How to Have Better Political Conversations

"The principle of intellectual charity is fundamental to constructive political conversations. This principle states that, in any discussion, we should accept the best version of an opponent's ideas, not a distorted version or a "straw man." Exaggeration and distortion of opposing opinions (always present, to some degree, in political debates) have become the standard form of political argument in contemporary America."

"Once we have committed ourselves to understanding someone else's opinions in their most reasonable form, we are having a different kind of conversation. We now enter a conversation with the attitude: "What can I learn from this person with whom I may disagree?" "Is there something right about what they are saying, even if I believe that their opinions are mostly wrong?""

"Uncharitable interpretation is a danger whenever we characterize liberals or conservatives as a group. We can find examples of it almost daily, not only in partisan politics and on social media, but in books and punditry by thoughtful people who (should) know better. There are other forms of uncharitable thought and debate. In making an argument, we may choose an extreme opinion and then claim (or imply) that this idea represents all liberals or conservatives. We are looking for extreme examples of opposing ideas."

The principle of intellectual charity requires accepting the strongest, most reasonable interpretation of an opponent's ideas rather than a distorted straw man. Exaggeration and caricature of opposing views fuel contemporary political polarization and appear across partisan politics, social media, books, and punditry. Adopting charitable interpretation changes the conversational attitude toward learning and toward finding what may be right in disagreeing positions. Uncharitable tactics include selecting extreme examples, creating false dichotomies, and attributing fringe views to whole groups. A balanced approach seeks truth while challenging unfair or harmful ideas and preserving charitable assumptions about others' motives and reasoning.

Read at Psychology Today