How to criticize kindly: Philosopher Daniel Dennett offers 4 steps
“Just how charitable are you supposed to be when criticizing the views of an opponent?”
In his outstanding 1866 manual on the art of conversation, Arthur Martine advised, “Let your purpose be to come at truth, not to overcome your opponent in discussions upon moral or scientific points. Therefore, you’ll never feel lost if you lose the debate but learn something new.
Of course, this doesn’t happen the majority of the time when we dispute, whether in person or online, but especially when we launch our moral artillery from behind the cosy protection of the keyboard. The phrase “the critic’s symbol should be the tumble-bug” comes from Mark Twain, who once said that the bug “deposes his egg in somebody else’s dung, otherwise he could not hatch it.” This type of “criticism,” which is really a threat of reacting rather than responding, is deserving of that statement. But it doesn’t have to be this way; there are ways to be critical while still being kind, of wanting not to “conquer” but to “come at truth,” of not trying to always be right but rather to understand and enhance society’s understanding.
Marvin Minsky, the father of artificial intelligence, has referred to Daniel Dennett (born on March 28, 1942) as “our best current philosopher” and “the next Bertrand Russell,” and he poses the following pertinent query that explores some of the fundamental tendencies and dynamics of today’s “everyone is a critic” culture: How kind-hearted should you be when criticising someone else’s political beliefs?
How to criticize kindly: Philosopher Daniel Dennett offers 4 steps
He offers what he calls “the best antidote [for the] tendency to caricature one’s opponent” in Intuition Pumps and Other Tools for Thinking, the same wonderful book that gave us Dennett on the dignity and art-science of making mistakes: a set of guidelines developed decades ago by the eminent social psychologist and game theorist Anatol Rapoport, best known for developing the well-known tit-for-tat strategy of game theory. Dennett synthesizes the steps:
1. You should attempt to re-express your target’s position so clearly, vividly, and fairly that your target says, “Thanks, I wish I’d thought of putting it that way.”
2. You should list any points of agreement (especially if they are not matters of general or widespread agreement).
3. You should mention anything you have learned from your target.
4. Only then are you permitted to say so much as a word of rebuttal or criticism.
But Dennett points out that this is actually a sound psychological tactic that accomplishes one crucial goal: It turns your opponent into a more receptive audience for your criticism or dissent, which in turn helps advance the discussion. Rather than being a naively utopian, Pollyannaish approach to debate.
