Paul Graham and the hierarchy of argumentative quality

Disagreement and disagreement are two aspects as inherent to the human being as the need to eat. The mere fact of being rational animals predisposes us to doubt and disagree with any opinion with which we do not feel fully identified.

However, not all people have the ability to do it correctly. Paul Graham noted this fact and he created a “disagreement hierarchy” that orders the way people disagree.

• You may be interested in: "10 types of arguments to use in debates and discussions"

Who is Paul Graham?

Paul Graham is a British-born computer programmer and essayist who rose to prominence after his work with Lisp, a family of programming languages. In addition, he co-founded what was the world's first application service provider (ASP) company.

After acquiring notable fame within the computer and programming world, Graham began his career as an essayist. From his own website, he published essays on a variety of topics that contained everything from texts about programming languages ​​to the reasons why “nerds” never reach popularity. These writings are gathered in the publication

Hackers and painters, which came to light in 2004, although it had already published books on programming before.

However, one of his most acclaimed and widely disseminated essays throughout the world was his study how to disagree written in 2008. In it Graham graphically represents the “hierarchy of discrepancy”, which shows the different levels in which a person can express their disagreement or disagreement with any topic.

However, before explaining what it is about and how this hierarchy is organized, it is necessary to know what the discrepancy consists of and how its dynamics work.

What is discrepancy and how does it work?

The Royal Academy of the Spanish Language defines "discrepancy" with two different meanings:

1. "Difference, inequality that results from the comparison of things with each other."
2. "Personal dissent in opinion or conduct."

Therefore, and according to this very definition, a person who disagrees is one who whose beliefs, thoughts, or behaviors do not coincide with those of some other person or group.

However, the discrepancy is a social fact. That is, to be able to disagree with something, the presence of another person or group of people is necessary with whom to compare opinions and disagree; and also a group of followers who support our point of view.

Thus, the social level discrepancy follows a path. A series of guidelines that go from the origin of the discrepancy to the disagreements generated within this first discrepancy. Although complex, this process is much easier to understand if we follow each of the steps:

1. Existence of an ideology or thought supported by numerous followers.
2. Within this same group of people someone generates a discrepancy, propagating a belief or opinion of their own and creating a separation within the first group.
3. Both parties acquire a large enough following to maintain these opinions over time.
4. Within the groups themselves discrepancies continue to appear that generate new groups of people, thus ending the original groups. This dynamic is repeated successively.

Because the tendency to disagree is something natural to the human being, by the mere fact of possessing the reasoning capacity, these dynamics are maintained over time and appear in all areas of life. life.

• You may be interested in: "The 10 types of logical and argumentative fallacies"

Graham's Hierarchy of Discrepancy

Once the operation of the discrepancies is known, we can go on to describe how these disagreements can manifest themselves in each of the people who experience it. Since it is not the same to express a disagreement through an insult, than to do it by resorting to solid and rational argumentation.

To do this, Graham creates a graphic representation with a triangular shape in which these levels of discrepancy are ordered. According to this triangular graph, the higher the location of a person in the pyramid, the more powerful is the position or the own argument, while those who are at the lowest levels use weak and banal arguments to justify themselves.

However, a person is capable of evolving or moving between the different levels. In this way, the higher people are placed in the levels, the more edifying and profitable will be the exchanges of opinions.

Below we explain the different levels of the discrepancy hierarchy from the lowest to the highest of all.

7. Insult

The lowest level of argument It is the one in which all those people who resort to insults as a form of opposition are installed, since they are incapable of offering any type of argument, no matter how little reasoned it may be.

Graham exemplifies this with the phrase "you're an idiot."

6. ad hominem

The author places on this rung all those who "attack the characteristics or the authority of the opponent without considering the substance of the argument."

This means that the person is only able to refute another through attacks or negative statements about her person, with the intention of discrediting him but without providing any valid argument that demonstrates the weakness of the other's reasoning and affirmations. That is, the person is attacked, not what he says.

An example of this discrepancy would be: "What are you going to know if you don't even have studies?"

• You may be interested in: "6 keys to avoid absurd arguments as a couple"

5. answering tone

In these cases the person focuses or uses the tone of your opponent's message to try to deny or refute it, regardless of the foundation or essence of what is being discussed.

A typical statement in these cases would be: "Yelling so much nobody will take you seriously."

4. Contradiction

The person who uses contradiction to refute an opinion tends to express an opposite idea but with very little content or no evidence.

In these cases the arguments used are expressed in forms of universal truths that, according to that same person, need no explanation.

Therefore the example would be: "Everyone knows that this is not the case."

3. counterargument

From this level, the reasoning begins to present greater richness and quality.. However, in the counterargument, the person presents proofs or evidences that support their opinion, but that have been said or written by others before.

The ideas used to discuss any topic are not the result of the person's own reasoning, but rather the approaches and explanations of third parties are used to support his beliefs.

For example: "You are not right, because as Socrates said..."

2. Refutation

At this second level of discussion, the person is capable of reasoning and disagreeing with their own ideas and beliefs, but without taking too much into account the basis of the argument or the beliefs of the other. Rather, it is based on details or very specific ideas of the other's speech, not being able to refute the central idea.

1. Refute the central point

Finally we reach the highest level, and therefore the most constructive when it comes to having a discussion. At this point the person has the necessary resources to refute the central issue or the basis of the discussion in an explicit and direct way, using their own experiences and arguments and being able to integrate the ideas of the other in their discussion.