Rapoport's Rules are a simple recipe for how to criticise someone while still treating them as a partner in a shared enquiry rather than an enemy to be defeated.
The rules are named after Anatol Rapoport, a game theorist and conflict researcher, and were popularised by Daniel Dennett in his book Intuition Pumps.
# Origins
Rapoport originally worked on conflict, negotiation and game theory, including the famous tit-for-tat strategy in repeated prisoner’s dilemma games.
In the 1960s he proposed principles for ethical debate that echoed the spirit of Rogerian Argument, emphasising careful listening, acknowledging partial agreement and preserving a sense of shared humanity even in sharp disagreement - en.wikipedia.org 
Dennett later reformulated these ideas into a short checklist for writing fair critical commentary, calling them “Rapoport’s Rules” and using them as an antidote to the urge to caricature our opponents - openculture.com
# Dennett's Version
In Dennett’s now standard four-step version, Rapoport’s Rules say that before you criticise a position you should.
- Re-express your target’s position so clearly, vividly and fairly that they could honestly say “Thanks, I wish I’d put it that way.”
- List any points of agreement, especially those that are not trivial or universal.
- Mention anything you have genuinely learned from their position.
- Only then offer rebuttal, objection or criticism.
This sequence turns “winning the argument” into “showing that you understood, found common ground, and still have reasons to disagree”.
# What The Rules Try To Fix
Most everyday arguments are driven by impatience, status anxiety and tribal loyalty, so we rush straight to attack mode.
This leads to straw-manning, cheap shots and performative dunks that impress bystanders but convince almost nobody, especially in online spaces that reward outrage and speed rather than careful listening - themindcollection.com
Rapoport’s Rules slow things down just enough to force charity and demonstrate good faith, which makes genuine persuasion more likely.
# How To Practice
One way to operationalise the rules is to treat them as a little script you follow whenever you respond to a view you dislike.
- First, summarise: “So if I understand you, you’re saying that…” and check you got it right.
- Then, affirm: “I especially agree with you that…” and name one or two real points of overlap.
- Next, acknowledge: “One thing I hadn’t considered before is…” and state something you learned or at least found genuinely interesting.
- Only then pivot: “Where I still disagree is…” and offer your best reasons, not just your strongest emotions.
Done repeatedly, this style of disagreement trains you to Steelmanning an opponent’s case before you critique it.
# Limitations And Misuse
Rapoport’s Rules are not a magic spell that guarantees harmony, and they can be misused.
Used cynically, they can become a manipulative “compliment sandwich”, where the apparent charity is just a tactic to make harsher attacks land more smoothly.
With openly malicious or bad-faith actors, the rules may simply waste time or provide them with extra legitimacy they have not earned, so some people “do not deserve such respectful attention”, as Dennett himself notes - themarginalian.org
The art is knowing when the other side is at least somewhat responsive to good-faith engagement, and when boundary-setting or disengagement is healthier.
# Related Ideas
Rapoport’s Rules sit alongside a small toolkit of practices for less destructive disagreement.
They are closely related to Rogerian Argument, empathy-based conflict resolution, and the general idea of Steelmanning an opponent’s case before critiquing it - effectiviology.substack.com
They also echo Rapoport’s own work on tit-for-tat strategies in game theory, where being “nice, forgiving, and predictable” often outperforms more aggressive strategies in the long run.
In many communities, explicitly adopting Rapoport’s Rules as a local norm is one way to nudge debates away from flame wars and towards collaborative sense-making.