Skip to content

Stasis Theory (Finding the Point of Disagreement)

Why It Matters

People talk past each other by arguing at different stasis levels. One person argues facts while the other argues policy. Identifying the true point of disagreement lets you focus effort productively - and reveals when agreement is impossible because you're not even arguing about the same thing.

The Key Move

When facing disagreement, ask four questions in order:

  1. Do we agree on the facts? If no, stop - resolve this first.
  2. If yes, do we agree on definitions/categories? If no, resolve this.
  3. If yes, do we agree on evaluation/quality? If no, this is your actual argument.
  4. If yes, do we agree on what action to take? Your disagreement is strategic, not fundamental.

Classic Application

Legal proceedings structure this explicitly. First, establish facts (trial). Then, define whether those facts constitute the crime (jury instruction). Then, evaluate severity (sentencing). Each stasis point is resolved before proceeding. When lawyers conflate levels, judges intervene.

Surprising Application

Code review conflicts. A debate about "should we use this library?" often contains: factual disagreement (what does the library actually do?), definitional disagreement (does this count as technical debt?), evaluative disagreement (is consistency more important than performance?), and policy disagreement (what should our standards be?). Separating these turns one unresolvable fight into four potentially resolvable questions.

Failure Modes

Assuming the first disagreement you identify is the real one - often people argue facts when the real disagreement is evaluative. Moving to policy before resolving definition - leads to agreements that collapse when applied. Treating all disagreements as resolvable - sometimes values genuinely differ.

Go Deeper

Cicero's "De Inventione" for original formulation. Fahnestock and Secor's "A Rhetoric of Argument" for modern application.