
The principle of charity: Criticize the best interpretation of an argument - EndXA
https://effectiviology.com/principle-of-charity/
======
noneeeed
I wish more people online were like this. I've basically given up on Reddit
because the discussions in many of the major subs devolve very rapidly to a
"you are an X, therefore your argument is junk because you are stupid/evil,
here is why". Pretty much all sides do it (and all sides say they don't).

For those who've not read the article and are thinking "but what about <insert
political scumbag here>", the article starts by saying you should be
charitable "as long as it’s reasonable" to do so. It is reasonable to assume
that a political operative of almost any persuasion will attempt to bend
things and miss-represent, so you should be on the look out for that and treat
it accordingly.

I like the idea of the "steel man" argument, as a more effective alternative
to the "straw man", you end up with a better argument that way, and are far
more likely to "win" the argument than if you present something that the other
person sees as BS. Even if your opponent is talking BS, the counter-argument
you come up with will be more effective in countering it, a weak argument
predicated on the weakest interpretation gives them wriggle-room.

I feel like the whole idea is the debate equivalent of the idea "never
attribute to malice that which can be explained by incompetance". Sometimes it
is malice, but usually it's just a mistake. Assuming the worst in people as
the default is very isolating, and understanding that made a big difference to
my state of mind as I got older.

~~~
afiori
Most of my comments on reddit are replies to borderline insensitive arguments
because I believe that it is very easy sound more aggressive than intended.

Generally I found that if you explain to someone how their comment might have
been out of place, or maybe they just did not consider a nicer interpretation
you get a nice response back.

> "you are an X, therefore your argument is junk because you are stupid/evil,
> here is why"

The problem with this type of comments is that generally people are not very
good at complaining about them, or at suggesting better way to frame
criticism. This is especially relevant in internet forums where too many
personalities interact to be able to generalize and it is hard to gauge how
much criticism is warranted.

~~~
noneeeed
I really applaud your efforts, I'm afraid I just ran out of energy trying to
be positive on reddit. The world needs more people like you.

I do feel like it's going to be realy important to teach my kids as they grow
up, how to have good conversations online,and how these sort of mediums often
twist the perseption of what they say without them realising.

~~~
mental1896
I think it's easier to be a jerk online so it's more prevalent here but, in my
opinion, the ways in which people weasel out of their conversational
responsibilities are no different than most in-person encounters of the same
nature. If I care enough about the person or the cause, it might make sense to
stick around and hold their hand. It does get tiresome.

------
johnminter
The parent article reminded me of a quote from Gordon Fee, a professor of
Theology, who had seen many disagreements during his career. Fee put it like
this [1]:

A student is not bound to reproduce slavishly the interpretations of others,
but you are bound to assess critically what you read.

Before you can say, "I disagree," you must be able to say, "I understand." It
is axiomatic that before you level criticism you should be able to state an
author's position in terms that he or she would find acceptable. After that,
you may proceed in any of six directions:

a. Show where the author is misinformed.

b. Show where the author is uninformed.

c. Show where the author is inconsistent.

d. Show where the author's treatment is incomplete.

e. Show where the author misinterprets through faulty assumptions or
procedures.

f. Show where the author makes valuable contributions to the discussion at
hand.

[1] Gordon Fee, Exegesis, 3rd edition 2002 p.33

~~~
aidenn0
> Before you can say, "I disagree," you must be able to say, "I understand."
> It is axiomatic that before you level criticism you should be able to state
> an author's position in terms that he or she would find acceptable. After
> that, you may proceed in any of six directions:

This assumes that the assumption of good faith is well founded. Life is too
short to critically refute every single crackpot theory out there. For better
or worse, if someone sufficiently damages their ethos, I will choose to not
spend my time critically evaluating everything they say.

[edit]

One place where _my_ argument does not apply is when large numbers of people
hold a particular opinion. If e.g. 80% of Republicans or 80% of Democrats hold
a view, we are talking about 1/3 of the population of the US. Understanding
_why_ they hold that view, no matter how non-sensical it may seem is vital to
understanding the world we live in.

