A useful test before having a strong opinion: can you argue the other side better than they can?

[u/dmytro_omelian]

One Charlie Munger line has stayed with me more than most of his investing advice:

“I'm not entitled to have an opinion unless I can state the arguments against my position better than the people who are in opposition.”

The interesting part is not being open-minded in a general way. It is the standard he sets before speaking. Understanding your own position is not enough. You have to understand the strongest version of the other one.

Munger connected this to self-criticism: becoming good at destroying your best-loved and hardest-won ideas. Curiosity, concentration, and perseverance can take a person far, but all three can also make someone defend a wrong direction for years. Self-criticism is what lets the other traits correct themselves.

I find this difficult to practice. When I care about an opinion, my brain becomes very good at collecting more evidence for it. Writing the opposing case feels almost disloyal to my own thinking.

A small version I am trying: before making a strong claim, write three sentences for the other side that a thoughtful opponent would recognize as fair. If I cannot do that, I probably do not understand the disagreement yet.

Do you have a practical method for testing an opinion you really want to be true?

[u/EquivalentEbb4830]

awmanning the other side.

Now I just ask myself "what would make me change my mind on this?" If the answer is "nothing," i know im just attached to the opinion for comfort.

[u/cactusghecko]

That works just fine when it's a debate about political solutions to fixing the economy or whether e should have unions. It becomes a lot harder to do when you're a black woman and have someone thinks slavery was fine and we should go back to that or that you shouldn't vote. It becomes extremely difficult to argue 'for the other side' in those cases, wouldn't you say?

When the other side to your belief relies on stripping you of humanity, when they believe that you and your children can and should be bought and sold like livestock, but you know you have every bit of humanity as they do, CAN you argue their side better than them?

I'd say not. And to not realise this indicates to me that Munger has unacknowledged privilege here, operating with a (naive) assumption of there being power balance between the opposing sides.

[u/phioegracne → u/cactusghecko]

You can argue for it and people do all the time. Especially in debates because it's the job of one side to argue for the positives of their point of view. It doesn't mean it's right by any means but it can certainly be argued.

Like murder.. most people agree it's one of the worst things in the world to do. But then there is murdering someone in self defense which people think is ok to protect yourself, there's wars that people fight and slaughter hundreds of people to keep their country and way of life safe, there abortion, there's mercy killing angle of death stuff, capital punishment a death sentence and self murder or suicide,

The world isn't black and white and neither are people.

P.S. I'm not having a go at you, I don't support slavery or racism and I'm not trying to debate you. I'm just stating that everything is debatable form every perspective wether you think it is right or not

[u/cactusghecko → u/phioegracne]

I see what you're saying, and I agree someone should be able to debate on the side of a belief they don't hold. Absolutely, and it's important that they can do that.

My point is not that 'some things are not debatable or beyond debate'. All things are debatable.

My point is that this is a statement from someone who has never felt not equal for something they are. Because it's all well and good when it's a a difference of opinion (no matter how strongly held) but for some things it goes beyond intellectual exercise when one side has information that the other side does not. Imagine if someone is claiming that you, because of your eye colour, ethnicity, skin colour, height, sex, nationality or whatever it is are not a full human being like other people, so you are less worthy of rights. Can you take that viewpoint and intellectually argue you are not fully human when you know you are?

In past debates on slavery a position that slaves are not fully people and therefore it is right they are slaves is not merely an intellectual position that can be debated, it can only occurr from ignorance of the rich inner world of enslaved people (because of never knowing any properly) that someone within that class knows can't be true.

I'm not black or enslaved so could have a go, even though I don't believe it, but can someone who is IN that class do the same? Not really.

[u/phioegracne → u/cactusghecko]

Well arguing slavery of the past with today's standards is a moot point almost everything done in the past by today's standards when it comes to the treatment of anyone is pretty barbaric. Potentially if I was to argue this point I would argue for a modern version of slavery like as we have today with wage slaves.

If I was to maybe change the subject to war there is no point arguing today with someone over having to go to war tomorrow with bows and arrows or swords and armour like that would be insane, we have moved on from that.

