This week . . . I came across a brief, insightful essay by English computer programmer Paul Graham called How to Disagree. Written in 2008. Mr. Graham says with the growth of the internet…
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.
So he offers a simple guide on how to disagree “well” that is, productively. He explains each point succinctly in the essay, but here’s a chart that lays it out.
Called the “Hierarchy of Disagreement,” the higher the position, the more productive the argument. Note that at the bottom of the chart are the two most common forms of argument used by polarizers. And the very bottom is the lowest of them all: Name calling. I know it’s flirting with the very crime I’m decrying, but somehow I can’t keep the term ”bottom feeder” from coming to mind.
When reading these examples, check the above list and ask yourself: regardless of whether you agree or disagree, is this really advancing an intelligent resolution through the persuasive, rational arguments of advocacy…or simply fueling the fire of conflict through the divisive, emotional manipulations of polarization?
Here are just a few of the week’s polarizing headlines, from the left and right:
