Charitable interpretation

Imagine someone presents an argument to you. You have roughly two ways to interpret it:

• Charitable interpretation: Consider the strongest, most solid version or implication of the argument. You start by assuming that the argument might be true, and you try your best to see how it could be.
• Uncharitable interpretation: Consider the weakest possible version of the argument. You start by assuming that the argument is wrong, and you try your best to confirm this assumption.

Open-minded people generally interpret what they hear charitably while close-minded people stick to what they think is right and don't bother entertaining other arguments. An open-minded person asks "how could this be right?", a close-minded person asks "how is this wrong?"

Especially on Twitter, snarky repliers will interpret your tweet in the least favorable way possible, identify a weakness in your tweet (which is easy when you've already weakened the tweet with your interpretation), then feel smart when they point out that weakness to you. Of course, everyone else thinks them a fool.

It would make one seem much smarter if they interpreted the tweet in the most charitable way possible, then identify a weakness in it and express it clearly.

• Wikipedia