How to Disagree

The piece introduces a seven-level hierarchy that maps the quality of disagreement, from name-calling at the bottom to refuting the central point at the top. By naming each rung-DH0 through DH6-it gives readers a mental model for evaluating how useful a response actually is.

Concrete examples show how a simple insult (DH0) is equivalent to a pretentious jab, while a DH4 counterargument adds reasoning and evidence that can actually move a conversation forward. The higher levels require more work: quoting the original text, pinpointing the core claim, and then systematically dismantling it.

For technical leaders the hierarchy is a tool to improve team discussions and code reviews. Instead of dismissing a colleague with a quick put-down, you can aim for a DH4 or DH5 approach that backs up objections with data, making the debate productive rather than toxic. The model also helps you spot when others are hiding behind low-level attacks and call them out.

Ultimately, classifying disagreements raises the ceiling of conversation quality, curbs meanness, and leads to clearer decision-making. When teams learn to move up the ladder, they spend less time arguing about tone and more time resolving the real technical or strategic issues at hand.