The Atlantic

The New Science of How to Argue—Constructively

Disagreement is central to our lives online. ‘Erisologists’ want to study it more systematically.
Source: Simon McGill / Getty

In the early days of the internet, way back in the 1990s, tech utopians envisioned a glittering digital future in which people from very different backgrounds could come together online and, if not reach consensus, at least learn something from one another. In the actual future we inhabit, things didn’t work out this way. The internet, especially social media, looks less like a dinner party and more like a riot. People talk past one another, and the discussion spirals down accordingly.

Some of this has to do with, well, people from very different backgrounds coming together online. A common trigger is when specialized terms once restricted to certain corners of academia—think or —leak out into the broader public discourse without everyone agreeing on their precise definitions. If an academic uses the term on Twitter in an exchange with a nonacademic, for example, some level of animosity might arise simply through a lack of shared understanding over what the term does mean—that white people, on average, enjoy certain benefits relative to other Americans—and what it does not: that all white people are “privileged” in some absolute sense. If you Google , you’ll see a lot of people responding not to what the term actually means, but to a

You’re reading a preview, subscribe to read more.

More from The Atlantic

The Atlantic8 min readAmerican Government
The Most Consequential Recent First Lady
This article was featured in the One Story to Read Today newsletter. Sign up for it here. The most consequential first lady of modern times was Melania Trump. I know, I know. We are supposed to believe it was Hillary Clinton, with her unbaked cookies
The Atlantic3 min readCrime & Violence
Donald Trump’s ‘Fraudulent Ways’ Cost Him $355 Million
A New York judge fined Donald Trump $355 million today, finding “overwhelming evidence” that he and his lieutenants at the Trump Organization made false statements “with the intent to defraud.” Justice Arthur Engoron’s ruling in the civil fraud case
The Atlantic7 min readAmerican Government
The Americans Who Need Chaos
This is Work in Progress, a newsletter about work, technology, and how to solve some of America’s biggest problems. Sign up here. Several years ago, the political scientist Michael Bang Petersen, who is based in Denmark, wanted to understand why peop

Related Books & Audiobooks