How to conduct a healthy discussion

[RMorgan]

Hey folks,

Here is something very useful for anyone in this forum.

It´s a simple pyramid graphic showing how to properly conduct a healthy and fruitful debate:



source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paul_Gr...er_programmer)

original essay: http://www.paulgraham.com/disagree.html <<<< please, read it!

It´s really impressive how the four bottom parts of this pyramid actually perfectly reflect the general behavior of most members of internet forums, mostly the yellow and green stripes.

I would humbly advice anyone to carefully examine this graphic, read the original essay and then learn something from it. It will improve your internet experience and make it much more fruitful.

Cheers,

Raf.

Ps: Mods, you should make this one sticky for a while, in my opinion.

[RMorgan]

Well...I think I should have named this one as "Imminent reptilian attack" or "Real video of a reptilian attacking a GFL ship".

Anyway, I don´t like doing that, but I´ll bump this thread often, because the healthy of this forum would highly benefit from it, if people are capable of assimilating it.

Cheers,

Raf.

[Whiskey_Mystic]

Let's also differentiate between the terms 'debate" and "discussion". A discussion is a sharing of information whereas the potential exists for all sides to gain new perspective. It is a collaborative exploration which pools information and looks at a subject from different angles. A "debate" is what we usually see on the internet. A debate is people defending their point of view and attempting to undermine any other point of view. In a debate, people have chosen sides before the talk begins and the only people who might change their minds are people who are observing.

Discussion is a wonderful thing. Debate is best used for politics and does not usually lead to greater understanding.

[SilentFeathers]

I was going to respond to the original post but couldn't find anything in it to disagree with you on!

[RMorgan]

Posted by Whiskey_Mystic (here)
Let's also differentiate between the terms 'debate" and "discussion". A discussion is a sharing of information whereas the potential exists for all sides to gain new perspective. It is a collaborative exploration which pools information and looks at a subject from different angles. A "debate" is what we usually see on the internet. A debate is people defending their point of view and attempting to undermine any other point of view. In a debate, people have chosen sides before the talk begins and the only people who might change their minds are people who are observing.

Discussion is a wonderful thing. Debate is best used for politics and does not usually lead to greater understanding.

Hey mate,

Well, this essay is called "How to disagree", so I guess it has a general application either in debates and discussions.

Cheers,

Raf.

[Eram]

Ehh Raf?

Where in this graphic pyramid would a compliment fit in?

and where would you categorize this post?

cheers!

[RMorgan]

Hey folks,

I´ll post the entire essay, in case some people feel insecure about clicking an unknown web link.

Here it is:

"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.

Many who respond to something disagree with it. That's to be expected. Agreeing tends to motivate people less than disagreeing. And when you agree there's less to say. You could expand on something the author said, but he has probably already explored the most interesting implications. When you disagree you're entering territory he may not have explored.

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.

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

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. A comment like
The author is a self-important dilettante.
is really nothing more than a pretentious version of "u r a fag."

DH1. Ad Hominem.

An ad hominem attack is not quite as weak as mere name-calling. It might actually carry some weight. For example, if a senator wrote an article saying senators' salaries should be increased, one could respond:
Of course he would say that. He's a senator.
This wouldn't refute the author's argument, but it may at least be relevant to the case. It's still a very weak form of disagreement, though. If there's something wrong with the senator's argument, you should say what it is; and if there isn't, what difference does it make that he's a senator?

Saying that an author lacks the authority to write about a topic is a variant of ad hominem—and a particularly useless sort, because good ideas often come from outsiders. The question is whether the author is correct or not. If his lack of authority caused him to make mistakes, point those out. And if it didn't, it's not a problem.

DH2. Responding to Tone.

The next level up we start to see responses to the writing, rather than the writer. The lowest form of these is to disagree with the author's tone. E.g.
I can't believe the author dismisses intelligent design in such a cavalier fashion.
Though better than attacking the author, this is still a weak form of disagreement. It matters much more whether the author is wrong or right than what his tone is. Especially since tone is so hard to judge. Someone who has a chip on their shoulder about some topic might be offended by a tone that to other readers seemed neutral.

So if the worst thing you can say about something is to criticize its tone, you're not saying much. Is the author flippant, but correct? Better that than grave and wrong. And if the author is incorrect somewhere, say where.

DH3. Contradiction.

In this stage we finally get responses to what was said, rather than how or by whom. The lowest form of response to an argument is simply to state the opposing case, with little or no supporting evidence.