It is insufficient to just say "well then _insert large group here_ are all
idiots" because that is clearly not true.I have two family members who each
got perfect SAT scores and one is about as hippy-left as you can get and the
other is a card-carrying republican and Trump supporter. They are (in my
opinion) both wrong about a lot of things, but dismissing them as idiots is
not possible.

~~~
alehul
> Life is too short to critically refute every single crackpot theory out
> there.

In this case, rather than claiming you disagree (which should imply
understanding), you can just say you don't know enough about the issue to
comment on it.

The spirit of the above argument is that, if you're going to vehemently
disagree or argue with someone, you should understand— not that you need to
understand every issue, nor agree or disagree with every issue.

~~~
scott_s
> In this case, rather than claiming you disagree (which should imply
> understanding), you can just say you don't know enough about the issue to
> comment on it.

aidenn0 is making a subtlety different point: this form of rational argument
depends on good-faith. If you think that has been violated, you would not say
"I don't know enough about the issue to comment on it," but rather "I don't
think this person is arguing in good-faith."

I agree with the principle of charity, and your claim that you should
understand before disagreeing. But it is also true that you will encounter
people who are not arguing in good-faith, in which case it is sometimes a
mistake to even engage.

~~~
alehul
Totally agree– I was responding to "crackpot theory" which sounds more like
wild conspiracy theories that people truly believe, rather than arguing in bad
faith, but after re-reading, I think that is the point aidenn0 was trying to
make.

~~~
aidenn0
Sorry for the late reply:

On the internet (which is where the quality of rhetoric could most use the
principle of charity these days), it is hard or even impossible to tell the
difference between a troll or a crackpot.

------
dang
We added that to the Hacker News site guidelines a few years ago: _Please
respond to the strongest plausible interpretation of what someone says, not a
weaker one that 's easier to criticize. Assume good faith._

[https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html](https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html)

Before that, I used to write about the principle of charity quite a bit:
[https://hn.algolia.com/?query=by:dang%20principle%20charity&...](https://hn.algolia.com/?query=by:dang%20principle%20charity&sort=byDate&dateRange=all&type=comment&storyText=false&prefix=false&page=0).
But eventually stopped using that name so much because it can be a bit
confusing to people who haven't heard it before. It's shorter to just quote
the guideline.

------
cjslep
There's an even more insidious form of argument that's even present here on
HN:

1: Take someone's position that one doesn't like

2: Extend it to a reasonable analogue (aka apply 1st formulation of Kant's
Categorical Imperative)

3: Show how absurd it is and try to get the original person to defend it.

4: Never provide constructive criticism nor an alternative viewpoint.

It's a toxic way to entrap others and degrade the quality of a conversation.
So much so that I had to write a satirical post about it[0]

[0] [https://cjslep.com/c/blog/winning-internet-
arguments](https://cjslep.com/c/blog/winning-internet-arguments)

~~~
TelmoMenezes
I'm surprised that nobody noticed that you demonstrate the technique in your
own article!

"1\. Find an argument that is disagreeable."

Somebody does not agree that people should expect others to remember their
preferred pronouns.

"2\. Derive an underlying principle behind it. This must appear civil and
reasonable at all costs as it gives you credibility. At all costs, do not
engage with the actual argument."

This is the article itself, which is framing the discussion as an exposure on
how people win a discussion by using a certain dark strategy (this is the
really clever meta move!)

"3\. Extend the principle to a plausible real world absurdity to demonstrate
its impracticality."

A 7-point bullet-point list is provided, culminating on the suggestion that
people who are pronoun-conservative possibly also want to commit genocide
against gay people and Jews.

"4\. Use this absurdity to: tear down the argument; or appeal to a slippery
slope; or directly ask the original author to defend."

The subtle escalation along the bullet-point list is very clever, it slowly
"boils the frog", distracting the reader from the slippery slope argument
contained therein.

"5\. At all costs, do not propose an alternate solution which would reveal the
true intentions for doing this. That cannot be revealed."

Yup.

To illustrate what a more nuanced compromise might look like, I disclose my
own position on this matter:

If somebody tells me that me addressing them with a given pronoun is important
to them, I will make my best effort. At the same time, my brain has been
primed by decades of following the convention of choosing pronouns based on
perceived gender, so I also expect to be excused if I forget, and for the
person to consider that I might be tired or have bad memory, instead of
assuming malice on my part.

"6\. If anyone else replies to counter or patch holes, repeat the steps at the
top."

I guess I'm the one playing that role here. Your move. :)

~~~
cjslep
Haha, you're the first to try to apply it recursively! That's kind of why I
employed satire, to make people think.

