How to Disagree

March 2008 The web is turning writing into a conversation.

2008 年 3 月 网络正在将写作变成对话。

Twenty years ago, writers wrote and readers read.

二十年前，作家写作，读者阅读。

The web lets readers respond, and increasingly they do—in comment threads, on forums, and in their own blog posts.

网络让读者可以做出回应，而且他们越来越多地在评论帖子、论坛和自己的博客文章中做出回应。

Many who respond to something disagree with it.

许多对某些事情做出回应的人不同意它。

That's to be expected.

这是可以预料的。

Agreeing tends to motivate people less than disagreeing.

同意往往比不同意更能激励人们。

And when you agree there's less to say.

当你同意时，就没什么可说的了。

You could expand on something

你可以扩展一些东西

the author said, but he has probably already explored the most interesting implications.

作者说，但他可能已经探索了最有趣的含义。

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

当你不同意时，你就进入了他可能没有探索过的领域。

The result is there's a lot more disagreeing going on, especially measured by the word.

结果是出现了更多的分歧，尤其是从字面上来衡量。

That doesn't mean people are getting angrier.

这并不意味着人们变得更加愤怒。

The structural change in the way we communicate is enough to account for it.

我们沟通方式的结构性变化足以解释这一点。

But though it's not anger that's driving the increase in

但尽管推动这一增长的不是愤怒

disagreement, there's a danger that the increase in disagreement will make people angrier.

分歧，存在着分歧的增加会使人们更加愤怒的危险。

Particularly online, where it's easy to say things you'd never say face to face.

尤其是在网上，你可以很容易地说出面对面时不会说的话。

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

如果我们的分歧越来越大，我们就应该小心处理好。

What does it mean to disagree well?

很好地不同意是什么意思？

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

大多数读者都能分辨出单纯的谩骂和精心推理的反驳之间的区别，但我认为将名字写在上面会有所帮助。

intermediate stages.

中间阶段。

So here's an attempt at a disagreement hierarchy: DH0.

因此，这是对分歧层次结构的尝试：DH0。

Name-calling.

辱骂。

This is the lowest form of disagreement, and probably also the most common.

这是最低级的分歧形式，也可能是最常见的。

We've all seen comments like this: u r a fag!!!!!!!!!!

我们都看过这样的评论：你是基佬！！！！！！！！！

But it's important to realize that more articulate name-calling has just as little weight.

但重要的是要认识到，更明确的谩骂也同样没有什么意义。

A comment like The author is a self-important dilettante.

像作者这样的评论是一个自以为是的外行。

is really nothing more than a pretentious version of "u r a fag."

其实无非是“你是个基佬”的自命不凡的版本。

DH1.

DH1。

Ad Hominem.

人身攻击。

An ad hominem attack is not quite as weak as mere name-calling.

人身攻击并不像单纯的谩骂那么弱。

It might actually carry some weight.

它实际上可能有一定的重量。

For example, if a senator wrote an article saying senators' salaries should be increased, one could respond: Of course he would say that.

例如，如果一位参议员写了一篇文章说参议员的工资应该增加，人们可能会回应：他当然会这么说。

He's a senator.

他是一名参议员。

This wouldn't refute the author's argument, but it may at least be relevant to the case.

这并不能反驳作者的论点，但至少可能与案件相关。

It's still a very weak form of disagreement,

这仍然是一种非常微弱的分歧形式

though.

不过。

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?

如果参议员的论点有问题，你应该指出问题所在；如果没有，他是参议员又有什么区别呢？

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.

说作者缺乏撰写某个主题的权威是人身攻击的一种变体，而且是一种特别无用的类型，因为好的想法往往来自局外人。

The question is whether the author is correct or not.

问题在于作者的观点是否正确。

If his lack of authority caused him to

如果他缺乏权威导致他

make mistakes, point those out.

犯错误，指出错误。

And if it didn't, it's not a problem.

如果没有，也不是问题。

DH2.

DH2。

Responding to Tone.

响应音调。

The next level up we start to see responses to the writing, rather than the writer.

在下一个层次上，我们开始看到对写作的反应，而不是作者。

The lowest form of these is to disagree with the author's tone.

其中最低的形式是不同意作者的语气。

E.g. I can't believe the author dismisses intelligent design in such a cavalier fashion.

例如。我不敢相信作者以如此傲慢的方式驳斥了智能设计。

Though better than attacking the author, this is still a weak form of disagreement.

尽管比攻击作者更好，但这仍然是一种较弱的分歧形式。

It matters much more whether the author is wrong

作者是否错误更重要

or right than what his tone is.

或者比他的语气更正确。

Especially since tone is so hard to judge.