This is often combined with DH2 statements, as in:
I can't believe the author dismisses intelligent design in such a cavalier fashion. Intelligent design is a legitimate scientific theory.
Contradiction can sometimes have some weight. Sometimes merely seeing the opposing case stated explicitly is enough to see that it's right. But usually evidence will help.

DH4. Counterargument.

At level 4 we reach the first form of convincing disagreement: counterargument. Forms up to this point can usually be ignored as proving nothing. Counterargument might prove something. The problem is, it's hard to say exactly what.

Counterargument is contradiction plus reasoning and/or evidence. When aimed squarely at the original argument, it can be convincing. But unfortunately it's common for counterarguments to be aimed at something slightly different. More often than not, two people arguing passionately about something are actually arguing about two different things. Sometimes they even agree with one another, but are so caught up in their squabble they don't realize it.

There could be a legitimate reason for arguing against something slightly different from what the original author said: when you feel they missed the heart of the matter. But when you do that, you should say explicitly you're doing it.

DH5. Refutation.

The most convincing form of disagreement is refutation. It's also the rarest, because it's the most work. Indeed, the disagreement hierarchy forms a kind of pyramid, in the sense that the higher you go the fewer instances you find.

To refute someone you probably have to quote them. You have to find a "smoking gun," a passage in whatever you disagree with that you feel is mistaken, and then explain why it's mistaken. If you can't find an actual quote to disagree with, you may be arguing with a straw man.

While refutation generally entails quoting, quoting doesn't necessarily imply refutation. Some writers quote parts of things they disagree with to give the appearance of legitimate refutation, then follow with a response as low as DH3 or even DH0.

DH6. Refuting the Central Point.

The force of a refutation depends on what you refute. The most powerful form of disagreement is to refute someone's central point.

Even as high as DH5 we still sometimes see deliberate dishonesty, as when someone picks out minor points of an argument and refutes those. Sometimes the spirit in which this is done makes it more of a sophisticated form of ad hominem than actual refutation. For example, correcting someone's grammar, or harping on minor mistakes in names or numbers. Unless the opposing argument actually depends on such things, the only purpose of correcting them is to discredit one's opponent.

Truly refuting something requires one to refute its central point, or at least one of them. And that means one has to commit explicitly to what the central point is. So a truly effective refutation would look like:
The author's main point seems to be x. As he says:
<quotation>
But this is wrong for the following reasons...
The quotation you point out as mistaken need not be the actual statement of the author's main point. It's enough to refute something it depends upon.

What It Means

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.

But while DH levels don't set a lower bound on the convincingness of a reply, they do set an upper bound. A DH6 response might be unconvincing, but a DH2 or lower response is always unconvincing.

The most obvious advantage of classifying the forms of disagreement is that it will help people to evaluate what they read. In particular, it will help them to see through intellectually dishonest arguments. 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. By giving names to the different forms of disagreement, we give critical readers a pin for popping such balloons.

Such labels may help writers too. 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.

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."

source: http://www.paulgraham.com/disagree.html


Cheers,

Raf.

[jjjones]

whiskey_mystic, exquisitely stated! point well taken. thank you. love your avatar and love bill murray! thanks to all my pa friends for their replies. namaste, peace and love universally

[pilotsimone]

This is incredible information. People seeking real communication often get frustrated and deflated by the low-level responses we sometimes have here at PA. What help to see so clearly how these actions derail meaningful dialogue.

I'm going to laugh when I see someone quote a person and then respond with nothing more than 'DH1'.

[Dorjezigzag]

Posted by Whiskey_Mystic (here)
Let's also differentiate between the terms 'debate" and "discussion". A discussion is a sharing of information whereas the potential exists for all sides to gain new perspective. It is a collaborative exploration which pools information and looks at a subject from different angles. A "debate" is what we usually see on the internet. A debate is people defending their point of view and attempting to undermine any other point of view. In a debate, people have chosen sides before the talk begins and the only people who might change their minds are people who are observing.

Discussion is a wonderful thing. Debate is best used for politics and does not usually lead to greater understanding.

I disagree

A discussion can be a debate.
I offer a purple refutation, 2nd rung on the pyramid, by quoting from the dictionary,

dis·cus·sion/disˈkəSHən/
Noun:

1. The action or process of talking about something, typically in order to reach a decision or to exchange ideas.
2. A conversation or debate about a certain topic

If you think debating has no place in spiritualism watch this video

Source: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fWAEkOyzG8s

[DeDukshyn]

I think that chart should be added to the "thread for new members" reading area. It's good just to present those distinctions to the mind before becoming a full fledged member. I'm a big fan of distinctions.