My move is simple. Do nothing. My satire fails its own test when applied to
itself as I make clear what I am looking for and what is unacceptable,
emphasized with satire.

I clearly value an argument when folks make a good faith effort to argue for
an alternative position, make constructive criticism, elaborate on the source
of their concerns, or reveal their intentions. No hidden intentions from me.

As for the example: I thought the satire had made it very clear that the
alternate solution is to have the would-be-saboteur reveal their alternate
position, make constructive criticism, elaborate on the source of their
concerns (ex: like you've done above), or reveal their intentions. So my
satire also fails my own test that way. Again, no hidden intentions, clear
alternatives.

Since you made your position clear, we can now have a constructive argument
about a myriad of things: the role of perceived gender in society, cultural
norms, morality of honest mistakes, etc. And I don't have to be guessing a
position on your behalf while also defending a position I never took. If you
let me pick for you, and you pick for me, that's not a discussion.

It's basically a giant post about intellectual honesty and good faith
discussions.

~~~
TelmoMenezes
You say "no move", but you made a good one. I concede the point. Thanks for
being a good sport.

~~~
cjslep
Thanks for making me think more on the topic -- I especially loved the
recursion which forced me to reflect on a whole new and weird level.

------
cicero
This principle was used in medieval disputation. The Summa Theologiae [1] of
Thomas Aquinas is broken down into "articles" that examine every aspect of a
particular broader "question". Each article begins with a series of
"objections" that attempt to state the best possible arguments against the
position that Aquinas will take. The next section has a relevant quote from
authority, and then Aquinas explains his position. Finally, he provides an
answer to every objection. Although reading something written this way is
difficult for modern readers, I think it provides a healthy antidote to the
craziness we have today.

1: [http://summa-theologiae.org/](http://summa-theologiae.org/)

~~~
svieira
This is a fantastic resource on in general - note that Thomas often wrote
_better_ objections than those who held the positions he would argue against.
That is, he would take the arguments he disagreed with and make them more
cogent, more reasonable, and provide more applicable facts and citations than
were in popular circulation at the time. Then he would counter these _best_
arguments. The point was to find the truth, not to win the argument.

That said, the _Summa_ assumes that you are reasonably familiar with the works
of Aristotle and Plato - so some arguments (or counter-arguments) may sound
arbitrary to those who are not yet familiar with those works.

Final note, another good source to read the Summa is
[http://newadvent.org/summa/](http://newadvent.org/summa/)

------
Emma_Goldman
This seems like a very poor account of what it is to be charitable in
argument.

It is essential to coherent conversation that you do your best to understand
your interlocutor's position. If their argument betrays some particular
idiosyncrasy or mistake, then you should focus on and examine that. If you
instead ignore those features of their position and impose a view upon them
which they don't actually possess - 'the best possible interpretation of their
argument' \- then you will not actually be engaging with their reasoning, and
thus you'll be less likely to understand the source of your disagreement,
analyse the merits of those differences, and convince one another.

You should not be looking for a 'good' or 'bad' interpretation of their
argument, you should be searching for an accurate one.

I think better principles of charity would be:

1\. Assume good faith 2\. Be open minded to alternative views 3\. Don't treat
arguments as a battle of wits but as an attempt to move towards mutual
understanding 4\. Assume the person you're arguing with is at least as
intelligent as you 5\. Engage with their reasoning

~~~
diminoten
The point of the article, and the concept it's trying to promote, is to
understand that even though the person giving the argument might be flawed or
under-educated on the position, that it doesn't invalidate the position.

