Fairmind

Defining Factors, Arguments, and Example Viewpoints

The core of a Fairmind guide is a structured comparison of the strongest arguments on each side—organized into shared factors that let opposing views meet head-on, and illustrated through Example Viewpoints that show how thoughtful people reach different conclusions. This page explains how to develop each element and how they connect to one another.

Arguments

Begin by gathering the arguments from each side, ordered by their prominence in public discourse. Good sources include:

Then filter for the primary arguments. For each argument, apply a two-part test:

We call the arguments that survive filtering primary arguments because they primarily determine where most people stand on the guide’s overall question.

Describe the strongest defensible version of an argument. This may be different from the rhetorically strongest version if that version sounds good but cannot withstand scrutiny. You are aiming to describe the “steelman” (as opposed to strawman) version. Note that you are not making the argument yourself; you are describing what proponents say. Your description should reflect the best of the various articulations you’ve collected, in your own words.

Use quotations sparingly. Don’t simply describe arguments with quotations from proponents (one side said this, and the other side said that). Instead, describe the strongest versions of the arguments in an analyst’s voice. The main exception is arguments with a legitimate emotional component. The Death Penalty guide’s Morality factor is a good example, where the quotes deliver the emotional punch while balancing each other.

Balance the use of stories. Sometimes an argument is best illustrated with a real-life story about a person or event. If you pursue this, do it in a balanced way: If one side gets a story, so does the other side. Sometimes this can be done in the same factor, although it will often make sense to allocate the stories across factors. Example: In the Physician-Assisted Death guide, the story of Barbara Goodfriend is used to illustrate the supporters’ argument in the Mercy factor, and the story of Kate Cheney is used to illustrate the opponents’ argument in the Reliability of the Patient’s Decision factor.

Factors

Derive the factors from the primary arguments. The goal is to recast opposing primary arguments into a shared neutral context—a factor for the reader to consider—so that they address the same underlying question and can meet head-on rather than talk past each other.

In many cases, opposing primary arguments will map naturally onto a common factor. For example, in the death penalty debate, each side makes an argument about the morality of killing as punishment. For many people, this is a core consideration in their overall viewpoint. So Morality is a good choice for a factor.

Sometimes a primary argument from one side will have no clear counterpart from the other. In that case, do not manufacture a false equivalence. Instead, construct the strongest available counter-argument from the public discourse, or, if none is adequate, have the opposing side’s argument acknowledge the point and make the case that it is a less important consideration relative to other factors. Example: In the Physician-Assisted Death guide’s Mercy factor, the opponents’ argument grants there may be some cases where physician-assisted death is a merciful reponse but alludes to the other factors’ arguments as outweighing this point.

End each factor with “The key question.” This helps the reader think about how the factor informs their viewpoint. It also provides a jumping-off point for a group discussion. Although it should usually be a single, straightforward question, there are cases where a short follow-up is acceptable to further clarify the choice—for example, “Does longtime residence create a moral claim to stay? If so, does that claim extend to citizenship, or only to lawful permanent residence?” Also, make sure what you’re asking is a question of judgment that can be answered based on the information in the factor and preceding content.

Aim for two to five factors. If you only need one, then the structure of a Fairmind guide is likely to be overkill. And anything more than five factors risks overloading readers cognitively. Keep in mind that, as an author, you will have gone deep on the topic, and your tendency will be to want to include more factors. Don’t. Much of your value is in “essentializing” the topic down to what really matters for readers to know in forming their own fair-minded and informed viewpoints.

If you can’t see any way to cover your topic with five or fewer factors, ask whether the topic is actually a composite of multiple topics. For example, if you try to create a guide on “the gun debate,” you will find there is no central policy question like there is in topics like abortion or the death penalty. Instead, in the United States, the gun debate is about a constellation of more than a dozen types of policies. Better in that case to focus on a single representatitive policy than to try wedging several different policy debates into one guide. For example, we chose concealed carry as the best representantive topic, which then made the factors tractable.

Example Viewpoints

Derive the Example Viewpoints from the factors and their arguments. Every viewpoint should reflect a coherent combination of factor positions and weightings. Together, the example viewpoints show how thoughtful people might reach different conclusions based on different judgments and weightings of the factors. The viewpoints should represent the main positions in the issue’s public discourse, across a range of perspectives.

Write a viewpoint in the voice of the person who holds it. Whereas the rest of a guide’s content uses what we might call “analyst voice,” the viewpoints are meant to illustrate how people who’ve reached a conclusion would explain it. So in writing an Example Viewpoint, you don’t need to acknowledge other views or caveat the claims. An exception: If a viewpoint takes a moderate stance in part due to recognition of uncertainty or concern about a strong opposing argument, then those aspects should be mentioned.

Check viewpoint-factor alignment: If an important aspect of an Example Viewpoint is referring to something not represented in the factors, that something needs to be incorporated into an existing factor or a new factor. Conversely, if a factor is not represented in at least one (ideally more) of the Example Viewpoints, it should not be a factor. If it’s a prominent part of the public discourse, a briefer version of it can be included in Editorial Choices.

How Much Content?

Use viewpoint stability as your calibration test. A guide has enough content when two conditions are met: adding more wouldn’t change most readers’ conclusions, and removing anything would leave some readers without a basis for a defensible viewpoint.

Apply the test at every level, not just to factors. The stability test also applies to argument depth and Example Viewpoints. Although arguments and viewpoints should normally be limited to a paragraph, the test can still help you decide how much or little of a paragraph you need. When considering an addition, always ask: Compared to the existing content, would this addition cause some readers to change their positions? When in doubt, leave it out of the main content. If readers could reasonably question the omission, explain it in a section in Editorial Choices.

Aim for 2,000 to 2,500 words for the main content. This is roughly eight to ten minutes of reading at a standard pace. It’s long enough to treat an issue responsibly while not being overwhelming. The Death Penalty and Guns In Public: Concealed Carry guides are good examples of ideal lengths for the main content.