Apply Dennett’s four rules for critical commentary

Before criticizing: restate charitably, list agreements, name what you’ve learned, then — and only then — rebut.

Why it works

Dennett’s four-step sequence for critical commentary (from Intuition Pumps, adapted from Anatol Rapoport) structures engagement so that understanding precedes criticism. The sequence — restate, agree, learn, critique — prevents critique from being premature (before understanding), inflammatory (before acknowledging common ground), or closed-minded (before noting what the view contributes). It functions as a self-imposed protocol against the most common intellectual vices in disagreement.

How to do it

1. Step 1: Restate the other person’s position clearly enough they confirm it.
2. Step 2: List any points you agree with or find plausible — even if minor.
3. Step 3: Name anything you learned or that strikes you as interesting or new.
4. Step 4: Only then offer your objections or alternatives.

Evidence

The sequence is credited to Anatol Rapoport, a game theorist, and endorsed by Dennett as a standard for intellectual discourse. Its value is practical and social: it creates conditions for the critique to be heard, which is a precondition for it to be useful. Experimental evidence for this specific four-step sequence is not available. (anecdotal)

The sequence requires genuine effort at steps 1–3; a formulaic application that races to the critique (the "I understand and agree, but…" move) defeats the purpose. Each of the first three steps must be substantive.

Sources

• Dennett (2013), Intuition Pumps and Other Tools for Thinking

Common mistake

Treating steps 1–3 as required preamble before the "real" point (the critique), which is visible to the listener and produces the same defensive response as leading with the critique.