The way to get the most value out of flawed people is to find the best version
of their argument and then argue with _that_. The person isn't all that
relevant.

~~~
Emma_Goldman
That doesn't seem to be the declared aim of the article. Its first sentence
reads:

'Simply put, the principle of charity is the idea that when criticizing
someone’s argument, you should criticize the best possible interpretation of
that argument.'

Later:

'Essentially, the principle of charity embodies the idea that when you
interpret what other people say, you should select the best possible
interpretation for their statements.'

What is at question in both these statements is the position of an
interlocutor. It is a guide to conversation.

You say:

'The way to get the most value out of flawed people is to find the best
version of their argument and then argue with that.'

That seems like a highly narcissistic way of conducting a conversation. You
would in effect be having an argument with yourself.

As I said above, I think imposing a view on an interlocutor that they do not
actually hold is a recipe for confusion, will almost certainly make the
conversation unproductive, and might prevent you from understanding their
position in the first place.

~~~
diminoten
I'm not sure how you go from "find the best version of their argument" and see
"argue for them"...

~~~
Emma_Goldman
I don't see any other way of interpreting your claim that 'the way to get the
most value out of flawed people is to find the best version of their argument
and then argue with that.'

You give your argument, they give theirs. Then you amend their argument for
them, and argue against that, ignoring your interlocutor.

If you are not interested in accurately understanding the person you're
talking to, and instead impose what you take to be the strongest
interpretation of their argument on them, then you are for all intents and
purposes arguing not against them, but yourself.

~~~
naasking
> Then you amend their argument for them, and argue against that, ignoring
> your interlocutor.

The problem is that language is ambiguous and easily misunderstood. You
interlocutor also has context which you don't know about.

Being charitable means recognizing these facts and so reading their words to
mean the strongest possible interpretation. If they intended some weaker
argument, it doesn't matter, because dismantling the stronger version already
handles the weaker interpretation.

~~~
Emma_Goldman
I suppose the problem in all this is that the dictum that you should
'criticise the best possible version of your interlocutor's argument' does not
specify how to identify the argument in question in the first place.

Take the following example. Suppose you claim that the meat industry is bad,
advance three premises, and infer from them the conclusion that it is indeed
bad. Now, if I use the dictum 'criticise the strongest version of your
interlocutor's' argument, that could mean many things:

    
    
      1. I might think that all the premises were unconvincing and argue against entirely different premises in favour of the same claim.
      2. I might offer new premises in addition or substitution for the premises provided, or a different conclusion.
      3. I might interpret the specific details of the premises or conclusion differently.
    

One could plausibly say that all of these strategies offer a different version
of the 'same' argument, but the first would have almost nothing to do with it,
and the second would be majorly different. Also, note that if I switch around
the premises, and argue against that amended version of their argument, it
does not at all follow that 'dismantling the stronger version already handles
the weaker interpretation'. Defeating a strong argument does not falsify an
entirely independent argument, even if it is weaker.

I personally would say that this conversation is based on an unhelpful
conflation. We should both strive to understand one another as accurately as
possible, _and_ to move the conversation in as constructive a direction as
possible. They need not be in tension. The problem arises if I take the latter
- the desire to make the conversation constructive - as an interpretive
principle.

~~~
naasking
I would say that none of your cases covers the intent behind the dictum.
You've already moved past the "ambiguous language" and right into assuming
that the argument was clearly conveyed and understood, and so you must now
endeavour to evaluate the plausibility of the premises, the inferences, etc.

The dictum applies prior to this step, where the premises and the argument may
be phrased in a somewhat ambiguous way. When interpreting the language used to
describe the premises, take the most challenging interpretation rather than
the weakest/most easily attacked interpretation. When evaluation the
inferences, once again take the most challenging interpretation.

