Graham proposed a "disagreement hierarchy" in a 2008 essay "How to Disagree" (paulgraham.com/disagree.html), putting types of argument into a seven-point hierarchy and observing that "If moving up the disagreement hierarchy makes people less mean, that will make most of them happier." Graham also suggested that the hierarchy can be thought as a pyramid, as the highest forms of disagreement are rarer.
Following this hierarchy, Graham notes that articulate forms of name-calling (e.g. "The author is a self-important dilettante") are no different from crude insults.
Friedrich Glasl's model of conflict escalation assists in the analysis of conflicts. Appropriate reactions can be derived from this analysis. The model has nine stages. These stages are grouped into three levels, which each contain three stages.
Glasl represents "escalation in his nine stage model not as an ascent to higher and higher stages of escalation, but as a descent to deeper and deeper, more primitive and more inhuman forms of dispute... [which] inevitably leads into regions that evoke great 'inhuman energies' which are not ultimately amenable to human control or restraint."
In the first level both parties can still win (win–win). In the second level one of the parties loses and the other wins (win–lose), and in the third level both parties lose (lose–lose).
It is interesting to note that many different kinds of conflict can be thus analysed: divorces, conflicts between colleagues and school children, and also conflicts between states.
History of human societies as well as everyday experience of inter-personal conflicts show that driving forces of conflict are very strong and may pull us strongly towards destruction. Therefore the growing intensity of a conflict in the following table is shown as a path downwards:
The nine stages of conflict escalation
According to the introduced model, escalation results from a vicious circle of action and reaction. Because each reaction is more severe and intense than the action that precedes it, each retaliation or defensive action in the spiral provides a new issue.
Conflict dynamics can be either retaliatory or defence. In a retaliatory dynamic, each party punishes the other for actions it finds hurtful. Retaliation may be in response to events of the distant past, or to the opponent‘s most recent atrocious acts. These events lead one party to blame the other for harm suffered, and to desire punishment. Central to this desire for retaliation are feelings of anger and the perceived need to "teach" the other a lesson. In addition, it is common for one party to miscalculate the likely reaction of the other, and inadvertently commit acts that result in further escalation. For example, one side may try to intimidate its opponent, and instead provoke a harsh counteraction.
Level 1 (win-win) (Both parties to the conflict can still win at the first level)
Stage 1: Tension
Conflicts begin with tension, e.g. occasional differences of opinion. This is common and is not perceived as the start of a conflict. If a conflict nonetheless occurs, the opinions become more fundamental. The conflict might have causes that lie deeper.
Stage 2: Debate
From this point the parties in the conflict consider strategies with which to convince the other person. Differences of opinion lead to a dispute. Each tries to put the other under pressure.
Stage 3: Action not words
The parties increase the pressure on each other to make their view prevail. The conversation might be broken off. No more communication takes place and the conflict quickly becomes more intense.
Level 2 (win-lose) (On the second level one party loses while the other wins)
Stage 4: Coalitions
The conflict intensifies if the parties look for support from others. Because they feel they are in the right, it is alright to denounce the opponent. The point is now not the matter in question, but winning the conflict so that the opponent loses.
Stage 5: Loss of face
The object is to destroy the identity of the other party by all kinds of accusations or similar. There is a complete loss of trust. Losing face means losing moral credibility.
Stage 6: Threat strategies
The parties try to establish complete control of the situation with threats. They try to project their own power. The threat might be a demand (to hand over valuables) which is reinforced with a sanction ("otherwise I’ll stab you!") and backed up by its potential realisation (showing the knife). In this case the proportions decide the credibility of the threat.
Level 3 (lose-lose) (Both parties lose at the third level)
Stage 7: Limited destruction
Here the opponent is to be seriously harmed with every trick in the book. The opponent is no longer seen as a human being. Sustaining limited damage of one’s own is already seen as a victory if his damage is greater.
Stage 8: Disintegration (Total annihilation)
The opponent is to be destroyed utterly.
Stage 9: Together into the abyss
From this point one’s own destruction is accepted, provided the opponent is beaten.
Destruction of the enemy even at the price of self-destruction (including enjoyment of self-destruction).
yes it's better to cut to the chase and refute the central point. for example, the central point here is that the camel toe is fake and not properly aligned.
