That means a lot less as a postscript than as the starting point. Whereas the framing of your values as a "gift" doesn't absolutely imply they're correct, but does imply they're somehow a good thing.

There's a phrase we use for saying the right words about an important idea but not actually incorporating it into your methods: "lip service".

Do you hold any values that you don't think are a good thing? It seems as if the author is coming from the perspective that you hold these values rather close and are already willing to defend them. In those cases isn't it better to come off as offering something to a conversation as opposed to dictating what is correct?

Also, in a sense, offering up something for consideration already carries with it a sense that you're willing to discuss its terms.

> Do you hold any values that you don't think are a good thing?

No, but I could be wrong, and I'm a dangerous fool if I don't take that into account.

> offering up something for consideration already carries with it a sense that you're willing to discuss its terms.

In some idealized world of intelligent good faith discussions, maybe. In practice, false, not even close. A good idea for yourself, but not safe to assume of anyone else's motives even if they say that's how they operate, much less if they call their ideas a "gift".

I think all the author is saying is to do it yourself, not that we should be naive and assume others are doing the same. You can always give people the benefit of the doubt first, and adjust.

The author is mostly not saying that. They're principally saying "offer your values as a gift". That's not the opposite of "consider your values up for debate", not quite, but it's absolutely not the same.