We figure things out best when it's done in dialogue with others. This is exemplified by the dialectic process - that is, the good faith sharing of diverging views, exchanging the best arguments supporting those views, all for the purpose of revealing new insights.
This has a few implications as well as some practical applications.
Firstly, (well-chosen) other people are our best defence against self-deception and being deceived by bullsh1t in general. Bouncing things off another person also helps to avoid errors that result from misconstruing the problem.
There is a crucial distinction to make here. What we are describing is the conscious act of engaging in discussion for the purposes of discovery and figuring things out. This is very different from the not uncommon alternative scenario whereby the protagonists approach the debate like a contest, such that the primary concern is winning the argument (complete with point-scoring, disrespecting the other side and misrepresenting their argument).
Dialogue does however require genuine exchange, which relies on the respective parties engaging in the right spirit. Exchange requires that each side is ready to both share and listen. Humility is required to separate our ego from our stated position and we need to afford the other party the necessary respect to fully engage with the substance of the critique being offered. In order for this process to yield transformative insights, we also need to genuinely entertain whatever alternative explanations are being proposed.
Part of the reciprocal commitment involves being ready to have our cherished ideas challenged and allowing our positions on different topics be exposed to serious scrutiny. A proven tool for this exact purpose is the Socratic method. This can be described as cooperative argumentative dialogue - also known as asking the hard questions. More specifically, each statement and argument elicits follow up questions to drill down to the bedrock assumptions.
To serve our quest for practical wisdom in the professional sphere and beyond we can seek out those who genuinely wish to exchange ideas and share our commitment to figuring things out. Cultivating a group of people who bring diversity of opinion and experience to bounce ideas is a great investment. It is crucial to have people that we can call on who are willing to be candid, challenge us and respectfully call bullsh1t. The higher we climb and more status we attain, the more critical it become to have people around who are prepared to argue and disagree with us.
Finally, there are a few solo practices that we can engage in. An interesting finding is that purposeful mental dialogue with ourselves (as opposed to ruminating on the problem in an unproductive manner) can benefit judgement in much the same way as having the exchange with another person. Something we can take from Plato is the idea of 'internalising the sage', such that the imagined interlocutor in our head is somebody we respect. In this way, the inner coach we converse with becomes the voice of reason, posing astute questions (borrowing from the Socratic method) and offering a more detached perspective. Writing is also a form of dialogue - in the sense that we are conversing not only with the reader (real and imagined) but also with ourselves.
Cover photo credit: Photo by Shelby Cohron on Unsplash
