Martial Arts and the Hierarchy of Disagreement

 

Sadly, martial arts is well known for its hating. We’ve all seen practitioners of various styles spitefully battling it out on Facebook, or in the comments forum of YouTube. Sometimes these debates can be really interesting, but a lot of the time, they can be pretty low level. There’s something about the Internet that enables people to be rude and nasty in a way they might well not dare in real life.

Good martial arts practitioners often pride themselves on learning a range of other “life skills” through studying their art – leadership, collaboration, self discipline and so on. One of the most important skills we can gain through martial arts training, which is also essential in everyday life, is critical thinking, and the ability to analyse and respond to complexity.

This skill is arguably becoming even more important, as politics, society, the workplace and other aspects of the world around us often seem to be getting more bizarre and incomprehensible by the moment.

Being curious about other martial arts is positive, and can stimulate good questions and conversations. But such conversations need to be conducted intelligently in order to be useful. This article will look at Paul Graham’s Hierarchy of Disagreement (2008), and how it applies to debates within the martial arts.

Graham proposes seven levels of disagreement, with each level being of a higher order than the previous one. In this article, I’ll briefly explain each level, and give an example of what it looks like in a martial arts context, by referring to seven YouTube videos and some of the comments they attracted.

Level 0. Name-calling.

This is the very lowest level of argument for Graham. He explains that it can take various forms, from crude comments such as u r a fag!!!!!!!!!! to more pretentious forms such as, The author is a self-important dilettante. No matter how articulate the insult is, this is always a poor form of critique.

As an example of Level 0, here’s a video of Heather Hardy fighting Taylor Turner:

One person comments: Wow, Heather Hardy is a joke! This negative comment doesn’t constitute in any way an actual, useful critique of either woman’s technique. It’s a clear example of a Level 0 argument.

Level 1. Ad Hominem.

This Latin phrase means “to the person”. It’s a form of argument where you criticise something about the person, such as their character, motive or another attribute, rather than directly addressing their argument. This is used very commonly in “critiques” of other martial arts/artists. For example, in the traditional arts, it can be common to attack or call into question the value of someone’s rank, or the credentials of their lineage.

Another example is criticising martial arts instructors/experts for being overweight/unfit.

Here’s a particularly unkind example, from a video called, “AIKIDO – Training Part – 2 | Lenny Sly and Corky Quakenbush”

aasou writes:

Something slightly creepy about him and I dont know what it is. Not just the fact that he takes peoples money to show them this tree hugging hogwash. Not too dissimilar to these cult style leaders with heads full of magic but really under the surface theres a manipulative monster not showing their teeth and acting like they are everyones friend. Perhaps he is a nice guy. I dont know.

The point here is not whether aasou is speaking the “truth” or not (although it should be noted that one of Quakenbush’s students or supporters immediately disagrees with their comment):

He does not take anyone’s money, people pay him willingly for his teachings. If you see his videos you will also notice that his dojo is not really big. Please don’t think of aikido teachers are like those mega church pastors selling lots in paradise. Aikido teachers pay their taxes and insurance like the rest of us.

In fact, whether this teacher is a “nice guy” or not has absolutely no bearing on the question of whether his Aikido is effective – which was the whole point of the video.

Ad hominem arguments can be valid if the critique is relevant to the point being made. However, they are generally regarded as a weak form of argument.

Level 2. Responding to Tone.

Paul Graham writes:

Though better than attacking the author, this is still a weak form of disagreement. It matters much more whether the author is wrong or right than what his tone is. Especially since tone is so hard to judge. Someone who has a chip on their shoulder about some topic might be offended by a tone that to other readers seemed neutral. So if the worst thing you can say about something is to criticize its tone, you’re not saying much.

Here are some examples of this form of attack, regarding a video called: “Is Aikido A Martial Art?”