For instance, a phrase may admit two interpretations, a valid or invalid
inference. You should always assume your interlocutor intended the valid
inference.

~~~
Emma_Goldman
If you find your interlocutor's position ambiguous in some major way, then you
should, firstly, tell them, and secondly, ask them to explain. Otherwise
confusion may ensue as to what exactly is being argued for and against. If the
ambiguity is incidental, then the principle of charity is not really doing
much. I take it that your example - about a phrase admitting a valid and
invalid inference - is of this kind. Though I do agree that we shouldn't jump
upon those kinds of slippages.

If you read carefully and allow the conversation to unfold, while prompting
your interlocutor to explain what remains unclear to you, then generally you
can get a fairly accurate impression of their views. More often than not, the
problem is not ambiguity, but an unwillingness to listen, and engage
thoughtfully with others, through a genuine _dialogue_.

------
TheOtherHobbes
Doesn't this fail when dealing with genuine bad actors?

E.g. we know that social media are infected by a variety of trolls and
"influencers", and it seems pointless to assume the best possible
interpretation for their output - except, possibly, as a deliberate rhetorical
position, which can sometimes be more persuasive than more passionate
rebuttals.

~~~
braythwayt
It harkens back to an era when academia was a somewhat homogeneous cultural
community, and when people were playing “the long game” with their
reputations.

Being a bad actor may chase someone out of an argument giving you an immediate
“win,” but the word goes around about you, and suddenly your professional
reputation is in tatters.

But in an environment where people are basically anonymous, where you may be
engaging with a paid operative, or a throwaway sock puppet account, or an
account that is trying to amass followers for grift (like being an anti-vaxxer
online in order to sell books and newsletters)...

None of the traditional manners around debate apply.

~~~
diminoten
Just to be clear, you are almost never engaging with a paid operative. Push
that out of your mind, it's paranoia.

~~~
braythwayt
“Almost never,” except when you are. For example, Milo. All over social media
for a good long while, along with staffers, until the money behind him dried
up.

~~~
pjc50
Indeed. Perhaps people aren't arguing with paid operatives directly, but there
are a _lot_ of people repeating positions that were injected into the dialogue
by paid operatives.

~~~
mannykannot
This is definitely the case. Most of the repeaters are incapable of following
through or supporting the argument (in most cases, not even the original
promulgator could follow through in a rational discussion), and they have
exactly one response: change the subject with another non-sequitur. It is a
mistake to follow them into the change of subject, and the charity principle
doesn't ask you to do so, as they have by then revealed their true intentions.

------
nabla9
> 1\. You should attempt to re-express your target’s position so clearly,
> vividly, and fairly that your target says, “Thanks, I wish I’d thought of
> putting it that way.”

This is by far the best rule I have ever attempted. The best way to debate is
when both sides reword the other side argument, with corrections until both
are satisfied.

It will also reveal the most insightful and depressing hidden realities about
human cognition. Significant percentage of people are seemingly incapable of
entertaining alternative viewpoints. Everyone suffers from this condition when
we are heavily invested int some idea or belief, but most people can suppress
the tendency temporarily and see the logic of some other way of thinking.

I wonder if there are psychological tests that can be used to score this
ability.

~~~
mlthoughts2018
My experience of this on HN has led me to basically conclude it’s not very
possible to be constructive in internet comments. I may clearly re-state a
point of view I disagree with, and the response will always be that I have
either misunderstood it, no matter what, or that my replies (which are
tailored exactly to the item I’m responding to) don’t refute the original
point and I’m “not providing evidence.”

In other words, the most common type of reply I get is something to the effect
of, “Despite re-stating my argument with clear articulation, you did not
understand it (and I won’t say why) and further, your counterpoints don’t
constitute “evidence” or induce any information transfer (which I will take to
imply _your_ deficiency and not _mine_ ), and before looking further into any
of this, the burden of collecting, organizing and disseminating evidence is
all on you.”

This attitude seems often to get rewarded with upvotes as well. It’s very
distressing to me personally.

~~~
vharuck
One problem with internet debates is the debators only ever know about the
people they're debating. Rarely will you convince your "opponent," but you'll
probably have an impact on people who read but don't comment. You're debating
for the audience.

