On the three gates of speech

Three commentaries on a kernel of ancient wisdom

Before you speak, let your words pass through 3 gates.

Is it true? Is it kind? Is it necessary?

— Rumi, Sufi mystic (1207-1273)

In the wake of my July awakening, I have found myself in need of recalibration to a much bolder, more candid way of relating to others. Rumi’s three gates of speech have been useful. Here I offer a few thoughts on how best to interpret them.

I. Two out of three gates is often enough

This morning, a friend suggested that the three gates are too restrictive, that it should be sufficient to satisfy one of the three conditions. I don’t quite agree with this — it seems generally inadvisable to say something true but completely unnecessary and completely unkind, and I feel that similar moral intuitions apply to the other two gates. But what about satisfying two out of three? Let’s consider each possibility.

1. Can it be good to say something that’s true and necessary but not kind? Sure, there are many such “tough love” type situations. Grimly painting a dark picture of the future for a family member or friend who is heedlessly throwing their life away, say on drugs, could be an example. Many recent commentators have attempted to redefine kindness to include tough love, but I see this as more confusing than it’s worth. In my mind, it’s better to say that speech can be good without being kind.

2. Can it be good to say something that’s kind and true but not necessary? Of course. All sorts of praise and gratitude fit into this category.

3. Can it be good to say something that’s necessary and kind but not true? Sure. Lying to Nazis about hidden Jews is an easy example.

So it seems plausible that two gates could often be sufficient for good speech. (Always could be a harder question!)

Update: Scott Alexander scooped me on this a decade ago. Oh well, no shame in being beaten by the best!

II. Politeness is better than kindness in loose-knit groups

Kindness is great, but it is most pertinent to close ties. American business culture has traditionally been at least nominally favorable towards radical candor, which trades some gentleness for precious insight and muscular productivity. And in a world of looser adult ties, we also generally defer to people on their own lives and avoid handing out tough love where it won’t be appreciated. These observations suggest that kindness be substituted for a looser norm, like politeness. Right now, my read is that you should generally use all three — truth, necessity, and politeness — to gate your speech in the business world and similar contexts of loose ties between social equals.

III. The gates are basically Grice’s maxims

Another famous source of speech advice is Grice’s cooperative principle, which states that people who are engaging in speech for prosocial, cooperative purposes should follow four maxims:

1. The maxim of quantity, where one tries to be as informative as one possibly can, and gives as much information as is needed, and no more.

2. The maxim of quality, where one tries to be truthful, and does not give information that is false or that is not supported by evidence.

3. The maxim of relation, where one tries to be relevant, and says things that are pertinent to the discussion.

4. The maxim of manner, when one tries to be as clear, as brief, and as orderly as one can in what one says, and where one avoids obscurity and ambiguity.

I notice a relationship between Rumi’s gates and Grice’s maxims. Quality clearly maps to truth, manner (roughly) to kindness, and necessity to quantity and relevance. The significance of this? Probably not much, except as a signal of the value of these principles. When different people across the centuries come to about the same conclusions, you probably have a piece of perennial philosophy.

That’s all for today! Have a normal one! 👋