Two types of disagreement

Introduction

Following from two types of thought, it seems that all types of disagreement and argument fall into two types that correspond to the types of thought. I have yet to find a good example that breaks this schema, but would be eager to find one.

1. Disagreement about expectation

This is a disagreement between two maps, about expectations for an unknown part of the territory. This type of argument is about disagreement in what unknown (likely future) experiences will be. Since I think of knowledge is testable prediction|knowledge as testable predictions, these types of disagreements are about knowledge.

2. Disagreement about concepts

This is a disagreement between Concept-spaces, about definitions of words (since definitions are clouds in concept-space and words are pointers to concept-space). This type of argument likely does not have any possible external validation, and runs the risk of going on forever.

In other words, this is a disagreement about what the shape of concept-space|shape of concept-space should be. This type of argument is only necessary in contexts where consensus is needed over the shape of a concept-space.

What type of disagreement is this?

For any argument, disagreement, or misalignment, it is valuable to understand which type of disagreement it falls under.

So you’ve disagreed about expectations

Disagreements of expectation are, in theory, simple to manage. There must be misalignment between the two parties’ priors, or a disagreement about observations. The disagreement must be mappable to two different formulations of Bayes’ Theorem.

A surprising amount of disagreement falls under disagreement of expectation or impact. This includes disagreements that hinge on expectation of how other’s will react or be impacted

So you’ve disagreed about concepts

Disagreement about concepts is a weaker disagreement, because it isn’t necessary that this type disagreement actually leads to different actions.

This is expanded from two types of arguments