Principle of Charity

Trying to have a civil disagreement, discussion, or debate online is a noble but misguided idea.

Social media rarely rewards or amplifies civilized discussion instead promoting the most vitriolic and polarizing messages to the tops of our feeds. These posts then serve as examples to every new user entering the fray, and that serves to perpetuate this already awful situation. (Is it any wonder that when we incentivize poor behavior, poor behavior is what we get?)

A familiar example of this for many people is the willful misinterpretation of their point.

If you have ever tried to have an earnest discussion online chances are you have had a horribly twisted interpretation of your words thrown back at you before you had a chance to lean back in your chair after hitting “send.” No matter how clear you felt you made your statement, or how kindly-worded your post was, as soon as someone disagrees, all bets are off—there are no rules of engagement.

Even more impressive is when they don’t disagree with your point at all, and instead find some way to re-interpret your words into something they could disagree with.

As Sam Biddle—a writer very familiar with the unforgiving nature of interpretation on the internet—says:

“Twitter is a fast machine that almost begs for misunderstanding and misconstrual—deliberate misreading is its lubricant.”

- Sam Biddle

This is clearly terrible, but what is the solution?

Without platform intervention to incentivize good behavior, there is no solution. This is an issue that cannot be solved at the individual level as all it takes is one bad actor to throw a discussion off the rails.

But, that doesn’t mean we should give up. We can still do our best, and find those hidden corners of the internet where positive discussion still exists. But even there it can be easy to fall into bad habits.

But where does it all begin?

Many people point to various cognitive biases and logical fallacies as the root of it all. While I agree that education in these areas benefits critical thinking, I believe there is something more foundational.

We must begin with the interpretation of words.

When I studied logic, we didn’t begin with fallacies or biases. We began with the interpretation of statements into propositions.

We began with basic interpretation.

And there was something incredible about this. Often, even the simplest sentence in English could be translated into several different logical propositions. As the sentences became more and more complex, the flexibility of interpretation grew as well.

Through this exercise, it became obvious that clarity of communication is important, but never sufficient. Even if we are making an effort to interpret things correctly, we can get it wrong. (Not to mention if we are attempting to willfully misinterpret what is being said.)

So if speaking our point clearly isn’t enough, what else is needed?

Charitable interpretation.

And here is where online discussions tend to fall apart.

If the exact same sentence can be interpreted in many different ways, how do we pick the right interpretation?

We have a few options:

1. Pick the interpretation that is easiest for us to argue against.
2. Pick the interpretation we think is most likely what the speaker meant.
3. Pick the interpretation that is the most difficult to argue against.

Online you’ll find that option 1 is most often chosen.

Most often this amounts to straw-manning, but I think a funnier example is viral “bad takes.” If you’ve been around Twitter long enough you’ll know that most of these “bad takes” are really just a joke, sarcasm, or outright bait. But it’s much easier to react believing someone is an idiot than to give them the benefit of the doubt.

Option 2 might seem to be the most appealing, it shows a sense of argumentative empathy, and in some ways feels like it’s the most honest to the person you’d be interacting with. But, it still depends on us making an accurate judgment. Any decision we make will be based on assumptions around the person you’re interacting with, and depending on these assumptions you can choose whatever interpretation you want. At its best, it’s option 3 and at its worst, it’s option 1 in disguise.

This makes option 2 the most dangerous of the three. It gives us all the confidence we need to believe we are acting in good faith while allowing us the leeway to do just the opposite.

Be aware of falling into this trap. Many people believe they are gifted at interpreting the points of others accurately. Very few are. And regardless of your ability to understand someone deeply, this sort of interpretation isn’t as good as other, simpler, more consistent options.

Namely, there is option 3 which, in essence, is the principle of charity.

Want to make one small change that will lead to a happier life and a smarter you? Start engaging with others using the principle of charity.

When a statement can be interpreted in many ways, pick the one that is the strongest statement of their argument, even if it may not be what they meant.

This has a few benefits:

1. Suddenly we see everyone as the smartest version of themselves leading to less cynicism.
2. It quickly elevates debates to stronger, more complex points, improving our understanding of the topic.

Again, there is nothing we can do about those that don’t want to act in good faith, but we can do our best to educate others about it, and surround ourselves with those who act charitably.

When social media desires the worst from you, be strong enough to show it your best.

2021-09-26