Compassionate Interpretation
Today I am putting in writing some very personal thoughts on how to best communicate online and otherwise.
We all know the importance of interpretative charity in online discourse. Without it, we are bound to waste precious time and mental resources chasing dead ends which can be easily avoided by assuming that the interlocutor is both capable and willing to engage in rational conversation. Charitable interpretation can be surmised as the practice of giving precedence to interpretations that maximize the truthfulness and correction of arguments. Charitable Interpretation is essential for civil debate, bypassing unproductive exchanges to arrive quicker at the core of the matter at hand so that each argument has a chance to shine. Charitable Interpretation is a recipe for politeness and intellectual honesty but says very little about emotions and ethical considerations. To address those concerns, I propose a similar concept.
Compassionate Interpretation
Compassionate Interpretation goes a bit further, using a similar procedure to incentivize interactions that also achieve an amenable emotional resolution between the parties. So, while Charitable interpretation allows for productive debate by assuming the most cogent version of an argument, Compassionate Interpretation allows for serendipitous and emotionally enriching exchanges by assuming the interpretations which would lead you to believe that the interlocutor is the most ethical, virtuous, and worthy of sympathy.
When practicing Compassionate Interpretation, one must assume that statements made by others are not only reasonable but also interpret such statements in a way that is least detrimental to their morals. When more than one possible interpretation is possible, the Compassionate Interpreter must choose that which would not equate to a negative opinion of their morals.
By doing that, you avoid needlessly aggravating potential friends and allies. You also give a chance to those that require a change in worldview to improve their morals, stimulated by your kindness and optimism towards them.
On writing this, I remember of how much compassion, patience and kindness I need from others. That makes it easier for me to dispense compassion towards others.
I'll give an example using myself.
I'm a black man. Suppose that someone tells me the following phrase: "I do not understand the appeal of rap music". For some, that statement might indicate that the utterer holds, in addition to a musical preference, a negative opinion of black culture as a whole, which might entail that they hold some kind of prejudice against black people. Or it could simply mean what their words indicate on a surface, literal level: they genuinely do not understand what is appealing about rap music. As a Compassionate Interpreter, I give precedence to the latter. If, in the future, I accrue evidence telling me otherwise, I may revise my interpretation.
As is the case with Charitable Interpretation, there are situations in which a blanket application of Compassionate Interpretation might lead to unfavorable results. That would be the case of a truly malicious individual who intends to exploit our goodwill to cause all kinds of havoc. The principle would still apply, with a few adjustments. When encountering pernicious elements, the Compassionate Interpreter might feel compelled to interpret their actions as the consequence of ignorance, some kind of mental suffering, or traumatic experiences that led them to adopt ill behavior. However, compassion should not be mistaken for foolishness or naivety. A compassionate attitude does not prevent strong measures against wrongdoing. In online spaces, the best recommendation in these cases is to disengage completely and report the wrongdoer on whatever platform you are in.
In writing this, I share something very dear to me, in the hopes that it may lead to some good and helpful thoughts in the minds of the reader.
Really wish more folks would practice this kind of communication! People are so quick to read the least charitable interpretation of a post, eager for a confrontation or a "gotcha!" moment, etc. It can make posting online tough, especially as someone who is socially anxious and not always that great at making my point known. Yes, there are a lot of trolls and general assholes, but once you know what to look for, it's not that hard (imo) to determine when people are not engaging in good faith. Usually by 2-3 exchanges I can pick up that "Well, this isn't going anywhere..." kind of feeling. At which point it's indeed time to bail and save that energy for something or someone else.
My personal variant of this is when you intentionally misinterpret a malicious message in a charitable way, and respond accordingly.
a. your response will lead to a change of heart where they decide to adopt your charitable misinterpretation as theirs all along; or
b. your response will drive them up the wall in a hilarious way because they can't hurt or offend you.
Win-win positivity with the potential to change minds... and a touch of trolling.
Kill 'em with kindness, as the old saying goes.
That's extremely interesting! I'm a J>E translator (never done interpreting though) myself and I have to do a bit of that "localizing" in my work for games but I can't imagine how stressful it is to do it real-time for someone, especially when they're actively being rude to the other person.
Is your method of charitable interpretation something you've built up through experience or are there interpreting resources that you've referenced for a basis?
I'm not sure what I think about the expression "compassion fatigue", because compassion should be reinvigorating. Reading on the subject, I wonder if the term "empathy fatigue" would be more appropriate.
