How to Disagree

Great article. Paul provides a useful illumination of the issue. The great medieval theologian Thomas Aquinas operated at level DH6, often with devastating effect. He would formulate and state the argument he planned to refute with clarity, depth, accuracy, and precision. He often would make his opponent's case better than the opponent had done! I believe his secret was that he was humbly interested in the truth wherever it led. Given his lack of a pre-conceived agenda, he could take…

One phenomenon I've encountered here: There are times when I interject a neutral, but relevant point in a debate. Often one side assumes I'm arguing the other side and immediately tries to "counter" me. Then I have to explain that I'm merely pointing out an interesting point, not taking the side against. I take this as a sign that some here are more intent on "winning" than on having a discussion.

The truly intellectually honest way to disagree: Take the idea in question, and give it some genuine love. Make an earnest attempt to make some form of the idea work in the context of everything you know. This is my litmus test for first-class minds. I've been using this for the past 25 years and I've found that those who truly take this approach are 1) uncommon, 2) impressively smart, 3) genuinely curious, and 4) seem to offer the highest…

This is a PG classic, and a perennial HN favorite. It left an impression on me the first time I read it 10 years ago; but since then, I've actually found it to be more useful as a piece to introduce people (designers, teachers, writers, musicians, nurses, pharmacists, etc.) to how "computer people" think - in extremely hierarchical, rule based systems that they see as impervious to everything else and that leave no room for nuance - and how to…