Disagreement and disagreement are as inherent to human beings 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 completely identified.

However, not everyone has the capacity to do this properly. Paul Graham noticed this fact and created a “hierarchy of disagreement” that orders the way people express their disagreement.

Who’s Paul Graham?

Paul Graham is a British-born computer programmer and essayist who became known after his work with Lisp, a family of programming languages. In addition, he co-founded the first application service provider (ASP).

After acquiring a remarkable reputation within the computer and programming world, Graham began his career as an essayist. From his own website he published essays on a variety of subjects that contained everything from texts about programming languages to the reasons why “nerds” never achieve popularity. These writings are brought together in the publication Hackers and painters , which saw the light of day in 2004, although he had already published books on programming before.

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

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

What is the discrepancy and how does it work?

The Real Academia de la Lengua Española defines “discrepancy” with two different meanings:

  1. “Difference, inequality that results from comparing things with each other.”
  2. “Personal dissent in opinion or conduct.”

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

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

Thus, the social level of the discrepancy follows a path. A series of guidelines that go from the origin of the disagreement 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 such views over time.
  4. Within the groups themselves, discrepancies continue to appear , which generate new groups of people, thus killing off the original groups . This dynamic is repeated successively.

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

Graham’s Discrepancy Hierarchy

Once we know how the discrepancies work, we can move on to describe how these disagreements can manifest themselves in each of the people who experience them. Since it is not the same to express a disagreement by means of an insult, as to do so 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 triangle graph, the higher a person’s position in the pyramid is, the more powerful his own position or argument is, while those in the lower 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 the exchanges of opinions will be.

Wikipedia Commons.

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

7. Insult

The lowest level of argumentation is where all those people who resort to insult as a form of opposition are installed, since they are unable to offer any kind of argument, however poorly reasoned it may be.

Graham exemplifies it with the phrase “you’re an idiot.”

6. Ad hominem

The author places on this step all those who “attack the characteristics or authority of the opponent are to consider the substance of the argument”.

This means that the person is only able to refute another person by attacking or making negative statements about him or her, with the intention of discrediting him or her but without providing any valid argument showing the weakness of the other person’s reasoning and statements. In other words, the person is attacked, not what he says.

An example of this discrepancy would be: “What do you know if you’re not even educated?

5. Responding to tone

In these cases the person focuses on or uses the tone of the opponent’s message to try to disprove or refute it , regardless of the basis or essence of what is being discussed.

A typical statement in these cases would be: “Shouting so much no one will take you seriously”.

4. Contradiction

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

In these cases the arguments used are expressed in forms of universal truths that, according to that same person, do not need explanation .

So the example would be: “Everybody knows that’s not the case”.

3. Counterargument

From this level onwards the reasoning starts to show a greater richness and quality . Nevertheless, in the counterargument the person presents evidence or proofs that support his or her 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 he uses the approaches and explanations of others to support his beliefs.

For example, “You’re not right, because as Socrates said…”

2. Refutation

In this second level of discussion the person is able to reason and disagree with his 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 concrete ideas of the other’s discourse, not being able to refute the central idea.

1. Refute the central point

We finally reached the highest level, and therefore the most constructive one when it comes to having a discussion. At this point the person has the necessary resources to refute the central theme or the basis of the discussion in an explicit and direct way , using his or her own experiences and arguments and being able to integrate the ideas of the other person into the discussion.