How Fairmind Guides Work

A Fairmind Guide helps readers understand a polarizing issue in a fair, accurate, and concise way. Instead of reciting each side’s talking points and spin, it distills the debate for clearest understanding. It does this by:

• Organizing an issue into a set of key factors to consider, each with balanced arguments in their strongest forms
• Providing a set of example viewpoints that show how different values and priorities lead to different conclusions
• Using only verified facts with footnotes to reliable sources
• Documenting editorial choices, including what wasn’t included and why

This structure provides the framework; the content comes from careful curation and editorial judgment.

Key Characteristics

A Fairmind Guide is designed for a reader who wants an informed, fair-minded understanding of a polarizing issue. This is a normal person who wants to get smart about an issue quickly, not get a PhD in the subject.

To best serve this reader—or an AI assisting the reader—a Fairmind Guide:

• Focuses on what matters most. It highlights the relatively small set of facts, arguments, and choices that determine where most people land, with lesser points moved to the “Editorial Choices” appendix.
• Avoids false or misleading factual claims. Only claims that can be verified from reliable sources appear in the main content. Prominent but unreliable claims are noted and explained in the appendix.
• Aligns arguments. Arguments are organized around common factors so they meet head-on rather than talk past each other.
• Presents arguments in their strongest valid forms. Rhetorically appealing but factually weak or logically flawed versions are excluded. If they are common in the discourse, their omission is explained in the appendix.
• Provides essential context. When context is needed to make sense of conflicting claims or uncertainties, it is provided.
• Shows how thoughtful people might reach different conclusions based on different values and priorities. Example viewpoints model a range of perspectives that readers can adopt or draw from.
• Makes editorial choices explicit. An appendix explains the framing, wording, and omissions so readers can evaluate those decisions.

As far as we are aware, this combination of characteristics is unique. The goal is to enable a new level of clarity in how people think and talk about polarizing issues.

Authoring Principles

A Fairmind guide is a highly curated work, not an automated summary or crowd consensus. It involves judgment at every stage: selecting the key factors to consider, deciding what counts as accurate and relevant, phrasing arguments in their strongest valid forms, and choosing representative viewpoints.

To guide these decisions, we have the following principles:

• Accuracy. Any factual claim in the main content needs to be footnoted to a reliable source. A reasonable person checking the source should have no question about it. Where a fact is disputed but important to understand the topic, the dispute must itself be explained.
• Fairness. Do not take sides. Instead, communicate the best of each side. Be particularly sensitive to framing decisions, wording, or key factors chosen, as these can affect balance in subtle ways. On a fairness question, the test should be, “Would good-faith opponents agree that this is a fair representation of their disagreement?”
• Arguments. Describe an argument in its strongest substantive form. If there is a ubiquitous or official expression of an argument, quote the key part. Otherwise, describe the argument by synthesizing the best of different versions.
• Omissions. When arguments or claims are left out (because they are misleading, marginal, or redundant) explain in the “Editorial Choices” appendix.
• Concision. Only say what’s necessary for the reader to understand the issue clearly and fairly. For any given sentence in the main section, ask the question, “Would this materially affect how a fair-minded reader forms an opinion?” If not, omit it. If someone would reasonably question why the concept was omitted, include it in the “Editorial Choices” appendix.
• Review. Review drafts with both AI tools and human editors to check accuracy, logic, and parity of presentation.
• Always be open to correction. Invite readers to flag errors or concerns about fairness.

Fairmind.org

For any given issue, even within the format and following the principles, there are countless possible ways to write a Fairmind Guide. Many could be seen as fair and accurate by independent observers, but many more would fall short. Thus, what really matters is how well a guide is executed.

This is where Fairmind.org comes in. Its goal is to publish fair-minded guides that:

• Independent observers regard as fair and accurate
• Handle factual or fairness concerns openly and actively
• Apply the same standards of rigor and neutrality across all issues, regardless of topic or political implications

Ultimately, the credibility of Fairmind.org—and the whole Fairmind concept—will rest not on intentions of fairness and accuracy, but on a track record that demonstrates them.

For an example of putting the principles into practice, see the Fairmind Guide The Death Penalty.