by the word.
  • 9 more annotations...
  • • If we're all going to be disagreeing more, we should be careful to
      do it well. What does it mean to disagree well?
    • here's an attempt at a disagreement
      hierarchy:
      
      
      DH0. Name-calling.
      
      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.
    • DH1. Ad Hominem.
    • DH2. Responding to Tone.
    • DH3. Contradiction.
    • DH4. Counterargument.
    • DH5. Refutation.
    • DH6. Refuting the Central Point.
    • But the greatest benefit of disagreeing well is not just that it
      will make conversations better, but that it will make the people
      who have them happier. If you study conversations, you find there
      is a lot more meanness down in DH1 than up in DH6. You don't have
      to be mean when you have a real point to make. In fact, you don't
      want to. If you have something real to say, being mean just gets
      in the way.
      
      If moving up the disagreement hierarchy makes people less mean,
      that will make most of them happier. Most people don't really enjoy
      being mean; they do it because they can't help it.
• 

  pearl t

  Discusses a hierarchy of ways to disagree, e.g., on the internet in blog conversations -- and argues that choosing methods higher up on the hierarchy makes everyone happier....

  blogs debate rhetoric writing

  • 
    March 2008
    
    The web is turning writing into a conversation. Twenty years ago,
    writers wrote and readers read. The web lets readers respond, and
    increasingly they do—in comment threads, on forums, and in their
    own blog posts.
  • The result is there's a lot more disagreeing going on, especially
    measured by the word.
  • 9 more annotations...
  • • If we're all going to be disagreeing more, we should be careful to
      do it well. What does it mean to disagree well?
    • here's an attempt at a disagreement
      hierarchy:
      
      
      DH0. Name-calling.
      
      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.
    • DH1. Ad Hominem.
    • DH2. Responding to Tone.
    • DH3. Contradiction.
    • DH4. Counterargument.
    • DH5. Refutation.
    • DH6. Refuting the Central Point.
    • But the greatest benefit of disagreeing well is not just that it
      will make conversations better, but that it will make the people
      who have them happier. If you study conversations, you find there
      is a lot more meanness down in DH1 than up in DH6. You don't have
      to be mean when you have a real point to make. In fact, you don't
      want to. If you have something real to say, being mean just gets
      in the way.
      
      If moving up the disagreement hierarchy makes people less mean,
      that will make most of them happier. Most people don't really enjoy
      being mean; they do it because they can't help it.
• 01 Apr 08
  

  Katie Day

  Discusses a hierarchy of ways to disagree, e.g., on the internet in blog conversations -- and argues that choosing methods higher up on the hierarchy makes everyone happier....

  blogs debate rhetoric writing

  • 
    March 2008
    
    The web is turning writing into a conversation. Twenty years ago,
    writers wrote and readers read. The web lets readers respond, and
    increasingly they do—in comment threads, on forums, and in their
    own blog posts.
  • The result is there's a lot more disagreeing going on, especially
    measured by the word.
  • 9 more annotations...
  • • If we're all going to be disagreeing more, we should be careful to
      do it well. What does it mean to disagree well?
    • here's an attempt at a disagreement
      hierarchy:
      
      
      DH0. Name-calling.
      
      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.
    • DH1. Ad Hominem.
    • DH2. Responding to Tone.
    • DH3. Contradiction.
    • DH4. Counterargument.
    • DH5. Refutation.
    • DH6. Refuting the Central Point.
    • But the greatest benefit of disagreeing well is not just that it
      will make conversations better, but that it will make the people
      who have them happier. If you study conversations, you find there
      is a lot more meanness down in DH1 than up in DH6. You don't have
      to be mean when you have a real point to make. In fact, you don't
      want to. If you have something real to say, being mean just gets
      in the way.
      
      If moving up the disagreement hierarchy makes people less mean,
      that will make most of them happier. Most people don't really enjoy
      being mean; they do it because they can't help it.
• 

  fbcarola

  for:stoni

  • name-calling
• 

  Andreas Von Gunten

  commenting communication critical thinking disagree refutation writing

  • The force of a refutation depends on what you refute. The most
    powerful form of disagreement is to refute someone's central point
  • Truly refuting something requires one to refute its central point,
    or at least one of them
  • 1 more annotations...
  • • Most people don't really enjoy
      being mean; they do it because they can't help it.
• 

  David Alfaro

  conversation disagreement

• 

  Owen Mathews

  A neat treatise on web discourse and how to argue intellectually. Defines a hierarchy of disagreement from name-calling attacks to identifying the central point of an argument and refuting it with evidence.

  blog internet community opinion

• 

  Paul Cancellieri

  commenting blogging education

  • DH0. Name-calling.
  • DH1. Ad Hominem.
  • 1 more annotations...
  • • DH2. Responding to Tone.
• 31 Mar 08
  

  Steven Kaye

  Condescending, but still useful

  Blogs

• 

  rampion

  classification of various levels of disagreement

  argument disagreement argue disagree articles

• 

  robert e
• 

  Jeff Wasserman

  Nifty article on a hierarchy of the different ways to disagree!

