The Right Way to Disagree

There can be nothing more challenging than to disagree the right way. Or as is commonly called, to argue in the right way. Some use the words ‘disagreement’ and ‘argue’ interchangeably; in my view there is a difference. You can disagree and walk away. But if you stay and proceed to present a counter case that would be an argument. Having said that, the very basis of an argument remains disagreement on a point of view.

In one of the episodes of Downton Abbey, Lady Violet once says when she is accused of arguing too much: “I don’t argue. I explain.” That is indeed an interesting way to put it. After all whenever we disagree and proceed to argue our case, we in fact are ‘explaining’ what we think is right and what is our point of view.

Argument may actually have been lesser of an evil at one time, especially when language was born. As Dr Sigmund Freud wrote: Those who first flung a word of abuse at their enemy instead of an arrow were the founders of civilisation.

Paul Graham in his essay “How to Disagree” has given it sort of a scientific angle by presenting disagreement in hierarchy form. Although it is more focussed on writer but I think it holds for all what is said, whether in writing or verbal and in all settings that human beings find themselves in where there are different points of view on what is the topic under discussion.

As you move up the pyramid you come closer to making a genuine counter point or narrative; if you are at the top of the pyramid, in effect you have argued well, to the point that you could have convinced even the author of the point to agree with you instead.

So what are the segments that make up Paul Graham’s Hierarchy of Disagreement? Starting from the bottom (the worst):

Name-calling: The lowest form of disagreement, and probably also the most common

This is when you start abusing the person who has expressed his point of view or stated a fact that is considered questionable by one or more. You’ll see this happening with a considerable frequency in social media. Some are light hearted but can be equally insulting. As Oscar Wilde said: “Sarcasm is the lowest form of wit”. Even though in the second half of that though he adds, “…but the highest form of intelligence”, it is the first half that has been quoted.

But then sarcasm can still be a lighter form of disagreement. Its abusive words that are the worst name-calling, from personal choice of words to calling him by the name of a history certified wicked or stupid person.

Ad hominem: Attacks the characteristics or authority of the writer without addressing the substance of the argument

Ad hominem is a Latin word meaning ‘to the person’; it is normally short for argumentum ad hominem which translates to ‘argument to the person’. It refers to a number of arguments, some of which can be based on a fallacy.

It’s not too dissimilar to name calling; the slight difference being that it is unlikely to be abusive and based more on analogy or implication. For instance, the national sales manager may have a view on a topic that has an unpopular view. If he continues to bring out the positives someone might say, ‘well, you’re just being a salesman’. Or if someone quotes an MNA trying to clarify a corruption allegation, ‘but he’s a politician, what do you expect’?

Responding to Tone: Criticises the tone of the writing without addressing the substance of the argument

This is where it is not what is said but how it is said. For instance, you move away from what is the substance and instead concentrate on how the person said it. Sometimes it can be pertinent for as Ralph Waldo Emerson quipped, ‘It’s a luxury to be understood’.

For instance, you may receive a memo from the auditor that has pointed out a genuine flaw in the process that you followed for purchase of, say, a software, However he may have addressed it matter of fact with words and phrases that seem to imply incompetence or deliberate avoidance , even though he may not have meant it that way.

You; therefore, write back defending your integrity and complaining of the tone rather than addressing the core issue of the step you didn’t follow and why not.

Contradiction: States the opposing case with little or no supporting evidence

It is assumed here that there is substance that
follows the immediate contradiction. “No, it’s not” is followed by the why or how or where of it.

It is not much better than the previous three but it is pregnant with a follow up claim on the contrary. Yes, it rejects the viewpoint in its entirety but with a door ajar not to let the point of view of the other person in but to allow you to continue rather than slam the door shut. In this way you continue to engage the person with whom you have disagreed.

Counterargument: Contradicts and then backs it up with reasoning and/or supporting evidence

This is not necessarily productive opposition as counterargument does not inescapably guarantee that the discussion will remain focussed on the substance of the topic brought up by the other side.  For instance, if the topic is why a brand is not doing well in the market and marketing says that there are gaps in distribution, sales can reply by asking whether the design is attractive enough. It can be evasive and this especially happens in politics. Just catch an evening talk show where one participant heaps criticism of say, the opposition party’s economic policy and points to what is raising cost of living. In response that party’s representative shouts back asking what the other party did when they were in government and people were protesting about energy prices.

Counterarguments are effective when the topic is retained by both parties and they present their points of view even if they are evasive, it is an improvement.

Refutation: Finds the mistake and then explains why it’s mistaken using quotes

You are almost at the tip of the pyramid with refutation. However, here you are refuting not necessarily the core of the argument even as you offer sound reasoning to contradict the viewpoint of the other person, whether in a verbal discourse or writing a comment to what has been written.

You are getting the essence of the argument but picking several aspects of the topic and presenting a case against each. There is, however, the danger that you select those aspects that are not all that important to winning you the argument in totality.

This is where there is the danger of fault-finding even with good examples. Still, here you can win the battles but may lose the war.

Refuting the Central Point: Explicitly refutes the central point

This is the peak of the pyramid. If you have reached here you have shown yourself as balanced, controlled, logical and most importantly giving respect to the other person by taking the effort to consider his/her point of view.

More importantly you have fully comprehended what is the central point of the topic and not just the outlying aspects of the topic. In fact you may well bypass those and argue only about the core of the topic in review.

You may use all the stages of Paul Graham’s Hierarchy of Disagreement or you may use parts of them. But the important point here is that you should realise what form of argument you are adopting. This will allow you to evaluate yourself on where you are placed and how strong is your comprehension power when it comes to disagreement.

If anything it makes you a better person with this self-awareness. You will have learnt the right way to disagree.

(The writer is a Corporate Consultant and Coach and former CEO with over 35 years of experience in leadership, building brands and organisational strategy. He now advises on Business Strategy, Marketing, HR and Media Management)