6 ms·

> In philosophy and rhetoric, the principle of charity requires interpreting a speaker's statements to be rational and, in the case of any argument, considering

by fedups 10y ago

> In philosophy and rhetoric, the principle of charity requires interpreting a speaker's statements to be rational and, in the case of any argument, considering its best, strongest possible interpretation. [0] Although it seems super rare in internet conversation, a good way to practice is to keep in mind all the ways the Other Team misrepresents My Team and generalize this when the Other Team says something dreadful on the surface. But in the absence of the charity, concise, effective communication becomes all the more crucial. [0]- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Principle_of_charity https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Principle_of_charity

Vaskivo 10y ago
I agree. I'd also like to add a new great concept I've learned recently: "steelmanning" https://wiki.lesswrong.com/wiki/Steel_man https://wiki.lesswrong.com/wiki/Steel_man. I feel the true meaning of a discussion has been lost. It has warped from "lets share our opinions to achieve a greater understanding" to "Let me show you how I'm right and try to dismiss all your opinions in every way possible". And, in reality, what happens is "let me say my opinions to the air so the ones who already agree with me agree even more".
- AlexB138 10y ago
  >I feel the true meaning of a discussion has been lost. It has warped from "lets share our opinions to achieve a greater understanding" to "Let me show you how I'm right and try to dismiss all your opinions in every way possible". What a wonderfully astute observation. Conversations have become a competition where each side feels they need to "win", often at any cost. I grew up on the internet, having first gotten a connection in '93. I remember a time when online conversations were "let's share..." and have watched them transform into their current state. I suspect a lot of the current deteriorated state of in-person conversations came from the deterioration of the online conversation, which agrees with this articles premise. Can any older members comment on whether this was happening so much before the internet was commonly used? >And, in reality, what happens is "let me say my opinions to the air so the ones who already agree with me agree even more". I would add that it's also a lot of virtual signaling[0]. Making statements you know your in-group agrees with in order to increase your social standing. [0]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Virtue_signalling https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Virtue_signalling
  - rustynails 10y ago
    I used to be a part of BBS culture. I see many parallels with today. You will find some respectable people and some bullies. I recall the need for moderators even back then. I knew a few sysops (admins) and talked to them about these challenges. However, the application of moderation was much simpler. The rules allied to everybody. We now oppose things like whitewashing (eg. Protests at Dr Strange), but are happy to gender wash (Thor, Ghost Busters, etc). We've tied ourselves in knots with these inconsistencies. I also agree with your comments about social standing. Excellent comment.
    - gdulli 10y ago
      1. There was ten times as much carrying on about Ghostbusters than Doctor Strange. 2. Doctor Strange took an actual Asian character and cast it with a non-Asian. Ghostbusters didn't recast male characters as women, it just decided that after two movies with male ghostbusters there would be a movie with female ghostbusters. Not that I think scrutinizing these things is of any importance or that exposing this flaw means anything in the face of the white & male supremacy mindset that causes someone to be defensive about seeing criticism of a white casting or the existence of a female casting.
      - caseysoftware 10y ago
        The next thing you're going to tell me is that Arhnold isn't a human-killing robot from the future!
    - xiaoma 10y ago
      A better example than Ghost Busters might be the Battlestar Galactica reboot which shocked many fans of the original series by changing one of the main characters, Starbuck, from a man to a woman. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lieutenant_Starbuck https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lieutenant_Starbuck ... or The Social Network, which replaced Travis Kalanick with Edwardo's fictional crazy girlfriend at the meeting with Sean Parker.
      - 10y ago
- ythn 10y ago
  > and try to dismiss all your opinions in every way possible "The problem with this way of thinking is..." Maybe people should rephrase so that they say what is right about your way of thinking first. By always framing the problem first you dismiss all the good parts as well.
- gmarx 10y ago
  Almost all internet arguments are really the members of one group loudly asserting their shared identity. The principal means are hating the outsiders (while denying that your group would ever engage in something so distasteful) and either believing without question something an outsider would consider crazy or taking your beliefs to such extremes that an outsider would consider it crazy. And, "conversation" now means "shut up, I'm talking"
- xg15 10y ago