尤其是语气很难判断。

Someone who has a chip on their shoulder about some topic might be offended by a tone that to other readers seemed neutral.

对某个话题怀有怨恨的人可能会因为其他读者看来中立的语气而感到冒犯。

So if the worst thing you can say about something is to criticize its tone, you're not saying much.

因此，如果你对某件事能说的最糟糕的事情就是批评它的语气，那么你就没有说太多。

Is the author flippant, but correct?

作者是不是很轻率，但是正确的？

Better that than grave and wrong.

这比严重和错误要好。

And if the author is incorrect somewhere, say where.

如果作者在某个地方不正确，请指出哪里。

DH3.

DH3。

Contradiction.

矛盾。

In this stage we finally get responses to what was said, rather than how or by whom.

在这个阶段，我们最终得到的是对所说内容的回应，而不是如何回应或由谁回应。

The lowest form of response to an argument is simply to state the opposing case, with little or no supporting evidence.

对论点的最低反应形式是简单地陈述相反的情况，很少或根本没有支持证据。

This is often combined with DH2 statements, as in: I can't believe the author dismisses intelligent design in such a cavalier fashion.

这通常与 DH2 语句结合在一起，例如：我不敢相信作者以如此漫不经心的方式驳回了智能设计。

Intelligent design is a legitimate scientific

智能设计是合法的科学

theory.

理论。

Contradiction can sometimes have some weight.

矛盾有时也有一定的分量。

Sometimes merely seeing the opposing case stated explicitly is enough to see that it's right.

有时，仅仅看到明确陈述的相反情况就足以看出它是正确的。

But usually evidence will help.

但通常证据会有所帮助。

DH4.

DH4。

Counterargument.

反驳。

At level 4 we reach the first form of convincing disagreement: counterargument.

在第四级，我们达到了令人信服的分歧的第一种形式：反驳。

Forms up to this point can usually be ignored as proving nothing.

到目前为止的表格通常可以被忽略，因为它无法证明任何东西。

Counterargument might prove something.

反驳也许能证明一些事情。

The problem is, it's hard to say exactly what.

问题是，很难说清楚到底是什么。

Counterargument is contradiction plus reasoning and/or evidence.

反驳是矛盾加上推理和/或证据。

When aimed squarely at the original argument, it can be convincing.

当直接针对原始论点时，它可以令人信服。

But unfortunately it's common for counterarguments to be aimed at something slightly different.

但不幸的是，反驳的目标往往略有不同。

More often than not, two people arguing passionately about something are actually arguing about two different things.

通常，两个人激烈地争论某件事实际上是在争论两件不同的事情。

Sometimes they even agree with one another, but are so caught up in their squabble they don't realize it.

有时他们甚至彼此意见一致，但陷入争吵之中而没有意识到。

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.

反对与原作者所说略有不同的内容可能有合理的理由：当你觉得他们错过了问题的核心时。

But when you do that, you should say explicitly you're doing it.

但当你这样做时，你应该明确地说你正在这样做。

DH5.

DH5。

Refutation.

反驳。

The most convincing form of disagreement is refutation.

最有说服力的分歧形式是反驳。

It's also the rarest, because it's the most work.

这也是最罕见的，因为它是最多的工作。

Indeed, the disagreement hierarchy forms a kind of pyramid, in the sense that the higher you

事实上，分歧等级形成了一种金字塔，从某种意义上说，你的地位越高。

go the fewer instances you find.

找到的实例越少。

To refute someone you probably have to quote them.

要反驳某人，你可能必须引用他们的话。

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.

你必须找到一个“确凿的证据”，即任何你不同意但你认为是错误的段落，然后解释为什么它是错误的。

If you can't find an actual quote to disagree with, you may be arguing with a straw man.

如果你找不到一个实际的引述来反对，你可能正在和一个稻草人争论。

While refutation generally entails quoting, quoting doesn't necessarily imply refutation.

虽然反驳通常需要引用，但引用并不一定意味着反驳。

Some writers quote parts of things they disagree

有些作家引用了他们不同意的部分内容

with to give the appearance of legitimate refutation, then follow with a response as low as DH3 or even DH0.

给出合理反驳的外观，然后给出低至 DH3 甚至 DH0 的响应。

DH6.

DH6。

Refuting the Central Point.

反驳中心论点。

The force of a refutation depends on what you refute.

反驳的力度取决于你反驳的内容。

The most powerful form of disagreement is to refute someone's central point.

最有力的分歧形式是反驳某人的中心观点。

Even as high as DH5 we still sometimes see deliberate dishonesty, as when someone picks out minor points of an argument and refutes

即使高达 DH5，我们有时仍然会看到故意的不诚实行为，例如当有人挑出争论的次要观点并反驳时

those.