This is also why people should challenge others in public when needed. Your
boss might not change his ways, but your colleagues could.

~~~
mlthoughts2018
I agree with you very much, but you do learn something about your audience by
observing what is up-voted, down-voted or flagged, and what responses
moderators provide.

In general I find those things to be very personally discouraging on Hacker
News. It’s a community I’d like to belong to, but feel that when I abide very
carefully by the community standard of discourse, I still receive punitive
downvotes for disagreeing with crowdthink or receive canned moderator
responses that don’t explain the specific mechanics by which a comment is
considered failing to meet guidelines, with no serious appeals process when
you believe you’re being treated unfairly.

------
jillesvangurp
It's good advice. Ten years ago, I had some opportunity to improve some soft
skills by taking some courses. I took some courses related to selling your
ideas and coaching.

Turns out that this is something lots of engineers could benefit from as this
is simply not part of their bag of tools when they leave university and
something that can frustrate them enormously when they need to engage with
others whether it is colleagues, customers, or superiors.

I've been in more than a few meetings where people were yelling at each other,
or worse, where I ended up doing a fair bit of yelling myself. These days, I
tend to be a bit more conscious about it than I used to be. Usually it
indicates something is wrong that needs fixing and quite often it is beyond
whatever is being discussed. Fixing that is often the more important thing.

A few tricks I apply: 1) If you think something is good, make a point of
communicating that. It buys you good will and people are more likely to listen
to you when you say otherwise. Also it keeps people motivated. 2) Talk in
terms of improvements/fixes/changes instead of simply stating, "this sucks".
It's much harder to argue against that by others because why wouldn't you want
to improve things. 3) Pick your fights carefully. Having opinions is cheap but
owning the consequences is not. I often give people room to do things their
way even when I don't fully agree it's the right way. Basically I need them to
do it for me without my involvement. And there's always the chance you are
wrong after all. In any case, the whole point of a team is being able to trust
others to get shit done without you. If you need to micromanage everything,
something is wrong. That something might be you.

------
emsy
I think ultimately this boils down to the "diry hands" problem
([https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dirty_hands](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dirty_hands)).
As long as the general public isn't equipped to identify an intentionally
uncharitable interpretation (and punish bad actors for it), you will find
yourself on the losing end of the argument. I do think you should generally
interpret opposing arguments charitably, but you should also be able to
quickly switch gears if necessary. Otherwise you will be outplayed by your
opponents.

~~~
AnimalMuppet
Depends on what game you're playing. Are you trying to win the _argument_? Or
are you trying to win your _listeners_? You can go against bad actors, with
charity, and still point out where they refuse to commit to a position, where
they change positions, and where they otherwise argue in bad faith. I wouldn't
do so the first time it happens in a conversation, but if it keeps happening,
sure, use the record of the conversation to point out what they're doing.

Note well, however, that if I'm reading this, and I see that you have judged
the other side as arguing in bad faith, and you try to document that, and I
don't agree, then I think _you_ have a hair trigger at least, and perhaps that
_you_ are arguing in bad faith. That is, you have to extend _more_ charity
than a normal reader, rather than less.

~~~
emsy
Good point. I think the game you should play when entering an argument is
finding the truth. I think what I was trying to say was that if someone
changes the game by arguing in bad faith (and for the sake of the point,
undoubtedly so), you should note that and point it out or play along.

------
ThomPete
I always try to strongman other peoples arguments. Im not perfect but i do my
best. Another important thing i have learned is to try and understand what
someone is saying rather than making it only their job. This is especially
true when people swear and uses faul language.

But most importantly i try to never point thd moral finger at someones
position that way a much more fruitful discussion can be had.

------
ineedasername
I occasionally teach a course in informal logic, basically the construction &
deconstruction of arguments and rhetorical devices. The principle of charity
is the single most fundamental rule of reading/interpreting an argument in
order to have productive discussions on a topic and not get bogged down in
misunderstandings, accidental straw men rebuttals, etc. Everything else, from
identifying the primary claim and dissecting the supporting evidence to
actually rebutting the argument, flaws, fallacies etc., that all comes after.

------
BeetleB
Being able to make the other person's case and articulate it in a way that is
true to them is a key step in negotiations books, as well as some
conversations books. It's not really hard to understand why. A lot of time is
lost in arguments/debates because one person thinks the other person isn't
understanding (even when the other person does) - so it's important to signal
that you understand.

There is a kind of corollary to this: Often times person A comes to me
complaining about person B being stubborn about something. So I often ask: "So
why do you think B is insisting on it?" They usually cannot come up with a
good answer. At that point, I either hint or explicitly tell A that B has a
position that A doesn't understand, and it's not surprising B will not change
his position since A isn't trying to address B's needs.

