A canonical rationality essay extending Paul Graham's 'How To Disagree' into a full hierarchy of DISAGREEMENTS: from meta-debate & social shaming (the sphinx guarding the pyramid — shaming as territory-marking, the Jets/Sharks graffiti), up through gotchas, single facts, single studies, good-faith survey of evidence (the factual/blue column) and disputing definitions, isolated demands for rigor, clarifying, operationalizing, and high-level generators of disagreement (the philosophical/red column, integrating CFAR's double-crux). Coins 'high-level generators of disagreement' and lands durable meta-rules ('the highest level you reach is the lowest of the two columns'; 'if anyone argues low, the whole argument drops there'), plus the closing on how the process yields mutual respect and deals 'a tiny bit of damage' to the generators (the Bayesian-prior/UFO analogy).

Quality 85 · Excellent. High-Excellent: a definitive, comprehensive, frequently-cited rationality framework that coined 'high-level generators of disagreement' and popularized double-crux — one of his defining meta-argument taxonomies, scored ON MERIT alongside Conflict-vs-Mistake (86). 85.

Claude’s paradigm shift 66 · Notable shift. A strongly-original synthesis extending Graham into a durable full taxonomy + the 'high-level generators' coinage; installed a lasting frame. B66.

Real-world impact 4 · Moderate. A durable, widely-adopted framework/coinage that seeded 'erisology' (John Nerst) and popularized double-crux across the rationalist sphere. RWI4.

Varieties Of Argumentative Experience