那些。

Sometimes the spirit in which this is done makes it more of a sophisticated form of ad hominem than actual refutation.

有时这样做的精神使其更像是一种复杂的人身攻击形式，而不是实际的反驳。

For example, correcting someone's grammar, or harping on minor mistakes in names or numbers.

例如，纠正某人的语法，或者喋喋不休地指出姓名或数字中的小错误。

Unless the opposing argument actually depends on such things, the only purpose of correcting them is to discredit one's opponent.

除非对方的论点实际上依赖于这些事情，否则纠正它们的唯一目的就是抹黑对方。

Truly refuting something requires one to refute its central point,

真正反驳一件事需要反驳它的中心点，

or at least one of them.

或至少其中之一。

And that means one has to commit explicitly to what the central point is.

这意味着人们必须明确致力于中心点是什么。

So a truly effective refutation would look like: The author's main point seems to be x.

所以真正有效的反驳应该是这样的：作者的主要观点似乎是x。

As he says: <quotation> But this is wrong for the following reasons...

正如他所说： <引文> 但这是错误的，原因如下......

The quotation you point out as mistaken need not be the actual statement of the author's main point.

你指出错误的引文不一定是作者主要观点的实际陈述。

It's enough to refute something it depends upon.

反驳它所依赖的东西就足够了。

What It Means Now we have a way of classifying forms of disagreement.

这意味着什么 现在我们有了一种对分歧形式进行分类的方法。

What good is it?

有什么好处呢？

One thing the disagreement hierarchy doesn't give us is a way of picking a winner.

分歧等级制度没有给我们提供选择获胜者的方法。

DH levels merely describe the form of a statement, not whether it's correct.

DH 级别仅描述陈述的形式，而不描述其是否正确。

A DH6 response could still be completely mistaken.

DH6 响应仍然可能是完全错误的。

But while DH levels don't set a lower bound on the convincingness of a reply, they do set an upper bound.

但是，尽管 DH 水平并未对答复的可信度设定下限，但它们确实设定了上限。

A DH6 response might be

DH6 响应可能是

unconvincing, but a DH2 or lower response is always unconvincing.

无法令人信服，但 DH2 或更低的响应始终无法令人信服。

The most obvious advantage of classifying the forms of disagreement is that it will help people to evaluate what they read.

对分歧形式进行分类的最明显的好处是，它将帮助人们评估他们所读到的内容。

In particular, it will help them to see through intellectually dishonest arguments.

特别是，它将帮助他们看清智力上不​​诚实的论点。

An eloquent speaker or writer can give the impression of vanquishing an opponent merely by using forceful words.

一个能言善辩的演说家或作家，只要使用有力的言语，就能给人留下打败对手的印象。

In fact that is probably

事实上这大概就是

the defining quality of a demagogue.

煽动者的决定性品质。

By giving names to the different forms of disagreement, we give critical readers a pin for popping such balloons.

通过给不同形式的分歧命名，我们为挑剔的读者提供了戳破此类气球的线索。

Such labels may help writers too.

这样的标签也可能对作家有所帮助。

Most intellectual dishonesty is unintentional.

大多数智力上的不诚实都是无意的。

Someone arguing against the tone of something he disagrees with may believe he's really saying something.

某人对自己不同意的事情的语气提出异议，可能会认为他确实在说某事。

Zooming out and seeing his current position on the disagreement hierarchy

缩小并查看他当前在分歧等级中的位置

may inspire him to try moving up to counterargument or refutation.

可能会激励他尝试进行反驳或反驳。

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.

但善于表达不同意见的最大好处不仅在于它会让对话变得更好，而且会让对话的人更快乐。

If you study conversations, you find there is a lot more meanness down in DH1 than up in DH6.

如果你研究对话，你会发现 DH1 中的下层比 DH6 中的上层要卑鄙得多。

You don't have to be mean when you have a real point to make.

当你有真正的观点要表达时，你不必刻薄。

In fact, you don't want to.

事实上，你不想。

If you have something real to say, being mean just gets

如果你有真心话要说，刻薄只会让

in the way.

在路上。

If moving up the disagreement hierarchy makes people less mean, that will make most of them happier.

如果提高分歧等级可以让人们变得不那么刻薄，那么他们中的大多数人就会更快乐。

Most people don't really enjoy being mean; they do it because they can't help it.

大多数人并不真正喜欢刻薄；他们并不喜欢刻薄。他们这样做是因为他们无能为力。

Thanks to Trevor Blackwell and Jessica Livingston for reading drafts of this.

感谢 Trevor Blackwell 和 Jessica Livingston 阅读本文的草稿。

Related:

有关的：