5 ms·

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 yo

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 8y ago
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.
- cjslep 8y ago
  > 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. I disagree. Human beings want to have their views recognized. Dismissing their views because there's a better position they could take is extremely presumptuous and doesn't generally make the conversation constructive. Because the other person will recognize their views aren't being heard, and won't necessarily care whether it's because of a misguided altruistic sense of bettering their argument for them.
  - diminoten 8y ago
    If it's the best way to find truth, ego is not relevant in that pursuit.
    - fmihaila 8y ago
      > If it's the best way to find truth, ego is not relevant in that pursuit. I think this is completely true. Also, it fully validates the point you were responding to. We can be in a situation where we simultaneously realize two things: 1/ the sole remaining obstacle to agreement is our discussion partner's ego, and 2/ our partner is not yet ready to confront the truth of 1/ for reasons outside of their control. If we do realize these two things but continue to demand that the other side dissolve their ego right now or else they're not meeting our standard of good-faith (although 2/ clearly says they are), then that would be an example of our own ego getting in the way. Which shows that your criteria is valid and fully affirms the grandparent post.
- Emma_Goldman 8y ago
  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 8y ago
    I'm not sure how you go from "find the best version of their argument" and see "argue for them"...
    - Emma_Goldman 8y ago
      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 8y ago
        > 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.
- amalcon 8y ago
  This presupposes that you are better at finding the best version of the argument than the person actually making the argument. This is often the case, because the person making the argument often didn't put in much effort. It is not always the case, though, and you do yourself a disservice by assuming that it is.
  - aetherson 8y ago
    I think it's more like... help them find the best version of their argument. Being as you and your interlocutor are both human, you'll both have flaws and blind spots. If you debate constructively, you can compensate for each other's flaws and blind spots.
mannykannot 8y ago
I don't think there is much of a difference between the charity principle and your five points, as the former doesn't preclude you from raising the interpretations that concern you, and from finding out whether they were the interpretations the other person had in mind.
jerf 8y ago
If this is a conversation being held in good faith, and you impute to your nominal opponent a position that you believe is better than what it turns out they actually meant, then they have an opportunity to respond in ways other than simply taking (21st century) offense at your mischaracterization. They can correct you in a followup. Or they can discover that they appreciate your own iron-cladding of their argument for them and adopt it for themselves. At the very least, unless they're on a hair-trigger for being offended, at which point basically by definition they're not arguing in good faith anyhow, they're not terribly likely to be upset that you have granted them a stronger position than you believe they successfully argued for; from a human perspective it's still a demonstration of positive intent, even if the direct manifestation was misguided. It's not a static situation, and most of the outcomes are still better than if you drill down on some particular issue they have and play the "gotcha" game. (At least, better if your goal is authentic intellectual conversation.)

diminoten 8y ago

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.

cjslep 8y ago
> 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. I disagree. Human beings want to have their views recognized. Dismissing their views because there's a better position they could take is extremely presumptuous and doesn't generally make the conversation constructive. Because the other person will recognize their views aren't being heard, and won't necessarily care whether it's because of a misguided altruistic sense of bettering their argument for them.
- diminoten 8y ago
  If it's the best way to find truth, ego is not relevant in that pursuit.
  - fmihaila 8y ago
    > If it's the best way to find truth, ego is not relevant in that pursuit. I think this is completely true. Also, it fully validates the point you were responding to. We can be in a situation where we simultaneously realize two things: 1/ the sole remaining obstacle to agreement is our discussion partner's ego, and 2/ our partner is not yet ready to confront the truth of 1/ for reasons outside of their control. If we do realize these two things but continue to demand that the other side dissolve their ego right now or else they're not meeting our standard of good-faith (although 2/ clearly says they are), then that would be an example of our own ego getting in the way. Which shows that your criteria is valid and fully affirms the grandparent post.
Emma_Goldman 8y ago
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 8y ago
  I'm not sure how you go from "find the best version of their argument" and see "argue for them"...
  - Emma_Goldman 8y ago
    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 8y ago
      > 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.
amalcon 8y ago
This presupposes that you are better at finding the best version of the argument than the person actually making the argument. This is often the case, because the person making the argument often didn't put in much effort. It is not always the case, though, and you do yourself a disservice by assuming that it is.
- aetherson 8y ago
  I think it's more like... help them find the best version of their argument. Being as you and your interlocutor are both human, you'll both have flaws and blind spots. If you debate constructively, you can compensate for each other's flaws and blind spots.

mannykannot 8y ago

I don't think there is much of a difference between the charity principle and your five points, as the former doesn't preclude you from raising the interpretations that concern you, and from finding out whether they were the interpretations the other person had in mind.

jerf 8y ago

If this is a conversation being held in good faith, and you impute to your nominal opponent a position that you believe is better than what it turns out they actually meant, then they have an opportunity to respond in ways other than simply taking (21st century) offense at your mischaracterization. They can correct you in a followup. Or they can discover that they appreciate your own iron-cladding of their argument for them and adopt it for themselves. At the very least, unless they're on a hair-trigger for being offended, at which point basically by definition they're not arguing in good faith anyhow, they're not terribly likely to be upset that you have granted them a stronger position than you believe they successfully argued for; from a human perspective it's still a demonstration of positive intent, even if the direct manifestation was misguided. It's not a static situation, and most of the outcomes are still better than if you drill down on some particular issue they have and play the "gotcha" game. (At least, better if your goal is authentic intellectual conversation.)