• • Great idea Miles! The best topic of the week. However, a couple of the panelists are clearly speaking with strong confirmation bias and are quite defensive. It’s ironic that there’s one panelist in particular who presents themselves as being all about true aikido but then behaves in a way that is completely in opposition to the principles of aikido by talking over other panelists, cutting them off and saying they don’t understand Aikido – maybe he could use the concept of blending a little more 😉
  • Awesome discussion, thank you to the participants. An important discussion, and I feel like some important points were made. It was interesting how defensive Vince was–he really seemed to have a chip on his shoulder. He was very dismissive to Roy and Lenny, and I don’t feel like he contributed positively to the conversation. The others demonstrated how to disagree without being obnoxious.
  • Vince Salvatore is consistently disrespectful…
  • This Vince guy’s mocking attitude towards the other panelists detracted from the conversation.

These comments may or may not be fair – as Graham says, whether a tone is offensive or not can be subjective. However, they add literally nothing to the question under debate, which is (as the title suggests) whether Aikido can be categorised as a martial art or not.

Level 3. Contradiction.

Graham writes:

In this stage we finally get responses to what was said, rather than how or by whom. The lowest form of response to an argument is simply to state the opposing case, with little or no supporting evidence.

Here’s a simple example of Level 3, in response to a YouTube video called “Taekwondo versus Karate”.

Comments in response to this question include:

• Muay Thai still the best for me. ❤
• I practice jujitsu, to me i ll chose karate than tkd

These statements are so simple, and so lacking in supportive evidence, that they add nothing to the debate. However, at least they are not personal and unkind like levels 0-2.

Level 4. Counterargument.

Graham writes:

At level 4 we reach the first form of convincing disagreement: counterargument. Forms up to this point can usually be ignored as proving nothing. Counterargument might prove something. The problem is, it’s hard to say exactly what.

Counterargument is contradiction plus reasoning and/or evidence. When aimed squarely at the original argument, it can be convincing. But unfortunately it’s common for counterarguments to be aimed at something slightly different. More often than not, two people arguing passionately about something are actually arguing about two different things. Sometimes they even agree with one another, but are so caught up in their squabble they don’t realize it.

A martial arts example of Level 4 would be to criticise a competition kata for being “ineffective in a fight”, when it is making literally no claim to be martially effective. Indeed, the competitor is normally seeking to gain points in line with a complex, athletically and aesthetically defined set of criteria, which would preclude martial effectiveness; and so this criticism isn’t really meaningful.

For example on this video – Karate 1 Premier League Tokyo- Female Kata- Final: Shimizu (JPN) vs Sanchez (ESP) – we see the comments:

• Lotta noises and I wonder if that helps in mma real fight
• 4-1 Was BULLSHiT, MAYBE 3-2..! Those Were 2 Of The MOST SEVERE “Imaginary Battles” – One Will EVER See..!
• Now if this was acting well are they acting? Cause real mma will rock her

However, the competitors were presumably trying to follow detailed criteria such as the following, taken from a blog post: Criteria for Judging a Karate Kata:

• Speed of technique – Don’t rush, but don’t lag behind. Know what portion of a technique is slow and what part is fast. Speed doesn’t mean that techniques cannot have a slight pause in between. 0.1-1.0
• Embusen Follow the correct path. With very few exceptions, this is perhaps the easiest to get right, but don’t overlook it. 0.1-1.0
• Body movement The performance should be fluid and rhythmical. Don’t be jerky and unnecessarily stamp the feet. Don’t introduce extra movement such as slight movement after a block.

Of course, it’s possible to come at this matter on a higher level of sophistication. Jesse Enkamp carefully compares and contrasts two distinct reasons for practising kata; one based on “fighting” and one based on “art”.

He writes:

So where is the schism?

Well, the problem arises when people who view the rhythm of kata based on one concept are confronted by the other concept – without really understanding it. But as we all know; Karate is a personal journey where the reason for practising it varies as much as our fingerprints vary.

So if someone wants to make an intelligent argument that kata should only ever be practised as a fighting form, that’s their prerogative. But otherwise, to criticise these competition kata for not being effective against MMA or in a “real” fight, is to miss the original “argument”, which in this case is that an art form is being presented.

Level 5. Refutation.

