Like that thing that something something sign of a good mind is abillity to hold two conflicting thoughts and something/can’t remember the rest
Also, what is that thing/saying, anyone know? Not cognitive dissonance
It’s a powerful debate move, really. It signals that you are aware of the flaws in your own argument and that you’re prepared to debate them on the merits. It also takes the wind from the sails of your opposition because you’ve already owned those points, taking them out of play for then to argue effectively
That being said, acknowledging the flaws in your argunent doesn’t negate them. They can still be used to scuttle your position.
[off topic?]
Back when the Americans were debating the Constitution, one delegate got up in the morning and spent hours explaining why America needed a King. He put forth every argument and defended them. That afternoon he got up and spent the rest of his time explaining why they shouldn’t have a King.
Showing you understand both sides is a good idea.
and it’s a quick way to identify those who can’t.
Dialectic thinking is a method of reasoning and analysis that involves examining and reconciling opposing or contradictory ideas or perspectives.
deleted by creator
Having said that, I realize the phrasing is a bit unwieldy haha
I see what you did there.
No idea why they used title case but the above is a discussion of the origins of the quote you were looking for.
The full original quote is “the test of a first-rate intelligence is the ability to hold two opposed ideas in the mind at the same time, and still retain the ability to function.”
In a general sense, yes that’s a very good way to think and to communicate as well.
When you are dealing with clients however, never draw attention to downsides.
When you were dealing with regular folks, it’s much better to lead-in with something non-specific that lightly acknowledges it’s an imperfect idea, and then you proceed. Leaving the door open for doubt is often enough without having to spill your guts about conflicting feelings or thoughts.
When you are dealing with clients however, never draw attention to downsides.
If your goal is to be a bullshit artist, worth little more than whatever crap you’re peddling at the moment, absolutely - otherwise this is not good advice. And all you have to do is take thirty seconds to reflect on the last time you humoured someone who was being disingenuous about their value to you.
Done tactfully, being up-front about deficiencies can make the difference between being seen as a trusted advisor or another self-interested parasite.
My suggestion would be to put the flaws first, and then finish off with the strengths of your argument. It leaves things on a better note.
Having said that, you definitely brought up a great point!
I think I get what you’re trying to say, and think the answer is yes.
I know I say it often cuz I’d rather get in front of when I know there’s a valid objection or complication coming and I’d rather own it sooner so if the person uses it but isn’t invested in it, they’ll sort of help argue my case for me 😉 or I’ll get genuine conviction from the other side when they present their take on it
But also, I belive the things I think and know are a model of the world I need to get as close as possible to accurate so I wanna know its wrong asap and get it fixed so I know better
Is it this that you’re looking for?
Thanks for that! Very cool source, bookmarked lol
I think it’s a sign of intelligence to be able to recognize the potential flaws and fallacies in your own thinking, and to acknowledge that your ideas are just opinions based on your OWN experience, not necessarily the same for everyone across the board.
Walt Whitman said, “If I contradict myself, then I conradict myself; I am large, I contain multitudes.” I like to use that as a motto, because often I realize my own opinions can be contradictory, and that they change from circumstance to circumstance. That’s not to say one can’t have a cohesive set of moral values, but rather that change and dialogue are important inputs and require the maturity to accept that you always have room for new ideas.
Is it a sign of that thing that’s supposed to be good?
I’m not sure I’m parsing your question right
Are you trying to say cognitive dissonance?
…cause I definitely felt some cognitive dissonance reading this post.
There’s a negative connotation one (cognitive dissonance) and then there’s a positive connotation one that is different but has something to do with being able to examine an idea or two conflicting ideas without having it affect your objectivity + mental distress.
Isn’t cognitive dissonance an uncomfortable thing? What I’m thinking of is the opposite of discomfort with the conflicting ideas
Understanding? Just basic understanding? As in these days people subscribe to pop politics and live for sound bites and marketed simplified ideas… They don’t understand. But if you talk to someone that does understand they will grow and build with each conversation.
I think OP is trying to argue the kinda the opposite (but not fully) of cognitive dissonance.
Acknowledging the flaws in something they support, but still thinking it’s the best VS pretending there’s no flaws in what they support and thinking it’s the only option because of it.
