One exercise I saw named by Eric Weinstein (I could be wrong and am open to correction on that) is “steel-manning” as a verb.
We all know what a straw man argument is; one poses the weakest available case for an opponents’ position and tears it to shreds. The steel man exercise is just the opposite; one attempts to verbalize the best argument his opponent has... and keeps attempting until his opponent admits he has characterized the position in a satisfactory light.
Whatever neuroscientists may hypothesize about the mechanics of decision making, the exercise described above seems to me to offer a way to intelligently converse with people of differing opinions.
Of course to do so one must set aside the prevailing sentiment of deconstructionism so rife in our society which tears every “old” idea down as a mere power grab by those who seek to manipulate the masses and embrace the possibility that there is ultimate truth somewhere. Additionally one must have the courage of intellect to recognize the old adage that it is possible to engage in and consider an idea seriously without subscribing to it.
Again, sorry to the OP for the “off topic” post.
Good post my friend. Sounds like something Weinstein would say, and yes, it's very much on topic.
You didn't use logic or reason to get into this opinion, I cannot use logic or reason to get you out of it.
You cannot over estimate the unimportance of nearly everything. John Maxwell