Levels 5 and 6 are two forms of refutation – and the most convincing form of disagreement for Graham. He explains that refutation is

also the rarest, because it’s the most work. Indeed, the disagreement hierarchy forms a kind of pyramid, in the sense that the higher you go the fewer instances you find.

Level 5 is a basic form of refutation. It consists of finding a point you disagree with, and then explaining why you think it’s mistaken.

Here is a good martial arts example of Level 5. The commentators have picked out a knife defence technique from a reel of self defence techniques, and are discussing why they feel it would not work, or might work with variations:

 

• That knife defense he is showing at 1:18 is extremely foolish/suicidal. If that was a real knife he would have cut himself on it with just the way he moved his neck, not even taking into the account that the attackers natural reaction would be to pull back as soon as the defenders hands went up. Once the attacker tenses the arm, his move would fail while the blade would literally slit his throat.
• Well if u push enemy’s hand and turn their hand both, it could be done i think.(still it’s extremely dangerous)
• yeh my throat was slitting even from seeinn that stupid tech but may be if ur fast enough u could break attackers arm
• Absolutely when the blade is in touch ov your throat like that it’s too dangerous to swing sideways to just grab the hand: the blade can already slit your throat right then. I think the technique misses to say you have also to retract your throat and push back your neck (not your head) at the same time or better say an instant before you swing and grab the attacker’s hand to push it even further turn it and so on… . That even more if the guy keeps close behind you. Two moves in one in a fraction of a sec, really difficult it takes a lot of practice and to be advised against if the attacker is taller stronger and leans on your back keeping the elbow at an angle and coming with the all forearm from the side…

You can see that these commentators aren’t making any nasty personal comments about the teacher, or empty statements with no back-up, such as “that would never work on the street!!” Instead, they are seeking to carefully explain why they see the technique as deficient. 

In the martial arts, we will often run into difficulties even at this better level of argument, because effectiveness can only really be tested in the physical realm. The critique here is good, but in the end it’s only words arguing against a video, over something (physical self defence) that isn’t actually “real” or verifiable in either medium. 

Level 6. Refuting the Central Point.

Graham writes: The force of a refutation depends on what you refute. The most powerful form of disagreement is to refute someone’s central point.

So in the Level 5 example above, we see people critiquing one of the techniques in a self defence tutorial. But a single knife defence is arguably not the central premise of a self-defence video. The real “argument” at stake could be seen as the assertion that you can (and should) learn to defend yourself by watching a YouTube tutorial.

Here’s a video of self-defence techniques aimed at women: 5 Self-Defense Moves Every Woman Should Know :

The introductory text states:

Don’t be a victim! Watch this video to learn these 5 self-defense moves which you can apply when it’s needed. SHARE this on to EVERY woman you know. Knowledge is power.

We saw under Level 4 that it’s generally not reasonable to criticise a martial art form for being ineffective in a combat situation, if it’s clearly not claiming to be self defence, and/or is emphasising the “art” aspect of the form instead. However, any form of martial art or self defence that does claim to be martially effective should have its effectiveness held to a much higher standard of critique, as if it is making false claims, it could literally endanger someone’s life.

There’s a lot wrong with this video when it’s framed as a resource to save women from physical violence. Comparatively few rapes or other physical assaults are perpetrated by strangers jumping out of nowhere in the street (the vast majority are carried out by partners, family members, or other people known to the victim). It’s therefore often said to be essential to supplement physical training with educating women on the realities of violence against women, and the gender socialisation process that women go through that make them vulnerable to violence in the first place.

(You can read about this topic in more detail here: for example here: 11 differences between fake and real “female empowerment” in martial arts.).

And for people of all genders, simply learning “techniques” can create a dangerous false sense of security, if students don’t realise that our bodies and minds work very differently under the stress of a real attack; and that most of what you think you know will collapse under pressure.

