Hierarchy of disagreement and message metatagging

By Duncan Anderson. To see all blogs click here.

Summary: when discussing whether to go ahead with an idea, misunderstandings can occur. To improve communication, I try to first explain if I agree / disagree / undecided about the core premise and then put forward new information to consider and explain how it affects my view on the core premise. I’ve found that just putting forward ‘new information to consider’ without context for how it affects the core premise can confuse and frustrate others. By clarifying the hierarchy of disagreement, communication is improved and the right decision is reached. 

Hierarchy Of Disagreement from Paul Graham: 

Theory: Let’s over simplify! 

• You are discussing whether or not to go ahead with an idea. 

  • For example: Whether to introduce a carbon tax in Australia. 

• This idea has one central point and one non central counterpoint. 

  • For example, the central point is that the carbon tax will reduce emissions. The non-central counterpoint is that there will be an increased cost for taxpayers. 

• Central point options:

  • 1. If the central point is True - go ahead with the idea

  • 2. If the central point is False - do not go ahead with the idea

• Non central counterpoint options: 

  • 1.  If you discover that the non-central counterpoint actually outweighs the central point. Do not go ahead, discovered to outweigh the central point. True, but cannot work around - do not go ahead.

  • 2. If the non-central counterpoint is True, but able to be worked around - go ahead

  • 3. If the non-central counterpoint is False - go ahead with the idea

• When do you go ahead or not?

“Never ascribe to malice that which can be ascribed to miscommunication.” 

• There is always miscommunication. The best you can hope for is 10% misunderstanding. 

• Sometimes it’s 0% understanding (they don’t know what you are saying). 

• In the worst cases it’s -100% understanding, ie others literally think you meant the opposite of what you intended :(! 

• That’s why it’s important to clarify the nature of your disagreement, ie whether it’s with the central or non-central point and thus affects or does not affect your opinion on whether the idea should go ahead.

• This becomes doubly important when you put forward new, additional points. 

Metatag any new information

• Theory: 

  • What I try to do when saying something = 1. Is this about a central point or non central point * 2. For the central / non central point do you think we should go ahead / not go ahead / undecided * 3. Then out forward your new information

  • What I used to do when saying something = *only* 3. New information

• Example 1: 

  • What I try to do: I agree with the central point and currently think we should go ahead with this idea. However there is a counterpoint that I think we need to consider which is X, while X is not good I think we can work around it and it still means we should go ahead with the idea. 

  • What I used to do: I think we need to consider X. 

  • Comment: 

    • If you just say ‘I think we need to consider X’ others might think you believe the central point is invalid and then start saying why ‘X is not relevant’. IE they are unable to engage with your comment in a productive way because they don’t know where it fits in the broader picture. 

    • IMO one needs Loyal Opposition. Loyal Opposition = people who help you stress test ideas and improve your understanding. People who tell you when your head is in a place it shouldn’t be ;)! People who help guide you towards ‘truth’. 

• Example 2:

  • Two parties are discussing whether to buy a house or not.

  • IMO what not to do: 

    • “I think there will be a recession in the next 2 years causing house prices to drop 30%.”

  • IMO what to do: 

    • “I think we should buy a house, but I think we need to be careful not to overextend ourselves. We are due a recession, so I’d only be comfortable buying a house if we could get through a recession financially.” 

Jingle: metatag your message to have marvelous meetings! 

Strawman vs Steelman...or how to make sure that your contribution is valuable

• What is Steelmanning?

  • This is finding ways to improve the central point.

• What is Strawmanning?

  • This is talking about a non central point (ie whether it is true or not does not mean one should go ahead with the idea or not) and saying that because this point is negative that the entire idea is a bad one. 

  • Example: 

    • IMO most things have some benefit and some cost. 

    • For example you can fly from Melbourne to Sydney but the plane might crash. However for me the risk of the plane crashing doesn’t mean that flying to sydney is a bad idea. 

    • Strawmanning would be saying ‘the plane might crash so we cannot fly to sydney’. It is a one dimensional argument that doesn’t see the broader picture and falsely can try to get an incorrect conclusion.