Over at the blog Overcoming Bias, economist Robin Hanson argues that:

When you knowingly disagree with someone you are judging them to be less rational than you, at least on that topic. (Judging them less informed or experienced by itself can't create disagreement.) It might be only a minor disrespect, if you think this disagreement suggests little about whether you'd disagree with them elsewhere. But disagreement is disrespect, nonetheless.

In the comments, I said that I thought this was silly, as most people are aware of the possibility they could be wrong, and are thus perfectly able respectfully to disagree. Then Hanson said I and others clearly hadn't read his previous writings on the subject, at which point I said no I hadn't. It's all here, if anybody cares about the background.

I'd add that the issue here is disagreement "on moral issues," an area in which I am not sure that most folks (especially me) are rational to begin with.

Relevance to Fray seems obvious (but appearances may be deceiving). Mad props if anybody can explain Hanson's position.

Hal Finney summarizes the most relevant background here.

Although not explicitly cited by Hanson and the OB crowd (as far as I can remember, although it's possible I found this paper through that site and have since forgotten), Simon Blackburn's Religion and Respect also seems relevant (for the pressed for time, the anecdote on the first two pages probably sufficient).

YOu should have signed your 7:30 post "Disrespectfully" (get him thinking a bit ..)

I think I'll just mention that my parents must've had almost zero respect for me, when I was growing up. They were forever trying to inform me, you see, and facilitate a broader understanding of issues.

I won't even get into teachers, professional consultants and the like - disrespectful bastards, all.

conscious and the unconscious which tends to be a bit more honest simply by virtue of a complete lack of affect in that region of the brain.

Of course we feel a measure of condescension toward those whom we feel are not as accurate in their positions and thinking as we are...that is an inevitable and undeniable reflex of the sub-conscious human psyche. We struggle with those so called socially approved behaviors for the benefit of those who are watching but beneath the surface we rage like the tyrants that we allow ourselves to be in our inner thoughts.

The conscious mind rationalizes that a person might be at a different level of experience in life, a different level of learning or in some way unfairly hindered from knowing the all powerful enlightenment that we ourselves possess and so we front them a social handicap that allows them to be on our level and worthy of equal footing ( snicker ) even though they are sadly mistaken about their own beliefs and positions. But underneath it all?

How could that stupid fuck be so incredibly stupid?

No. Never has. Implicit in the human contract is allowance for disagreement sans rancor and disrespect. Were this not so we'd have self-destructed eons ago.

But the lion still rules the Barranca and eats at will, moral issues be damned.

It's hogwash. How often do we disagree with people for whom we have great respect? There are several posters here, just for instance, that I disagree with all the time, and for whom I have a great deal of respect. And vice-versa.

the author seems to be conflating discrediting statements and statements of disagreement. Discrediting statements are intended to preempt any conceptual engagement with someone who disagrees, and yes, they're inherently disrespectful. When you say someone has no credibility, then you have an excuse to disregard anything they say.

Disagreement, on the other hand, is an invitation for dialogue. Rather than suggest disrespect, I'd say it implies the opposite.

"How exactly do you disagree with someone's moral views without degrading them? Can you really say pedophelia is disgusting without degrading pedophiles?"

No, you can't. But if you're saying pedophilia is disgusting, your also can't really say the intent of your statement was to disagree with pedophilia - use of the term "disgusting" means you've made a judgment about the credibility of anyone who might disagree that preempts any possibility of a dialogue in which two sides are expressing disagreement.

That's a very different statement than, "The consequences of pedophilia are too grave to consider it viable." At least with that statement, you've invited debate on the topic of the consequences of pedophilia, which is the rational basis by which it is rightly discredited.

If I am arguing a point from my position of expertise, in a discussion with an economist, a philosopher/poet, an ecological-minded biologist, a jurist and a writer/historian (as can happen here, occasionally), I can guarantee that the thought "How could that stupid fuck be so incredibly stupid?" is extremely unlikely to occur. Rather, the thought "How could I sound so incredibly stupid?" is much more likely.

But I do often feel I have something important to add - even if I'm having a discussion with someone I've already concluded is more intelligent and more broadly informed than I am.

When we're disagreeing, is that really your underlying assessment of me?

Disagreement, on the other hand, is an invitation for dialogue. Rather than suggest disrespect, I'd say it implies the opposite.

It is agreeing to disagree that Hanson argues implies disrespect. By extension of your argument, I take it you agree?

How do you know that it is not tolerance of minor disagreements and disrespects sans rancor that is implicit in the human contract that has allowed us to have avoided self-destruction eons ago.

One of the most frustrating things I hear, from politicians, celebreties, and people in real life is this: We should respect the opinions of others. This is absurdly ridiculous.

What we must respect is the right of others to have an opinion, not necessarily the opinion they have. I tend to have less respect for those who hold opinions different from mine, figuring them to be, obviously, of an inferior intellect.

Jack

"...tolerance of minor disagreements and disrespects..."

You're right, of course. Qualifiers matter.

One of us misunderstands the other.

You said that Hanson was wrong BECAUSE human societies have had to learn to tolerate disagreement WITHOUT disrespect and rancor, or else our species would self-destruct.

Then you agreed that it's equally possible that human societies have had to learn to tolerate disagreement and disrespect WITHOUT rancor, or else our species would self-destruct.

If you think those two options are equally likely, then you need another reason to disagree with Robin Hanson.

alexa-blue:

Disagreement, on the other hand, is an invitation for dialogue. Rather than suggest disrespect, I'd say it implies the opposite. It is agreeing to disagree that Hanson argues implies disrespect. By extension of your argument, I take it you agree?

Agreeing to disagree is an acknowledgment of the breakdown of the dialogue. I suppose it can imply disrespect, but wouldn't grant that it necessarily implies disrespect.

In discussions here, for example, I've often felt some anguish about my inability to better express myself. It may be that by accident or idiosyncrasy of experience, I happen to know something that might inform someone else's analysis. Failure to make my case (and acknowledgment of that failure) is hardly an indication of disrespect, however.

Agreeing to disagree can also be a polite way of expressing something else, however - something about the credibility you've granted that person. I think that's really what the author is referring to. But if he's universalizing this to all disagreements, I think he's quite mistaken.