Here are four quotes and one statement.
After hearing them, let us know if you agree or disagree and why. Ready?
“Abortion is legal because babies can’t vote.” “No woman can call herself free
who does not control her own body.” “Race and skin color are socially constructed,
not biologically natural.” “If liberty means anything at all,
it means the right to tell people what they do not want to hear.”
And finally: “We are educators and the world ain’t round!”
To optimize for learning and retention,
pause the video, write how you agree or disagree in the comments below, and then continue.
When you discuss a topic and everyone agrees, the conversation often dies out quickly. But when you
disagree, you're putting yourself in opposition to what was said. You take risks and have skin
in the game. This can bring the discussion to a level where everyone involved learns more about
the issue. If we are going to disagree, we should be careful to do it well. But what does that mean?
In 2008 Paul Graham attempted to answer this question
by proposing a hierarchy with 7 stages of disagreement ranging from weak to strong.
The lowest level is name-calling which attacks the person and not what they say. If Bob and Jen say
“We are educators and the world ain’t round”. You may answer “you are idiots!”.
Second is the ad hominem attack, which questions the authority of someone without
addressing the argument. If they say, “We are educators and the world ain’t round”,
you can respond “you may be educators, but you certainly aren’t scientists”. Like
name calling it’s a weak form of disagreement as it attacks them but not what they say.
Third is responding to tone, meaning to criticize the style of language,
rather than its content. If they say, “We are educators and the world ain’t round”,
you can reply: “Ain’t is bad English. First learn to speak properly!”. It is a weak form
of disagreement, as you object to the tone and not the content. You’re still not saying much.
Fourth is contradiction. Now we get responses to what was said,
rather than by whom or how. If they say, “We are educators and the world ain’t round”,
you can retort: “It is round!”. Contradiction can have weight, because sometimes seeing the
opposing case stated explicitly is enough to get the point across. But this is not always the case.
The counterargument is a contradiction with reasoning and the first form of convincing
disagreement. If they say, “We are educators and the world ain’t round”, you can answer:
“I’m a scientist and it isn’t flat either! In fact, from space it looks pretty round”.
When aimed squarely at the original argument, it can be convincing. But often two people who
are arguing passionately about something are actually talking about two different things.
The refutation is quoting someone and explaining why they are mistaken.
If they say, “We are educators and the world ain’t round” you may respond:
“When you say that you are an educator and the world ain’t round, you actually imply that
you have authority and that the world is flat. Videos from space are proof it's pretty round.”
It’s a convincing form of disagreement. It's also a rare form, because it's more work.
Refuting the central point is the most powerful form of disagreement. Prior to this level you
have been unclear or, in the worst case, deliberately dishonest. If they say, “We
are educators and the world ain’t round” you can refute the central point as such: “Your statement
that the earth is not round is technically right — the earth being closer to an ellipsoid — “
“But, by only sharing what the earth is not without adding any clarification you lead people
to believe whatever fits best with their own convictions, provided it is not that the earth is
round. Assuming educators are meant to help people understand better, this is in direct contradiction
with the idea of you being an educator and thus makes your statement an oxymoron.”
Graham stated that there are 3 main benefits of knowing forms of disagreement.
It helps us to evaluate what we read, see and hear. In particular, it helps us spot
intellectually dishonest arguments from speakers who use words eloquently.
It makes conversations richer, because participants focus on the actual point.
It makes us happier. Lower levels of disagreement attack the person, which
is mean. Higher levels of disagreement attack the idea, which is easier to accept and assimilate.
Most people don't really enjoy being obnoxious;
they sometimes are because they haven't found a better way to express themselves. If moving up
the disagreement hierarchy makes people less mean, it will probably make many of them happier too.
What are your thoughts? Do you agree or disagree with Graham?
If you don’t feel strongly about this topic, you’ll probably disagree with
one of the other four statements we made at the beginning. But can you refute the central point?
We will now repeat them. Let us know how YOU disagree with them in the comments below.
“Abortion is legal because babies can’t vote.” “No woman can call herself free
who does not control her own body.” “Race and skin colour are socially constructed,
not biologically natural.” “If liberty means anything at all,
it means the right to tell people what they do not want to hear.”
This and all other Sprouts' videos are licensed under the Creative Commons.
That means teachers from all around the world can use them in classrooms, online courses or
to start projects - and today, thousands already do!
To learn how it works and download this video without Ads or background music,
checkout our website or read the description below.
If you want to support our mission and help change education
visit our Patreon - that's patreon.com/sprouts.