~~~
chillacy
I first saw this principle as a negotiation tactic in "Never Split the
Difference", he talks about how FBI hostage negotiators talk to understand the
motivations of hostage-takers and terrorists without necessarily giving in or
agreeing with any of those motivations.

It turns out even hardened criminals want to be heard/understood, and by using
(author calls) "tactical empathy", you can start your negotiation off on the
right footing.

------
tunesmith
I love this principle too - I think the only time it truly falls down (other
than pure trolls) is when the person is so in love with their own voice (or,
don't want to be pinned down), that no matter how much you try to repeat their
point back to them, they say No, and repeat it back slightly differently. The
distinctions are endless.

------
DoreenMichele
One of the issues with pieces like this is that it implicitly agrees that the
only way to engage people on the internet is by _arguing._ This promotes a
them-vs-us mentality and the desire to "win" the argument.

I am usually trying to engage people in discussion, not "win" an argument. I
try to add value to the discussion, not "win."

I especially dislike the general assumption that winning the argument means
making the other person lose. Some people are seriously not happy with just
being heard. No, they want someone else to go down in social rank or look like
a fool. Without that element, they obviously aren't happy.

~~~
AnimalMuppet
I agree that such people exist. Avoid them if possible. (I'm pretty sure I
don't need to tell you that!) If not, then (in my best moments) I try to
disengage quickly, making it clear that I think that they are wrong, but I'm
not going to continue to argue with someone who just wants to argue.

This has the virtue of not giving them the victory that they wanted. Even if
they take the last word, it's usually pretty clear to an unbiased reader what
was going on. I'm (at least sometimes) content to leave it there, and to let
the reader judge.

------
joncrocks
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Straw_man#Steelmanning](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Straw_man#Steelmanning)

------
6gvONxR4sf7o
Another aspect of this is that people are often better at thinking and
reasoning than they are a communicating and reading. When you play a game of
"telephone" and hear something that sounds bad, you shouldn't assume "wow this
person is stupid and evil for thinking this." Instead, the principle of
charity suggests that maybe they aren't stupid or evil and you're interpreting
it in a way they didn't intend.

------
Buldak
I've thought there are three ways to view the Principle of Charity, depending
on what you think its aim is. The exegetical aim is to accurately determine
the author's belief or intention. The pragmatic aim is to conduct the most
fruitful discussion of the matter in question. The ethical aim is to be duly
respectful of the author. Moreover, it strikes me that these three aims
overlap in practice for the most part, but not entirely.

------
scoutt
I don't argue that it can be useful for online debates, but damn, how boring
would be Frank Herbert's Dune dialogues if we follow this principle?

Specially with pearls like this:
[https://scifi.stackexchange.com/questions/91393/dune-
explain...](https://scifi.stackexchange.com/questions/91393/dune-explain-the-
subtext-here?rq=1)

------
denzil_correa
> 1\. You should attempt to re-express your target’s position so clearly,
> vividly, and fairly that your target says, “Thanks, I wish I’d thought of
> putting it that way.”

I like this and I'd even extend this to having an opinion on something. It
really helps your opinions!

>> “I never allow myself to have an opinion on anything that I don’t know the
other side’s argument better than they do.” — Charlie Munger

------
GoblinSlayer
My opinion is the best in my opinion, so the best interpretation of the
opponent's argument will match my opinion. Is this how it works?

------
drak0n1c
There's a famous Channel 4 interview between Cathy Newman and Jordan Peterson
that illustrates not just the flaws of being uncharitable but also how it can
backfire spectacularly. Regardless of how one feels about Peterson, the nearly
15 million views are evidence that excessive straw-manning ends up helping the
person and argument you're against.

[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aMcjxSThD54](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aMcjxSThD54)

------
vincent-toups
I clicked this hoping it would be about constructivism. Oh well.

~~~
dang
Yes, I saw that ambiguity too, and replaced the subtitle with a more specific
phrase from the article.

