The Rapoport Rules

On Friends, Enemies, and Disagreement

In 2008, Dick Thaler and I published a book called Nudge, on behavioral economics and libertarian paternalism. Of the various critiques, my favorite is by Riccardo Rebonato. In book form, you can find it here: https://www.amazon.com/Taking-Liberties-Examination-Libertarian-Paternalism/dp/0230391559; a condensed version is here, for free: https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2346212

Rebonato doesn’t pull his punches, and he makes a number of substantive objections, which have helped inspire a lot of scribbing on my part. But I also like Rebonato’s courteous and careful tone. He starts out by celebrating and pledging a commitment to the Rapoport rules.

The Rapoport rules read like this:

1. You should attempt to re-express your target position so clearly, vividly, and fairly that your target says “Thanks, I wish I’d thought of putting it that way.”

2. You should list any points of agreement (especially if they are not matters of general or widespread agreement).

3. You should mention anything you have learnt from your target.

4. Only then are you permitted to say so much as a word of rebuttal or criticism.

For this account of the Rapoport rules, Rebonato credits Daniel Dennett’s 2013 book, Intuition Pumps and Other Tools for Thinking. (Rapoport himself was Anatol Borisovich Rapoport, a mathematical psychologist.)

Dennett’s own account is pleasantly human: “Following Rapoport's Rules is always, for me at least, something of a struggle. Some targets, quite frankly, don't deserve such respectful attention, and — I admit — it can be sheer joy to skewer and roast them.”

The most important of the Rapoport Rules, I think, is (1). So much of academic debate, and of course political debate, includes a characterization of a position (say, Daniel Kahneman’s views about rationality, or John Rawls’ views about liberalism) that the author could not possibly recognize.

When that happens, the author’s initial reaction tends to be: “Ouch!” It’s like being punched in the nose. Then rage might come (and rage is not a lot of fun; it’s tiring).

On a walk during break in a conference on his work a few decades ago, Rawls, who was modest and generous, said this to me, sadly and quietly, and most uncharacteristically: “Listening to what people are saying about me, I sometimes wonder if it’s worth bothering to try to be clear.”

My personal favorite of the Rapoport Rules is (2) and particularly this: “especially if they are not matters of general or widespread agreement).” That’s the most subtle, and the least preachy, of the Rapoport Rules.

The idea is that it’s generous and good to single out an agreement between oneself and the target of one’s criticism if the agreement is about something that is not obvious. By doing that, one makes an alliance with the person with whom one disagrees, which is a really nice thing to do.

Speaking of Kahneman: He deplored what he called “angry science,” in which one wrote in some kind of rage and essentially tried to destroy an adversary.

Kahneman pioneered the idea of the “adversarial collaboration,” in which one agreed to write with someone with whom one disagreed, focusing on the point of disagreement and devising an empirical test to see who’s right. Kahneman noted that adversarial collaborations did not always work - but that people tended to become friends afterwards.

Here’s the best thing about the Rapoport Rules. They work to create something like an informal adversarial collaboration. If you follow them, you will be working with and not against your adversary (at least not entirely). You’ll like them a bit better - maybe even a lot better. You might end up friends. (And you’ll probably like yourself better, too.)

Who always or usually follows the Rapoport Rules?

An informal, random list: Rawls himself; Tyler Cowen; Joshua Greene (Harvard psychologist); Lawrence Solum (University of Virginia law professor); Ralph Hertwig (Director of the Research Center for Adaptive Rationality and Managing Director of the Max Planck Institute for Human Development); John List (Chicago economist); Stephen Greenblatt (Harvard Shakespeare scholar); Elaine Pagels.

Of course there’s a time and place for toughness, even harshness,* and so for a lack of fidelity to the Rapoport Rules. But let me close with a personal word: When I have violated them,** I have almost always regretted it (and felt ashamed of myself). Following the Rapoport Rules tends to calm the spirit, and also to brighten the day.

*Political commentary has its own rules, and they are not always the Rapoport Rules. Still, we could use a lot more Rapoport-ing there.

**As I did here: https://www.amazon.com/Radicals-Robes-Cass-R-Sunstein/dp/0465083277