  > I feel the true meaning of a discussion has been lost. It has warped from "lets share our opinions to achieve a greater understanding" to "Let me show you how I'm right and try to dismiss all your opinions in every way possible". Given that "rhetoric" was already a subject of study in ancient rome (and its politicians were skilled in using persuasion and propaganda to manipulate public opinion), I'm not sure there was ever a time where discussion was solely about sharing opinions and archieving a greater understanding. But it's of course important to keep the ideal of discussion in mind and not go too far down the dark side.
  - AlexB138 10y ago
    Interesting point. Rhetoricians and sophists appeared in ancient Greece, becoming popular along with the rise of Democracy. It's believed this is because the ability to argue convincingly lead to sway over the Demos, the people, and therefore the ability to influence law. Put another way, these people were politicians. They argued professionally, and were trained to do so, or made their living training others to do so. I don't think their existence can be used to inform how every day people had conversations at the time. More interestingly, maybe the problem is that everyone now thinks they're an amateur politician.
- platz 10y ago
  A better model for philosophy is "I'll show you mine, and you show me yours," where two or more different visions are articulated, each responding in part to the last, pointing out points of agreement or difference where illustrative, but not pretending to be able to fully deconstruct and refute the other's view. - http://partiallyexaminedlife.com/2014/09/11/against-debate/ http://partiallyexaminedlife.com/2014/09/11/against-debate/
- derefr 10y ago
  > And, in reality, what happens is "let me say my opinions to the air so the ones who already agree with me agree even more". In a debate on a public forum, "the air" (really, the silent majority of people reading the debate, who aren't debating themselves) are often the true target of any rhetoric deployed. If you see person A saying things that obviously wouldn't convince their interlocutor B, maybe they're just trying to make the audience think B is not worth listening to. Mind you, getting everyone who reads a debate to understand that the other guy is not worth listening to can be a moral good—if B is giving bad legal/medical advice, A might drop convincing B or "winning" the debate as goals, to focus instead on making sure people don't come away with the perception that B's statements are factual/trustworthy, even if it means their statements aren't seen as factual/trustworthy either. But often it's just done for the sake of playing social power games: to "get the other guy downvoted."
- GauntletWizard 10y ago
  I've given up on steelmanning - Most attempts I've seen people get upset that I'm misrepresenting their position by improving it! Most arguments, particularly online, aren't dictated by logical formalism. They're not even dictated by more ductile probabilism or game theory - They're done almost entirely on emotions. Saying "Let us assume all of X is Y, which would help your point by removing the need to deal with Z" only offends people, because then you're ignoring their opinion. Nobody's looking to find workable solutions or compromises, they're looking to express their feelings.
  - verylittlemeat 10y ago
    Hi I've come to conclusions similar to yours. I'm curious if you found any useful perspectives living in a world where you believe this is true.
- gumby 10y ago
  > I feel the true meaning of a discussion has been lost. It has warped from "lets share our opinions to achieve a greater understanding" to "Let me show you how I'm right and try to dismiss all your opinions in every way possible". For my whole life I've observed that a lot of "conversation" is simply waiting for the other person's mouth to stop moving and then opening yours. The listening part rarely happens.
- snarf21 10y ago
  So very true and largely people don't have the ability to view external data and decide to change their mind. They've already done that (now granted the data could just be "because" or parents or religion or political party or...). The easiest way to convince someone to view new data is for them to explain their position to you. Either they provide enough data for you (being so enlightened) to change your mind or they may realize they are being internally inconsistent and then they change their own mind. Then you don't have to waste any effort trying to chip at their position. Trying to do so generally results in obstinance from them.
conistonwater 10y ago
I feel like your description of the principle of charity doesn't match Wikipedia's description. In particular, misrepresenting somebody else's position is a thing that could happen, so it is important to be able to tell whether it happened. Wikipedia's examples are all about taking claims, and interpreting them in the most reasonable way, in plain English, consistent with typical usage, word meanings, etc. The converse would seem to be like twisting somebody's words. After all, it is perfectly possible for someone to say something, in plain understandable English, mean it, and yet be wrong, so there should be no way the principle of charity can eliminate that possibility: Wikipedia's definition doesn't, whereas yours just might.

