Be charitable
The principle of being charitable in interpreting others' statements, considering alternatives such as being wrong, incompetence, or honest mistakes before assuming malice or conspiracy.
THE IDEA
Be charitable
Twitter has been compared to a nation of television viewers yelling back at their TV sets, encouraged by a faint hope that the people on the TV might hear them. This seems an apt description of a lot of public discourse today. In a combative environment like this, it is easy to demonize those who disagree with us. When we hear something that we think we know is wrong, we are tempted to invoke malice or even conspiracy as the reason for the falsehood. Consider a few alternatives:
- You might be wrong. You may think this is unlikely, but at least be mindful of the possibility. It could be that you misheard the statement or misinterpreted an argument.
- Don’t impute malice when incompetence is a sufficient explanation. Most people who write foolish things on the Internet or anywhere else do not have a nefarious underlying motive. They simply don’t know what they are talking about.
- Don’t assume incompetence when an honest mistake can account for error. We all make honest mistakes and say stupid things at times; it doesn’t mean that we are stupid or that we are incompetent.
Being charitable is about keeping your friends, but it is also about focusing your refutation on the argument itself. To call bullshit in a civil way, attack the argument, rather than the person. Your neighbor may have good intentions in telling you about a study they found linking autism to the MMR vaccine. I can almost guarantee that your neighbor isn’t aiming to harm children. They may not know that the paper they saw was written by the disgraced researcher Andrew Wakefield, nor that it was retracted and is now considered fraud by most of the medical community. Instead of assuming malice, consider that perhaps your neighbor made an honest mistake. Though in some cases you would be right, this principle will help you save face when you end up being wrong.
When to use it
Engaging in political or ideological debates online or in person.
Responding to a colleague's error at work without jumping to conclusions about their competence.
Discussing controversial topics with friends or family members who may have different information.
Reading or interpreting news articles and social media posts before sharing or criticizing.
FROM THEORY TO EVERYDAY LIFE
In practice
MMR vaccine neighbor
Your neighbor shares a study linking autism to the MMR vaccine. Instead of assuming they have malicious intent, consider that they might have made an honest mistake—the study was written by disgraced researcher Andrew Wakefield, later retracted and considered fraud. A charitable interpretation helps preserve the relationship and focus on the argument itself.
A MOMENT TO REFLECT
Put it to work.
Think of a recent disagreement where you assumed bad faith. How might the situation change if you applied the principle of charity?
When have you been the recipient of an uncharitable interpretation? How did it affect communication?
List three areas of your life (e.g., online debates, workplace feedback, family discussions) where you could practice being more charitable.
CONTINUE THE CONVERSATION
Source texts
- Calling Bullshit The Art of Skepticism in a Data-Driven World (Carl T. Bergstrom Jevin D. West)