  communication

• 

  arndis

  life

• 

  Bill H

  In presenting an argument there are three ore elements: the author; the written/oral argument; the idea or concept being argued. In presenting an argument against the point there are 7 forms of attack.
  On the author:
  1. question the author's ability
  2. question the author's motivation (conflict of interest)
  On the written/oral form:
  3. question to the tone, style, literacy of the writting
  On the concept:
  4. state a conflicting point (unsubstanciated)
  5. state a counter argument
  6. refute a tangential point
  7. refute the central point of the argument

  social skills

  • DH0. Name-calling.
  • DH1. Ad Hominem
  • 5 more annotations...
  • • DH2. Responding to Tone.
    • DH3. Contradiction
    • DH4. Counterargument.
    • DH5. Refutation.
    • DH6. Refuting the Central Point.
• 

  mikeem em

  argument article communication debate good logic tips writing

• 

  Tim Bunce
• 

  Frank Colcord

  Philosophy System Dynamics Wiki

• 

  Sarah Puglisi

  hierarchy of different ways to disagree

  social skills

• 

  Jeremy Brown

  hierarchy of different ways to disagree

  social skills

• 

  Clay Burell

  Good "disagreement heirarchy" to share with students re: commenting and netiquette (and critical thinking).

  blogging criticism education

• 

  aaron zhang

  WRITING communication arguments LANGUAGE blogging PHILOSOPHY howto

• 

  Paul Russell

  An essay on they forms and effectiveness of different types of written disagreement. I found this an interesting tool for analyzing and preparing online debate.
  

  share debate howto delicious

• 30 Mar 08
  

  FruFru FourOne

  "What does it mean to disagree well? 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. So here's an attempt at a disagreement hierarchy"

  via:preoccupations 2008 argument article articles blog blogging blogs book communication community conversation culture debate discussion education essay fablog feeds forums howto ideas interesting Internet language life lifehacks management negotiation n

• 

  Nishant Mehta

  Nifty article on a hierarchy of the different ways to disagree!

  communication

• 

  eighteyes

  writing arguments communication language howto

• 

  Ashok Srinivaspur

  speaking

• 

  Bobby Elliott

  netiquette disagree diasagreement argue rules how to Internet Miscellaneous

• 

  paul allitor
• 

  Chuck Brands
• 

  Metis Fog
• 

  Will Bolton

  An attempt to classify forms of disagreement. Could be utilised for some kind of blog comment user rating system.

  blogging community essays internet opinion paul_graham

• 29 Mar 08
  

  David Eubanks

  argument

• 

  Miriam Schwab

  The blogosphere is about reacting to what other people say. A lot of the time, those reactions are in the form of disagreements. This article explains how to disagree in a polite and civil manner. Very important.

  blog_tips writing_tips

• 

  Roger Chen

  The web is turning writing into a conversation. Twenty years ago, writers wrote and readers read. The web lets readers respond, and increasingly they do—in comment threads, on forums, and in their own blog posts.

  communicate

  • When you disagree you're entering
    territory he may not have explored.
• 

  takayuki kawamoto

  article attack writing arguments communication

• 

  Fernanda Garcia

  writing language arguments communication philosophy howto

• 

  Joan Vinall-Cox

  criticalthinking discussion rhetoric

• 

  paul reid

  The web is turning writing into a conversation. Twenty years ago, writers wrote and readers read. The web lets readers respond, and increasingly they do—in comment threads, on forums, and in their own blog posts.

  blogging community culture presentations writing communication lifehacks read

• 

  Dave Hill
  • This is the lowest form of disagreement, and probably also the most
    common. We've all seen comments like this:
    

    
    u r a fag!!!!!!!!!!

• 

  Lisa M Lane

  articles

• 

  Jay Dugger

  A hierarchy of disagreement types (DH0-DH6): name-calling, ad hominem. responding to tone, contradiction, counterargument, refutation, and refuting the central point.

  blog conversation writing arguments language communication howto for:anissimov for:gdvorsky for:maxmore for:turbo_stealth for:jurvetson for:judell paulgraham

• 

  Jon Aston

  arguments writing language communication philosophy howto blogging

• 

  Karen McMillan

  comments disagree

• 

  Gerzson

  philosophy howto communication psychology delicious

• 

  Travis Swicegood

  • The author is a self-important dilettante.
    

    
    is really nothing more than a pretentious version of "u r a fag."
  • because
    good ideas often come from outsiders
  • 6 more annotations...
  • • Sometimes they even agree with one another, but
      are so caught up in their squabble they don't realize it.
    • The most convincing form of disagreement is refutation. It's also
      the rarest, because it's the most work.
    • Even as high as DH5 we still sometimes see deliberate dishonesty,
      as when someone picks out minor points of an argument and refutes
      those.
    • An eloquent speaker or writer can give the impression of vanquishing
      an opponent merely by using forceful words. In fact that is probably
      the defining quality of a demagogue.
    • Most intellectual dishonesty is
      unintentional.
    • Most people don't really enjoy
      being mean; they do it because they can't help it.
• 

  Joel Liu

  communication

• 

  Colas Nahaboo

  writing

• 

  Mert Nuhoglu

  society arguments

• 

  Darlene Fichter

  Online Communities

Page Comments

• 
  robert e on 2008-03-31
  The result is there's a lot more disagreeing going on, especially measured by the word. That doesn't mean people are getting angrier. The structural change in the way we communicate is enough to account for it. But though it's not anger that's driving the increase in disagreement, there's a danger that the increase in disagreement will make people angrier. Particularly online, where it's easy to say things you'd never say face to face.

Would you like to comment?

Join Diigo for a free account, or sign in if you are already a member.