My 2 cents

[Cartomancer]

I guess I stand guilty of spending some time in the pink zone there. Kinda like the zona rosa but different. I have learned a lot about listening and being patient on the internet. On the flip side I have been attacked using these methods several times as well and it is no fun at all. Still I have learned to ignore it. Lately I've been bar-b-qued by some conservative Christians who don't like what I'm saying about Thomas Jefferson. It's hard to please everyone. I'm going to try harder to be more reasonable if I disagree or don't believe something.

PS: I still think Asshat is a great name for a punk band.

[Tangri]

Posted by RMorgan (here)
Well...I think I should have named this one as "Imminent reptilian attack" or "Real video of a reptilian attacking a GFL ship".

Anyway, I don´t like doing that, but I´ll bump this thread often, because the healthy of this forum would highly benefit from it, if people are capable of assimilating it.

Cheers,

Raf.

I know what you feel, when the time comes that you stepped on something very important for mass, but mass act ignorant . that force you to keep it new things inside you with disappointment for humanity.
Don't be disappointed . this is the Life, you can not resonate at the same wave instantly with others.

[mariposafe]

Posted by Whiskey_Mystic (here)
Discussion is a wonderful thing. Debate is best used for politics and does not usually lead to greater understanding.

I agree wholeheartedly !!! Not only is debate used in politics, it's also the basis for how court cases are resolved, with the outcome often (please note I haven't said "always", I'm aware there are far more factors than this) depending more on the debating ability of the barrister/advocate (I've forgotten what you call them in America !) than on truth and justice.

Debates always have winners and losers, why can't we just communicate in a friendly manner, discuss things amicably, without the need to defend a position that probably doesn't even need defending in the first place ?

Yours always in the right, Philip

[gripreaper]

Posted by SilentFeathers (here)
I was going to respond to the original post but couldn't find anything in it to disagree with you on!

Can’t find anything to disagree with? Then I suggest you make something up. It’s really difficult to be antagonistic if you agree!

Posted by Whiskey_Mystic (here)
Let's also differentiate between the terms 'debate" and "discussion".

Now if we start differentiating, then the threads are liable to remain on topic, reach resolve, and not deteriorate into character assassinations. What fun is that?

Posted by Wakytweaky (here)
Ehh Raf? Where in this graphic pyramid would a compliment fit in?

Compliments? How can we maintain the savior mythology on this planet is we start complimenting each other for our awakenings?

Posted by jjjones (here)
love your avatar and love bill murray!

I don’t like this avatar at all. It’s Bill Murray, a Hollywood actor, and he’s holding what appears to be an alcoholic beverage. What kind of signal does this send to the little children who are living in their parents basements, surfing the internet, who might stumble onto this site and see that avatar? Who wants to be responsible for that?

Posted by pilotsimone (here)
People seeking real communication often get frustrated and deflated by the low-level responses we sometimes have here at PA

If people would just read my responses then they would feel uplifted and lose their frustration. All of my responses are of the highest caliber.

Posted by Dorjezigzag (here)
The action or process of talking about something, typically in order to reach a decision or to exchange ideas.

Reach a decision or exchange ideas? If that starts happening, then the thread will end, and then where would the trolls and protagonists get more cannonfodder for their mythologies and lies? What happens if we all ascend from reaching decisions or exchanging ideas and the awakening is complete? Then the forum dies.

I would go on, but I run the risk of being arrogant, self centered, protagonist, egocentric and divisive. I certainly don’t want to be thought of that way.

[DeDukshyn]

^ Chuckle

[spiritguide]

We have two ears and one mouth for a reason. Instead we are all mouth and no ears. Why is that? Proper communications is deeper than the chart, although the chart shows where ego can be controlled to result in civil and respectful debate. There are three levels of communication; interpersonal (nervous system), intrapersonal (between sentient beings) and technical (language within a science/technology) and there are many types at each level. The chart is a good reflection on style. IMHO

[peace]

funny (but very good!). i recall recently, both of us being the subject of name calling, once in a thread of mine, and once in a thread you were responding to. i agree this needs to be utilized.

[RMorgan]

Hey folks,

Thanks for keeping this thread up!

I appreciate your participation!

Cheers,

Raf.

[SilentFeathers]

Posted by gripreaper (here)

Posted by SilentFeathers (here)
I was going to respond to the original post but couldn't find anything in it to disagree with you on!

Can’t find anything to disagree with? Then I suggest you make something up. It’s really difficult to be antagonistic if you agree!

I thought about making something up, but Raf is pretty sharp and might of figured it out that I was fabricating a disagreement