I think that “Social shaming” should be moved to meta. It is an argument about what sort of topics are allowed in what space. In theory, the Jets could participate in rational debate on whether the bridge belongs to the Sharks. The fact that in practice this “debate” is not at all constructive, is another issue.
Then, the pyramid is missing the lowest rung, that would correspond to this social shaming. I would call it “Screaming”. It’s when you make a claim with nothing even remotely resembling a justification, and you are “correct” because your claim was louder and you said it more confidently than your opponent. E.g. “Hillary is a crook!”, “Trump is a racist!”, etc. This might work best with an audience, but it’s also effective in person.
Also, if you accept a lowest rung which is not inherently social, then it looks even more like “high level generators of disagreement” (only for stupid people). Which hints at a sort of iterated approach to arguments, where intuitive disagreements are broken down into factual disagreements, which are then solved, revealing some deeper intuitive disagreements. It’s cute, although I don’t think it’s possible to go more than a couple of iterations deep, even in the best conditions.
About the structure of the pyramid:
I think that “Social shaming” should be moved to meta. It is an argument about what sort of topics are allowed in what space. In theory, the Jets could participate in rational debate on whether the bridge belongs to the Sharks. The fact that in practice this “debate” is not at all constructive, is another issue.
Then, the pyramid is missing the lowest rung, that would correspond to this social shaming. I would call it “Screaming”. It’s when you make a claim with nothing even remotely resembling a justification, and you are “correct” because your claim was louder and you said it more confidently than your opponent. E.g. “Hillary is a crook!”, “Trump is a racist!”, etc. This might work best with an audience, but it’s also effective in person.
Also, if you accept a lowest rung which is not inherently social, then it looks even more like “high level generators of disagreement” (only for stupid people). Which hints at a sort of iterated approach to arguments, where intuitive disagreements are broken down into factual disagreements, which are then solved, revealing some deeper intuitive disagreements. It’s cute, although I don’t think it’s possible to go more than a couple of iterations deep, even in the best conditions.