A misguided view of compassion might lead someone to neglect the improvement of their own conditions. Compassion is not an excuse for avoiding conflict altogether. You should accommodate the needs of others without neglecting your own well-being. You gotta say no, limits must be enforced. Compassion motivates you to reduce suffering in the world, but your own suffering should also be the object of that impulse, and a certain degree of introspection and compartmentalization is essential to a healthy life.
Those are very good points.
I'm one of those people that find semantic discussions both interesting and revelant, so hopefully you'll indulge me in my tangent ;)
It is sometimes difficulty to make myself understood on these matter because I have a seemingly uncommon ability to compartmentalize. It is easy for me to differentiate between some things that are very similar, and I may fail to stress those differences enough when I talk to others.
For example, I see a very clear difference between compassion and empathy. Compassion to me would be a more overall sentiment that makes you more inclined to consider the welfare of others, while empathy would be a more specific component that makes you actually have an involuntary tendency to experience the emotions of others as your own.
It is possible to be compassionate on a more general level, while empathy itself is mitigated in order to prevent mental suffering which would be useless or too much to handle.
So I see value in distinguishing compassion as a whole, and its empathetic component more specifically. In that scenario, it would be possible to have as much compassion as you want without fatigue, as long as you're able to exert some control on what triggers your empathy, and when.
I totally appreciate the fact that this distinction is irrelevant or bizarre for a lot of people, that is just how I function and I understand this will not work for everyone.
"never attribute to malice what can adequately be explained by stupidity" (or ignorance, or naivete, etc)
It looks like you tried to soften this a bit in the parentheses, and I agree with the sentiment that malice is more uncommon than ignorance. However, I feel like this statement is a little at odds with compassionate interpretation. One probably won't have a very good conversation if they assume that the other party is stupid (which implies that they are smarter). I feel like the worst arguments are when both sides think they are the smarter one and start talking down to each other.
i agree i the softened the concept with the parentheses, idioms and sayings can often be overly harsh to make a point. i added rest to refine the point to what i believe that is the spirit of what the saying is... saying. "dont assume negative intent, they may just not know better"
edit: "Hanlon’s Razor states: never attribute to malice that which can be adequately explained by neglect, ignorance or incompetence. Many quotes of this model focus on ‘stupidity’, which it could be argued gives it an arrogant twist — I find the broader interpretation more useful. https://modelthinkers.com/mental-model/hanlons-razor
There are certainly a number fields in which I’m
smartermore informed than a person I’m talking to (e.g. I was enthusiastic about advanced maths and physics at university, but my current job is not at all related) but I am still super uncomfortable about ever talking down to someone. If it’s relevant to the conversation, I might try to break down what I know into bite sizes and teach them something new, but the idea of feeling superior because I know something just feels super wrong to me…I really like this. I try to always assume positive intent, which I think is similar to compassionate interpretation. It’s not easy with some people though. I’m thinking about work, and someone who gossips a lot and criticizes people behind their backs. I straight up dislike this person and have a hard time seeing any positive intent behind most things they say. Any suggestions?
It is important to understand that many people do carry ill intent, and understanding their reasons is not the same as approving their behavior.
It would be unwise to ignore that, in the same way that it would be foolish to hold a scorpion in your hand. You would do everything in your power to get rid of every scorpion in your house, that is within your right.
It is entirely justified for you to dislike a scorpion. However, would you hate the scorpion that is only doing what its nature commands? Who would that emotion benefit? Certainly not you!
Take the scorpion out, but don't hurt it more than it is necessary. Any extra pain you inflict will hurt you more than them. Venomous creatures are used to nasty things. You are not.
Definitely hatred mostly hurts the hater themselves. I don’t hate anyone (except murderers, child molesters, rapists etc). Have you read the book or seen the movie Dead Man Walking? It’s about a nun who develops a counselor-type relationship with a man on death row. I think she embodies compassionate listening while maintaining the understanding that he committed evil acts.
I saw this movie when it was released! Can't remember a thing. I may rewatch it now :)
You might be interested in Nonviolent Communication
https://www.nonviolentcommunication.com/
This is not specifically developed with online in mind, but it definitely is transferable. Definitely is helpful in personal and work relationships. It’s basically how to communicate with others empathically.
I haven’t looked into this topic for a while, but one thing I notice is that there is a bit of a cottage industry around this with training and additional materials besides those developed by Marshall Rosenberg. I’m haven’t evaluated if these additional resources are useful or just part of the consultation network that appears for most popular subjects.