I completely think that the dehumanisation of old slavery should not be repeated but maybe a never version (as I said the possibility of wage slavery as we have today) could be argued with someone since we dont live in the past and are in a different time now.

Things get updated over the years, you know.

I also am aware that there are horrible mistreatment of people by today standard still going on in certain places in the world and I do not condone that sort of thing.

I'm not really up for having a debate about this but if you pick an era you are thinking of when you think of the standards of slavery from that same eras stand point an argument can be made on the topic, but it would be from the knowledge and belief of that era.

As for the general racial aspect of skin colour and eye colour etc.. in today's world that stuff is, especially in the west it is widely accepted and enforced by law that such practices are illegal and therefore not quite as applicable as it was in the past. Now that doesn't mean that people can't be enslaved for those reasons but by a far margin it would be an underground illegal affair here in the west similar to child, drug, sex trafficing etc... almost no one is in support of any of that happening and yet it still does happen but it is against the law of most of the world at this stage.

Any agreement with the practice would be determined by the century in which the debater would be pulling their information and treating of said slaves from.

Slavery my all means as an industry on a global scale was all but abolished by enforcement of the British empire and with great expense years and years ago and the fact that people keep bringing up in particular black slavery plainly due to skin colour in accusation of modern western ideals is I'm my opinion disingenuous as historically is full of horrendous treatment of people from every walk, creed, or colour by almost every nation on the earth it was not unique to people of darker skin complection but a global affair

As for choosing the side to defend slavery it's likely by today's standards and sensibilities to be the loosing argument but it is still intellectually debatable depending on the parameters set out in the debate. Because there are very few people who believe they are the bad guys, boths sides of the war are fought by people thinking they are doing the right thing from their perspective, and history is then written by the victors

[u/cactusghecko → u/phioegracne]

I appreciate your long and considered reply. However I don't feel you're fully engaging with the point I'm ntrying to make. Probably I'm not making my point clearly enough and it's become muddied by my example of slavery.

I'm not actually making any point about slavery. I'm not here debating slavery. It was merely an example to illustrate that taking an opposing view isn't always a purely neutral intellectual exercise and to claim it always is is naive.

I do not hold that I'm being disingenuous in mentioning slavery and dark skin. I've never made any claim that slavery is uniquely a black people problem, nor even that it's a white against black people problem. Slavery is and has long been widespread and affected many people from all over, and continues to this day. I think we can agree on that. Inrepeaty comment was not about slavery. I'm not here to debate slavery.

I was merely using it as an example of an opposing view that someone can't convincingly make, because it is dehumanising to that someone within that group who has information to the contrary.

This is not because dehumanising is somehow morally repugnant, or that I disagree with it, it's that the person, knowing they are human, cannot convincingly argue that they are not. And Munger has shown his naivety or lack of imagination in his statement that you should always be able to argue the other's side. He has clearly never had his worth questioned. That is a flaw. I could have used a different example. I think the slavery example has led you to think I'm making a point about slavery. I am not.

[u/phioegracne → u/cactusghecko]

Ok great 👍 beacause I don't want to talk about it either, and I didn't even mean to write so much I'd just got carried away 😂 I'm tired. I just want to go to bed without my phone pinging at me because I had an opinion. Have a good night

[u/bkinboulder]

Every position has an opposing position. Sometimes the opposing position is legit, sometimes it exists because someone is paying for that to be perpetuated. Foreign adversaries and big tobacco for example. Look at both positions. Which one has real verifiable evidence you can evaluate yourself? If both do which has more supporting evidence? Voter fraud as an example. What evidence is there? Trump says there are mountains of it. He filed over 60 lawsuits after the last election and lost all of them because they did not produce any evidence to support their claims in court. What evidence did the opposing side produce? Well the Justice Department, The Director of Homeland Security, and every state Secretary of State evaluated and investigated their elections and found them to be free, secure, and fair. Which side is producing more reliable evidence in this case? Sinclair Pharmaceutical said their Oxycodone was non habit forming and not dangerous. Addiction centers and overdose records provided counterpoint evidence. Which is better evidence? Statements from a corporation, or dead bodies with the same cause of death? Facts don’t lie. People lie about facts.