> Why does it take a serious exercise in creative interpretation to not assume ulterior motives? Because I try to follow the HN guideline of assuming good fait

> Why does it take a serious exercise in creative interpretation to not assume ulterior motives? Because I try to follow the HN guideline of assuming good faith on the part of the people with whom I engage. I'm definitely not always successful, but I doubt anyone is. When I find I'm having to get creative with my interpretation of the comment I'm reading, to the extent that I'm reading in things that appear counterfactual to the comment's intent, or things its author has said elsewhere in the thread, in order to find a position that isn't premised in this broken extrapolation between populations and individuals we're discussing, is when I feel left with little choice but to assume it is thusly brokenly premised. That is to say: I try not to find it, but when I find myself twisting someone's words in order to make it not appear in them, my fallback case is to (tacitly) assume it's there, pending better evidence. Does that clarify the perplexity my (admittedly somewhat awkwardly phrased) comment seems to have created?