Let’s return to the video: 5 Self-Defense Moves Every Woman Should Know. Most of the comments are at a pretty low level, for example focusing on the women’s attractive physical appearance – but a few engage with the video’s central premise that we can learn self-defence by watching it, and seek to refute it (although they still retain the general assumption that formal martial arts training is sufficient preparation for a fight, which others would query)

• All this techniques will work only if your opponent is a weaker person. And moreover your adrenaline will get shooted up in such situations as it comes with a sudden surprise. If you are not a trained martial artist or you don’t have any combat sport experience, you may not be able to overcome that. For controlling such situations, you should learn martial arts or combat sports to get enough fighting experience.
• […] You cannot win a fight or a tough situation by simply studying theories. Let it be man or woman. Because when you face such a situation, you will not remember this kind of blocks and locks unless you are a trained martial artist. Because this kind of situations comes all of a sudden and movements would be so swift that you may not be able to anticipate. And by that time your adrenaline will be up and you will completely out of your mind. But if you are training such kind of techniques from a well trained master and groom your fighting skills by continuous training, you may be able to overcome such kind of situations. Please do remember that anticipated movements will not help you in practical situations. You should train it in a practical perspective from a trained fighter. So you will get chances to use your techniques most of the time.
• If your attacker has any skill you are fucked with all of these, b/c they are going to open with a haymaker or a combo, putting your out or on your way to out before you know it. Source: Years of boxing. The simple fact is, if you are a 120 lb girl against a 200 lb guy, your best option is running. Get out of range, and keep running and screaming. Also source: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G10uv57Romo

Writing this article has confirmed my belief that this kind of higher-order question is probably a much more suitable topic for a verbal debate on martial arts, than trying to directly critique someone’s technique. The latter is far better done in the flesh, and it’s a shame in many ways that it’s become so normalised now for martial artists to criticise each other in words, and at a physical distance from each other. 

Conclusion – Why is the hierarchy of disagreement important?

Of course this hierarchy is limited in many ways. Tristan Chermack, owner of the excellent closed Facebook discussion group “Aikido – the Martial Side” adds to it: 

There are quite a few logical fallacies in the martial arts world. […] A few I’ve noticed, but won’t describe:

• • The strawman argument
  • Reductio ad absurtum
  • Argument to authority
  • Ad hominem
  • Appeal to ignorance
  • Hasty generalization
  • Bandwagon fallacy
  • No true Scotsman fallacy

These things all tend to stem from the same source, which is a defense of dogmatic beliefs over objective results. They are all rhetorical tricks used to obscure the truth and sow confusion. Sadly, aikido is awash with confusion about what it is supposed to do, how it is supposed to do it, and even what it is. Hell, practitioners cannot even agree on the definitions of its most fundamental terms.

However, Graham’s typology is surely a neat tool to help us improve our ability to argue. He explains that his typology can’t help you to determine which arguments are valid, and which aren’t. While lower levels of argument are always unconvincing, the higher levels can also still be wrong.

However, the typology can help us to become better thinkers. Graham writes:

The most obvious advantage of classifying the forms of disagreement is that it will help people to evaluate what they read. In particular, it will help them to see through intellectually dishonest arguments. An eloquent speaker or writer can give the impression of vanquishing an opponent merely by using forceful words […] By giving names to the different forms of disagreement, we give critical readers a pin for popping such balloons.

Such labels may help writers too. Most intellectual dishonesty is unintentional. Someone arguing against the tone of something he disagrees with may believe he’s really saying something. Zooming out and seeing his current position on the disagreement hierarchy may inspire him to try moving up to counterargument or refutation.

But the greatest benefit of disagreeing well for Graham is this:

[…] Not just that it will make conversations better, but that it will make the people who have them happier. If you study conversations, you find there is a lot more meanness down in DH1 than up in DH6. You don’t have to be mean when you have a real point to make. In fact, you don’t want to. If you have something real to say, being mean just gets in the way.

If moving up the disagreement hierarchy makes people less mean, that will make most of them happier. Most people don’t really enjoy being mean; they do it because they can’t help it.

There may be some dark examples of meanness flying about the world right now, but I like to think of martial arts as a sincere environment where we seek to constantly learn and grow, and become the best we can be. I hope that Graham’s hierarchy will be of use to you, whether in a martial arts context or in your everyday life, and look forward to hearing your own thoughts . . . !