I regularly rubber duck to my partners to figure out if my idea is bad. Sometimes something sounds good bouncing around in your brain, but hearing the words out loud make you realize just how dumb some of the things you think are at times.
I was hanging out with my friend in his backyard and we heard some incredibly loud birds. I asked if he knew what they were and he said he thought robins.
I suggested we should go out with [some other friends who recently got into birding] and he wasn't on board...
"Ehhh birding is like....you gotta go out to the woods and walk around until you hear one...so you're just kinda chillin there..."
I interrupted him. "Dude...you love hanging out. You love hiking. You LOVE the woods."
"Yeah. I realized as soon as I started talking that I'd love it but I just let my mind form an argument anyway for some reason"
Yep, sometimes we're talking about something at work and in the middle of explaining my point I understand the flaw and just "oh, nevermind, you guys are righ" always a good exercise in logic and humility
I regularly encourage my co workers to speak out loud with me when going over processes or thoughts because by bouncing it between the 2 of us it's more likely that one of us will spot the massive glowing mistake someone made
So far it's been working quite well as we build out an entirely new SOP from scratch
Yeah I’ve been going crazy as I don’t have anyone else in my department for this. Like I don’t see the flaws in my thoughts until I start explaining shit to my boss because when you’re working on something your head is in a very different place from discussing it
I strongly think it's because people can grow up trained to tie their identity to their beliefs and values. Self reflection becomes a direct attack on their identity.
Isn't that literally the point of debate though?
Like it's not just a discussion, it's about arguing your case the best? That's how I've understood it anyway
I'd say that determining truth - or the closest we can get to it - is the point of debate. In a perfect world, both parties would be pleased to reach the same conclusion by the end, no matter whose original case was right.
Formalized debate, yes, but a lot of people go into all discussions like that to the point I’d say it’s poisoning our culture. The goal should be a collective arrival at a place closer to truth than either began at.
A distinction that sometimes gets lost is that winning a debate doesn't mean being right. I had a friend who did debate and quite often she had to argue in favour of things she was vehemently against, and won doing so. I wish I could remember examples, but there were a couple of things where she actually thought it was easier to argue what she felt were the wrong positions, because there were more rhetorical angles she could take, whereas arguing the side she actually believed would be more reliant on things that she felt were self-evident.
Too many people think arbitrary lines in the sand on random topics before science has any means to catch up is a debate vs a discussion. The lens at which you're looking at it through is one of the most important topics to start off with. The 'debate' which follows hinges almost exclusively on finding/arguing for the semantics of your definition.
I've had one too many 'debates' about whether true AI has a 'soul' when people can barely tell me how they define Artificial Intelligence (generalized now bleugh) succinctly.
The more recent one was whether humans have 'free will'. Meanwhile every three paragraphs or so the other guy was dropping nonsensical memes with figurative 'gotchas' while two of us were sharing constantly lol.
After all the fun tangents from natural discussion the gotcha guy started to get a chip on the shoulder like so many of the types do. I had to flat out ask him how he even defined free will and he couldn't even give me a clear answer lol. I started talking about semantics and he dropped the 'you know arguing semantics isn't a bad thing right?'
Like yeah dude... That's nearly half the reason we make new words to better define things. It's literally arguing semantics, that's what half of debate is at it's essence. People arguing positions wildly 'different' from the other person because they refused to believe this WORD/IDEA includes these definitions.
You then get to the point of 'debate' when you inarguably come to a line in the sand that becomes yes/no on opposite sides. Walk away knowing that's why they believe what they believe because that's the root of their definition.
Then you hopefully wait for science to catch up... or just arbitrarily declare you win!... then get angry because everyone else isn't as mad about it as you were so now you gotta pretend like you didn't have a chip on your shoulder the whole time because you equate being right with your worth rather than being right for the sake of being right or trying to understand someone deeper.