by fedups 10y ago

Vaskivo 10y ago

I agree. I'd also like to add a new great concept I've learned recently: "steelmanning" https://wiki.lesswrong.com/wiki/Steel_man https://wiki.lesswrong.com/wiki/Steel_man. I feel the true meaning of a discussion has been lost. It has warped from "lets share our opinions to achieve a greater understanding" to "Let me show you how I'm right and try to dismiss all your opinions in every way possible". And, in reality, what happens is "let me say my opinions to the air so the ones who already agree with me agree even more".

AlexB138 10y ago
>I feel the true meaning of a discussion has been lost. It has warped from "lets share our opinions to achieve a greater understanding" to "Let me show you how I'm right and try to dismiss all your opinions in every way possible". What a wonderfully astute observation. Conversations have become a competition where each side feels they need to "win", often at any cost. I grew up on the internet, having first gotten a connection in '93. I remember a time when online conversations were "let's share..." and have watched them transform into their current state. I suspect a lot of the current deteriorated state of in-person conversations came from the deterioration of the online conversation, which agrees with this articles premise. Can any older members comment on whether this was happening so much before the internet was commonly used? >And, in reality, what happens is "let me say my opinions to the air so the ones who already agree with me agree even more". I would add that it's also a lot of virtual signaling[0]. Making statements you know your in-group agrees with in order to increase your social standing. [0]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Virtue_signalling https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Virtue_signalling
- rustynails 10y ago
  I used to be a part of BBS culture. I see many parallels with today. You will find some respectable people and some bullies. I recall the need for moderators even back then. I knew a few sysops (admins) and talked to them about these challenges. However, the application of moderation was much simpler. The rules allied to everybody. We now oppose things like whitewashing (eg. Protests at Dr Strange), but are happy to gender wash (Thor, Ghost Busters, etc). We've tied ourselves in knots with these inconsistencies. I also agree with your comments about social standing. Excellent comment.
  - gdulli 10y ago
    1. There was ten times as much carrying on about Ghostbusters than Doctor Strange. 2. Doctor Strange took an actual Asian character and cast it with a non-Asian. Ghostbusters didn't recast male characters as women, it just decided that after two movies with male ghostbusters there would be a movie with female ghostbusters. Not that I think scrutinizing these things is of any importance or that exposing this flaw means anything in the face of the white & male supremacy mindset that causes someone to be defensive about seeing criticism of a white casting or the existence of a female casting.
    - caseysoftware 10y ago
      The next thing you're going to tell me is that Arhnold isn't a human-killing robot from the future!
  - xiaoma 10y ago
    A better example than Ghost Busters might be the Battlestar Galactica reboot which shocked many fans of the original series by changing one of the main characters, Starbuck, from a man to a woman. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lieutenant_Starbuck https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lieutenant_Starbuck ... or The Social Network, which replaced Travis Kalanick with Edwardo's fictional crazy girlfriend at the meeting with Sean Parker.
    - 10y ago
ythn 10y ago
> and try to dismiss all your opinions in every way possible "The problem with this way of thinking is..." Maybe people should rephrase so that they say what is right about your way of thinking first. By always framing the problem first you dismiss all the good parts as well.
gmarx 10y ago
Almost all internet arguments are really the members of one group loudly asserting their shared identity. The principal means are hating the outsiders (while denying that your group would ever engage in something so distasteful) and either believing without question something an outsider would consider crazy or taking your beliefs to such extremes that an outsider would consider it crazy. And, "conversation" now means "shut up, I'm talking"
xg15 10y ago
> I feel the true meaning of a discussion has been lost. It has warped from "lets share our opinions to achieve a greater understanding" to "Let me show you how I'm right and try to dismiss all your opinions in every way possible". Given that "rhetoric" was already a subject of study in ancient rome (and its politicians were skilled in using persuasion and propaganda to manipulate public opinion), I'm not sure there was ever a time where discussion was solely about sharing opinions and archieving a greater understanding. But it's of course important to keep the ideal of discussion in mind and not go too far down the dark side.
- AlexB138 10y ago
  Interesting point. Rhetoricians and sophists appeared in ancient Greece, becoming popular along with the rise of Democracy. It's believed this is because the ability to argue convincingly lead to sway over the Demos, the people, and therefore the ability to influence law. Put another way, these people were politicians. They argued professionally, and were trained to do so, or made their living training others to do so. I don't think their existence can be used to inform how every day people had conversations at the time. More interestingly, maybe the problem is that everyone now thinks they're an amateur politician.
platz 10y ago
A better model for philosophy is "I'll show you mine, and you show me yours," where two or more different visions are articulated, each responding in part to the last, pointing out points of agreement or difference where illustrative, but not pretending to be able to fully deconstruct and refute the other's view. - http://partiallyexaminedlife.com/2014/09/11/against-debate/ http://partiallyexaminedlife.com/2014/09/11/against-debate/
derefr 10y ago
> And, in reality, what happens is "let me say my opinions to the air so the ones who already agree with me agree even more". In a debate on a public forum, "the air" (really, the silent majority of people reading the debate, who aren't debating themselves) are often the true target of any rhetoric deployed. If you see person A saying things that obviously wouldn't convince their interlocutor B, maybe they're just trying to make the audience think B is not worth listening to. Mind you, getting everyone who reads a debate to understand that the other guy is not worth listening to can be a moral good—if B is giving bad legal/medical advice, A might drop convincing B or "winning" the debate as goals, to focus instead on making sure people don't come away with the perception that B's statements are factual/trustworthy, even if it means their statements aren't seen as factual/trustworthy either. But often it's just done for the sake of playing social power games: to "get the other guy downvoted."
GauntletWizard 10y ago
I've given up on steelmanning - Most attempts I've seen people get upset that I'm misrepresenting their position by improving it! Most arguments, particularly online, aren't dictated by logical formalism. They're not even dictated by more ductile probabilism or game theory - They're done almost entirely on emotions. Saying "Let us assume all of X is Y, which would help your point by removing the need to deal with Z" only offends people, because then you're ignoring their opinion. Nobody's looking to find workable solutions or compromises, they're looking to express their feelings.
- verylittlemeat 10y ago
  Hi I've come to conclusions similar to yours. I'm curious if you found any useful perspectives living in a world where you believe this is true.
gumby 10y ago
> I feel the true meaning of a discussion has been lost. It has warped from "lets share our opinions to achieve a greater understanding" to "Let me show you how I'm right and try to dismiss all your opinions in every way possible". For my whole life I've observed that a lot of "conversation" is simply waiting for the other person's mouth to stop moving and then opening yours. The listening part rarely happens.
snarf21 10y ago
So very true and largely people don't have the ability to view external data and decide to change their mind. They've already done that (now granted the data could just be "because" or parents or religion or political party or...). The easiest way to convince someone to view new data is for them to explain their position to you. Either they provide enough data for you (being so enlightened) to change your mind or they may realize they are being internally inconsistent and then they change their own mind. Then you don't have to waste any effort trying to chip at their position. Trying to do so generally results in obstinance from them.

conistonwater 10y ago

I feel like your description of the principle of charity doesn't match Wikipedia's description. In particular, misrepresenting somebody else's position is a thing that could happen, so it is important to be able to tell whether it happened. Wikipedia's examples are all about taking claims, and interpreting them in the most reasonable way, in plain English, consistent with typical usage, word meanings, etc. The converse would seem to be like twisting somebody's words. After all, it is perfectly possible for someone to say something, in plain understandable English, mean it, and yet be wrong, so there should be no way the principle of charity can eliminate that possibility: Wikipedia's definition doesn't, whereas yours just might.