The principle of intellectual charity is fundamental to constructive political conversations. This principle states that, in any discussion, we should accept the best version of an opponent’s ideas, not a distorted version or a "straw man."

Exaggeration and distortion of opposing opinions (always present, to some degree, in political debates) have become the standard form of political argument in contemporary America. Our political divide is fueled by caricatures, consciously or unconsciously drawn, of what others believe and why they believe what they do.

Once we have committed ourselves to understanding someone else's opinions in their most reasonable form, we are having a different kind of conversation. We now enter a conversation with the attitude: "What can I learn from this person with whom I may disagree?" "Is there something right about what they are saying, even if I believe that their opinions are mostly wrong?"

Uncharitable interpretation is a danger whenever we characterize liberals or conservatives as a group. We can find examples of it almost daily, not only in partisan politics and on social media, but in books and punditry by thoughtful people who (should) know better.........

© Psychology Today