How to compose a successful critical commentary

[Constance]

I can't remember the source for this (I do apologise) but I did think it was worth pinning here because when we are in the heat of the moment, we can often say things we don't mean, or forget that the other person on the other end is a fellow human being, who at the end of the day, is on your side. :sun:




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."
You should list any points of agreement (especially if they are not matters of general or widespread agreement).
You should mention anything you have learned from your target.
Only then are you permitted to say so much as a word of rebuttal or criticism.


Would anyone else care to add to this? I have seen some brilliant ideas from other members in previous threads from the past and maybe they can be added here as a go-to?

Update: Thanks RunningDeer for the source of the information below :waving:

[RunningDeer]

I can't remember the source for this.
"Rapoport's Rules" (https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Rapoport%27s_Rules#Full_passage_from_Dennett.27s_book)

"How to Criticize with Kindness: Philosopher Daniel Dennett on the Four Steps to Arguing Intelligently" (https://www.brainpickings.org/2014/03/28/daniel-Dennett-rapoport-rules-criticism/)


"Intuition Pumps And Other Tools for Thinking," by: Daniel Dennett

Amazon Summary: (https://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0393082067/braipick-20)





One of the world’s leading philosophers offers aspiring thinkers his personal trove of mind-stretching thought experiments.

Over a storied career, Daniel C. Dennett has engaged questions about science and the workings of the mind. His answers have combined rigorous argument with strong empirical grounding. And a lot of fun.

Intuition Pumps and Other Tools for Thinking offers seventy-seven of Dennett’s most successful "imagination-extenders and focus-holders" meant to guide you through some of life’s most treacherous subject matter: evolution, meaning, mind, and free will. With patience and wit, Dennett deftly deploys his thinking tools to gain traction on these thorny issues while offering readers insight into how and why each tool was built.

Alongside well-known favorites like Occam’s Razor and reductio ad absurdum lie thrilling descriptions of Dennett’s own creations: Trapped in the Robot Control Room, Beware of the Prime Mammal, and The Wandering Two-Bitser. Ranging across disciplines as diverse as psychology, biology, computer science, and physics, Dennett’s tools embrace in equal measure light-heartedness and accessibility as they welcome uninitiated and seasoned readers alike. As always, his goal remains to teach you how to "think reliably and even gracefully about really hard questions.”

A sweeping work of intellectual seriousness that’s also studded with impish delights, Intuition Pumps offers intrepid thinkers―in all walks of life―delicious opportunities to explore their pet ideas with new powers.

[avid]

I broke every rule today... yippee!!!

[Constance]

I was quite taken by this debate that was held between Jordan Peterson and Sam Harris.

These videos are very long but somehow the time seemed to fly because the conversation had a depth and a quality to it that I have not previously heard before in any kind of social media arena.

The genuine desire to understand each side of the persons argument was palpable.

Each debater re-expressed and encapsulated so eloquently and so perfectly their targets position that it really left no doubt that each had actually fully understood and comprehended (and then some), the others position.

The respect that each debater had for each other was tangible.

The biggest takeaway for me from these videos was that I felt that I had reached a higher and deeper understanding of each debaters position, far more so than had each person made a single individual presentation on their position.
I call that synergy. :)

The audience were enthralled and captivated, they couldn't get enough of it.

I know I didn't want it to end!

I would love to see this kind of intelligent, enlivening debate amongst public figures in the alternative media. :sun:

jey_CzIOfYE

GEf6X-FueMo

[Innocent Warrior]

:waving::flower:




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."
You should list any points of agreement (especially if they are not matters of general or widespread agreement).
You should mention anything you have learned from your target.
Only then are you permitted to say so much as a word of rebuttal or criticism.


Would anyone else care to add to this? I have seen some brilliant ideas from other members in previous threads from the past and maybe they can be added here as a go-to?

In other words; actively listen, establish common ground, be open to learning from the other person and mention anything they’ve taught you, and state your point. I’d add to this, although I’ll leave brilliance to the likes of Peterson, that there is more to successful critical commentary than interpersonal skills.

None of this will matter if you’re addressing someone who isn’t interested in a meeting of minds for the purpose of clarity, learning, moving into new territory etc. Between all the ‘experts’ (assuming a position of authority on a subject, based entirely and exclusively on education and experience, regardless of whether or not they’re actually intelligent and good at it) and people who are more interested in being right or correct than having an intelligent discussion, finding a person who is open to a respectful and enlightening discussion of ideas can be a bit of a treasure hunt (depends on environment but offline, in one’s regular social sphere, for many this is often true).

Consider who you’re in a discussion with because if they don’t respect you, or just want to be right, or live by dogmatic ideas etc. there’s really no point in continuing the discussion. It becomes a fruitless, energy draining argument.

[Constance]

Thanks so much for your reply Rach. I really enjoyed hearing what you had to say. :flower:

So many good and valid points there.

On actively listening; it is such a skill to be able to actively listen to someone and a skill worthwhile cultivating. Imagine if this was the foundation for what was being taught at school?

It is interesting what you say about establishing commonground. Having a genuine desire to find what that commonground might be in another, no matter how different or unorthodox their viewpoints are, comes with an open heart and an open mind.

As you say so eloquently, if they don't respect you, if they find it hard to listen and are always thinking of the next thing they want to say, talk over you, are dogmatic, want to be right, are not interested in a meeting of the minds, or for whatever reason really - when people are not truly open to hearing another persons viewpoint, it can all become just a war of words and a clash of intellect.

For some crazy reason, whenever I sense that a conversation might be going South, I always think of Kenny Rogers and his song, The Gambler when he says,
"You've got to know when to hold 'em
Know when to fold 'em
Know when to walk away
And know when to run."

I completely agree with you Rach, finding a person who can talk about any given subject with a truly open mind and heart, can be challenging. It all takes time to find out who those rare gems are but when we do, oh the joy! :heart: