= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
David_Gerard comments on Dangers of steelmanning / principle of charity - Less Wrong
You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.
= 783df68a0f980790206b9ea87794c5b6)
Loading…= b715d02e85f7b3b4ae65ca3d3e450868)
Subscribe to RSS Feed
Powered by Reddit
= f037147d6e6c911a85753b9abdedda8d)
You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.
Comments (91)
The Wikipedia formulation is "write for your enemy", i.e. state their position sufficiently well that they would accept you have stated their position sufficiently well. This is useful in that they are generally present and will let you know in no uncertain terms if you've failed to achieve this. This is only a guideline, as unreasonable opponents do exist and the stretch is so that you can write a better neutral article.
I have found unreasonable opponents to be unreasonably common, and attempts at clarification are quite often ignored, or even elicit hostility, and often are simply exploited.
This is, of course, true. Nevertheless, "write for the enemy" is still a useful guideline.