You’re right, but I don’t think I’m alone in sometimes missing events that I should be taking into account, or not always being objective in the conclusions I make with them.
I don’t think I’m alone in sometimes missing events that I should be taking into account, or not always being objective in the conclusions I make with them.
Agreed. Can you clarify the relationship between those things, on the one hand, and your belief that you can’t challenge your own ideas without debates, on the other? I’m not sure I follow your reasoning here.
Sorry, I didn’t mean to say that I can’t challenge myself at all. In practice I do try to challenge myself. I am saying that debates, where other people challenge me, help me fill in the gaps where I miss things, or am not being objective.
Sometimes my inner dialogue says, “The way I’m thinking about this makes to me, and it seems logical and sound. I have tried but I can’t think of anything wrong with it.” And then I’ll explain my reasoning to someone who disagrees, and they might say for example, “but you haven’t considered this fact, or this possibility.” And they’re right, I haven’t. That doesn’t necessarily mean I’m wrong, or that they’re right, but it does mean that I haven’t been 100% effective at challenging myself to justify my own positions.
I’ll explain my reasoning to someone who disagrees, and they might say for example, “but you haven’t considered this fact, or this possibility.” And they’re right, I haven’t.
Ah, I see.
Yes, agreed, other people can frequently help clarify our thinking, e.g. by offering potentially relevant facts/possibilities we haven’t considered. Absolutely.
That said, for my own part I would eliminate the modifier “who disagrees” from your sentence. It’s equally true that people who agree with me can help clarify my thinking in that way, as can people who are neutral on the subject, or think the question is ill-formed in such a way that neither agreement nor disagreement is appropriate.
The whole “I assert something and you disagree and we argue” dynamic that comes along with framing the interaction as a “debate” seems like it gets in the way of my getting the thought-clarifying benefits in those cases, and is usually a sign that I’m concentrating more on status management than I am on clarifying my thinking, let alone on converging on true beliefs.
People who agree definitely can offer that, but people who disagree are going to be better at it and more motivated. They push you harder to strengthen your own reasoning and articulate it well. If you try to compare the two in practice I think you’ll notice a huge difference. I think it can be uncomfortable sometimes to challenge and be challenged, but it doesn’t need to be about status or putting other people down. In fact, it can be friendly and supportive. I really recommend it to people who enjoy critical thinking and want to challenge themselves in unexpected ways.
If you try to compare the two in practice I think you’ll notice a huge difference.
My experience is that in general arguing with people pushes me to articulate my positions in compelling ways. If I want to clarify my thinking, which is something altogether different, other techniques work better for me.
But, sure, I agree that arguing with articulate intelligent people who disagree with me pushes me harder to articulate my positions in compelling ways than arguing with people who lack those traits.
You’re right, but I don’t think I’m alone in sometimes missing events that I should be taking into account, or not always being objective in the conclusions I make with them.
Agreed.
Can you clarify the relationship between those things, on the one hand, and your belief that you can’t challenge your own ideas without debates, on the other? I’m not sure I follow your reasoning here.
Sorry, I didn’t mean to say that I can’t challenge myself at all. In practice I do try to challenge myself. I am saying that debates, where other people challenge me, help me fill in the gaps where I miss things, or am not being objective.
Sometimes my inner dialogue says, “The way I’m thinking about this makes to me, and it seems logical and sound. I have tried but I can’t think of anything wrong with it.” And then I’ll explain my reasoning to someone who disagrees, and they might say for example, “but you haven’t considered this fact, or this possibility.” And they’re right, I haven’t. That doesn’t necessarily mean I’m wrong, or that they’re right, but it does mean that I haven’t been 100% effective at challenging myself to justify my own positions.
Ah, I see.
Yes, agreed, other people can frequently help clarify our thinking, e.g. by offering potentially relevant facts/possibilities we haven’t considered. Absolutely.
That said, for my own part I would eliminate the modifier “who disagrees” from your sentence. It’s equally true that people who agree with me can help clarify my thinking in that way, as can people who are neutral on the subject, or think the question is ill-formed in such a way that neither agreement nor disagreement is appropriate.
The whole “I assert something and you disagree and we argue” dynamic that comes along with framing the interaction as a “debate” seems like it gets in the way of my getting the thought-clarifying benefits in those cases, and is usually a sign that I’m concentrating more on status management than I am on clarifying my thinking, let alone on converging on true beliefs.
People who agree definitely can offer that, but people who disagree are going to be better at it and more motivated. They push you harder to strengthen your own reasoning and articulate it well. If you try to compare the two in practice I think you’ll notice a huge difference. I think it can be uncomfortable sometimes to challenge and be challenged, but it doesn’t need to be about status or putting other people down. In fact, it can be friendly and supportive. I really recommend it to people who enjoy critical thinking and want to challenge themselves in unexpected ways.
My experience is that in general arguing with people pushes me to articulate my positions in compelling ways. If I want to clarify my thinking, which is something altogether different, other techniques work better for me.
But, sure, I agree that arguing with articulate intelligent people who disagree with me pushes me harder to articulate my positions in compelling ways than arguing with people who lack those traits.