This also reminds me of the idea of reading or listening charitably- assuming the best version of the argument, or that the writer or listener simplified something to make it more legible or interesting… a well actually guy always does the opposite, looking for any detail to jump on to, whether it’s relevant to the conversation or not. I think this behaviour (in addition to being irritating) also lowers the quality of discourse in general by forcing everyone to constantly hedge their arguments against every possible obvious minor nitpick.
jorjordandan t1_j6vvzsh wrote
Reply to comment by Cli4ordtheBRD in How to be a sceptic | We have an ethical responsibility to adopt a sceptical attitude to everything from philosophy and science to economics and history in the pursuit of a good life for ourselves and others. by IAI_Admin
This also reminds me of the idea of reading or listening charitably- assuming the best version of the argument, or that the writer or listener simplified something to make it more legible or interesting… a well actually guy always does the opposite, looking for any detail to jump on to, whether it’s relevant to the conversation or not. I think this behaviour (in addition to being irritating) also lowers the quality of discourse in general by forcing everyone to constantly hedge their arguments against every possible obvious minor nitpick.