The pyramid you're referring to is Paul Graham's Hierarchy of Disagreement, a framework that ranks seven common forms of disagreement from the least to the most intellectually rigorous. In this hierarchy, ad hominem attacks are considered the second-lowest form of disagreement.
🧠 Paul Graham’s Hierarchy of Disagreement
Paul Graham, in his essay "How to Disagree", outlines the following hierarchy:
- Name-calling (DH0): The lowest form, involving insults without any argument.
- Ad Hominem (DH1): Attacking the person making the argument rather than the argument itself.
- Responding to Tone (DH2): Criticizing the author's tone instead of addressing the content.
- Contradiction (DH3): Simply stating the opposite case with little or no supporting evidence.
- Counterargument (DH4): Presenting a reasoned argument against the original point.
- Refutation (DH5): Directly addressing and disproving specific points made in the original argument.
- Refuting the Central Point (DH6): The highest form, where the core argument is directly and thoroughly refuted.
In this hierarchy, ad hominem attacks are placed just above name-calling. While both are considered weak forms of disagreement, ad hominem attacks are slightly more sophisticated because they involve attacking the person rather than resorting to outright insults. However, they still fail to engage with the actual argument and are thus deemed ineffective and intellectually dishonest.
Understanding this hierarchy can help individuals recognize and avoid fallacious reasoning in debates and discussions, promoting more constructive and meaningful conversations.
Nice but this is not complete. He left out pearl clutching and catering to the middle of the tent.
Marcela's comment about “pearl clutching” and “catering to the middle of the tent” highlights two distinct rhetorical tactics often used in debates or discussions. Here's an explanation of each:
🫣 Pearl Clutching
Pearl clutching refers to a dramatic or exaggerated display of shock or outrage, often in response to something perceived as vulgar, immoral, or inappropriate. The term evokes the image of someone clutching their pearls in mock horror, a gesture historically associated with upper-class women feigning indignation. In modern usage, it describes reactions that may be insincere or disproportionate to the actual offense. (Cambridge Dictionary)
🎪 Catering to the Middle of the Tent
Catering to the middle of the tent is a metaphor from politics, particularly in the context of broad-based or "big tent" parties. A "big tent" party seeks to include a wide range of ideologies and groups. "Catering to the middle of the tent" implies focusing on the centrist or moderate factions within this broad coalition, often at the expense of more radical or fringe elements. This approach aims to maintain unity and appeal to the largest number of people, but can sometimes dilute more progressive or radical positions to achieve consensus. (Wikipedia)
Both terms describe strategies that can be used to navigate complex discussions or debates. While "pearl clutching" may serve to deflect criticism or portray oneself as morally superior, "catering to the middle of the tent" focuses on maintaining broad appeal and unity, sometimes at the cost of more specific or radical viewpoints.