I endeavor to practice this myself but it is much harder than it sounds. For starters, despite the fact that spaces like Tildes are text-based communities, text-based communication is surprisingly difficult for a lot of people. A lot of American English speakers (probably others too, but I don't want to over-state my case here) write the way that they speak; this causes problems because so much of the non-lexical structure of the language is tonal.
Consider the sentence: "I didn't steal his money." It means different things depending on where the vocal stress in the sentence lands.
"I didn't steal his money" suggests that I won it or was given it for legal reasons.
"I didn't steal his money" suggests that, while I stole something, it wasn't money.
But when people write as they speak they often omit the tonal context clues and so we are left wondering where the emphasis should fall. Or they use the wrong word. Or they mangle the grammar. Hell, there's an entire category of sentences in the English language which are grammatically correct, make sense when you write them, and make absolutely no sense when you read them. These "garden path sentences" really showcase how easy it is to write something which your reader can't help but interpret one way when you meant something else entirely.
Consider: "The horse raced past the barn fell." It's grammatically correct; it just doesn't mean what you think it does. Re-read until you get it. Here's another (and my favorite): "The old man the boat."
All of this is to say that the responsibility to read with compassionate interpretation is recursive. You have to read what someone else wrote with the assumption that they're a decent person who means well. You should reply as if you will not be extended the same courtesy. And then you should consider replies to you, keeping in mind that what you originally wrote might have been misconstrued, misunderstood, or rendered essentially meaningless by the limitations of the language in which you wrote it.
I really appreciate the thinking behind this kind of way of approaching communication, but I worry about the ways that it can be abused, and in practice have trouble enacting them. The principle of charity, charitable interpretation, can make the abuse of Brandolini's law - that it is more difficult to refute bullshit than it is to spout it - very easy on those who would spout bullshit. I think we see this with some applications of 'talking points' and sealioning.
So I would say: applying the principle of charity requires accepting the premise that the person I'm talking to is arguing in good faith. Deciding whether to accept that premise usually depends on contextual or environmental clues, politeness of engagement, language, etc. If I don't accept it, then I won't enter a discussion: I don't think it's a good use of my time, or often even safe or compassionate towards myself to do so. Further, I must also re-assess as the conversation continues, especially in light of more advanced implementations of sealioning, concern trolling, dogwhistling, or other argumentative abuses that take advantage of a person's benevolence.
Compassionate interpretation seems to call me to always accept the premise that my interlocutor is engaging in good faith, where reasonable ambiguity exists such that I can make that interpretation. Your post does mention the possibility of malicious individuals and offers the choice not to engage or step away, but I suppose the difficulty here is in screening for that malice.
The more you increase the weighting you apply to a positive interpretation of ambiguous statements, the weaker your screen, and the more you open yourself to this kind of abuse. So where's the line, I guess? I suppose it also depends on context. Here on Tildes, for example, we can probably quite safely apply a heavy weighting to positive interpretations. On the other hand, I don't feel like I need to do so here, because people are largely so careful, kind, and considerate in how they communicate. And I guess that gets at the core of what I feel I'm missing with these kinds of approaches to argumentative benevolence, and that is this sense of reciprocity: why should I be the only one who's really making an effort for the other person, here?
As a bit of a tangent: one thing I really struggle with, is trying to figure out the difference between whether someone is really a malicious interlocutor, or if they are just saying something I really don't like, and how different I can really see those as being. For example, I'm not sure I'm capable of believing that someone who wants trans people 'eradicated from public life,' whatever words they use surrounding it, is capable of not being a malicious interlocutor. Russell's refusal to debate Mosley springs to mind:
In the kind of example above, I can perhaps make a compassionate interpretation for why the person believes it, but not for what they believe itself.
Great stuff. I realize this is my habitual approach, but I hadn’t formulated the philosophy as cogently or comprehensively as you have here.
I also use a similar approach in my personal life whereI have concrete information about an individual. E.g. when my spouse is acting like an ass, I remind myself his heart is good (a fact I have much evidence of). Therefore either I misunderstood or he’s having a challenge I don’t know about.
I completely agree and wished more people had this perspective on discourse in general, let alone in online spaces where users are protected by their veil of anonymity. Lack of tone and other non-verbal cues can make it easier to jump to the conclusion that someone is being passive aggressive or intentionally trying to aggravate.
It’s just much easier to put that understanding and kindness out there with no expectation of getting it back, and when you do it’s a great feeling. So many people just want someone to argue with, some fight they can try to win.