What’s the point of a discussion with someone who holds a view different than your own?

Is it to “win?”

Or is it learn and improve your own understanding?

The second mindset completely changes the game. Rather than seeking to expose the other person and poke holes in their argument, we actually listen to understand. We start with curiousity.

There’s an interesting phrase I’ve heard from Eric Weinstein that summarizes the approach – “steelmanning.”

It’s the exact opposite of the strawman approach in which you try to avoid the other side’s best arguments so that you can win. Instead, you try to build up their argument. You look for the strongest parts of their perspective and look past any superficial semantic mistakes they might make in their explanation.

Not artificially, but so you can actually understand their point of view and build trust from the other party that they’re being heard.

This approach leads to a very different experience, and one that I feel is much more useful than a traditional debate.

If the goal is to make an impact, it’s worth the effort to understand what you’re talking about before diving on the offensive.

-Brandon