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.