Foundations for constructive discourse

I like this pairing from Judith Curry.

Both serve as a test for two conditions. How does my own thinking pass muster, and second, what is the profile for someone else (is it worthwhile spending time engaging with them on a disputable topic?)

The first checklist is of your own communication style.

I value the process of science and its integrity, and intellectual honesty. With regards to intellectual honesty, see this previous blog post, discussing 10 signs of intellectual honesty:

1. Do not overstate the power of your argument.
2. Show a willingness to publicly acknowledge that reasonable alternative viewpoints exist. .
3. Be willing to publicly acknowledge and question one’s own assumptions and biases.
4. Be willing to publicly acknowledge where your argument is weak.
5. Bewilling to publicly acknowledge when you are wrong.
6. Demonstrate consistency
7. Address the argument instead of attacking the person making the argument.
8. When addressing an argument, do not misrepresent it.
9. Show a commitment to critical thinking.
10. Be willing to publicly acknowledge when a point or criticism is good.

The second checklist is a warning sign of someone who is likely to be unwilling to actually engage constructively in conversation.

There are five attributes of ideologues:

1. Absence of doubt
2. Intolerance of debate
3. Appeal to authority
4. A desire to convince others of the ideological “truth”
5. A willingness to punish those that don’t concur