TL;DR
Considering counter arguments is crucial for intellectual growth and interpersonal understanding. Failing to explore opposing viewpoints leads to shallow understanding and bias. By embracing diverse perspectives, we enhance decision-making, empathy, and tolerance, we also nurture the intellectual humility and open-mindedness that are essential for navigating complex issues and engaging constructively with others.
As a high school student, I was no fan of the argumentative essay. I would form an argument, expend enormous amounts of energy in making it convincing, and then get only half the mark. Half the mark, all the time, because much to my English Language teacher’s chagrin I almost never had a counter argument.
These days, it is not uncommon to encounter people like my former self, who have strong opinions but no counter arguments. What/where is the counter argument?
Should we listen to such people?
Will you trust a scooter salesperson who can contrive scenario after scenario to convince you that a scooter is better than a bicycle, but cannot think of a single instance when a bicycle is better? And who is more likely to remain a good person, someone who is good because they have never known evil, or someone who is good because they have seen good and evil and have delibrately chosen good?
As I have grown older, I have realised that the little inconvenience of always thinking about the counter argument gives us a fundamental edge in many aspects; from facilitating complete subject mastery, to tolerance, and learning to listen to others.
Let us start with the counter argument and mastery.
In On Liberty, the English philosopher, John Stuart Mill argued that we cannot know the truth about a matter until we hear the other side. Mill wrote that “The only way in which a human being can make some approach to knowing the whole of a subject, is by hearing what can be said about it by persons of every variety of opinion, and studying all modes in which it can be looked at by every character of mind. No wise man ever acquired his wisdom in any mode but this; nor is it in the nature of human intellect to become wise in any other manner.”
The failure to grasp (and sometimes present) a counter argument often betrays a shallow understanding and an increased likelihood of bias. On the other hand, learning to always consider counter arguments could be a powerful antidote to bias. Suppose you were a hedge fund manager considering an investment. A very objective approach could be read every bearish and bullish opinion critically before deciding, as opposed to reading only the bearish opinion. One cold argue that when we don’t know/have counter arguments, we are in fact reading either bearish or bullish opinions, and it doesn’t take a Warren Buffet to appreciate the long-term implications.
And now, unto listening.
In The Art of War, Sun Tzu argued that “If you know the enemy and know yourself, you need not fear the result of a hundred battles. If you know yourself but not the enemy, for every victory gained you will also suffer a defeat. If you know neither the enemy nor yourself, you will succumb in every battle.” While I do not want to draw any parallels between listening to peers and engaging with enemies, consider that it becomes much easier to listen when we have some background knowledge or expectation of what others will say. Such preparation (building a counter argument) also makes it easier to empathise with others, as it forces us to consider why they may hold views that are in opposition to ours.
As we become increasingly busy and the quality of our interactions decline, it may be increasingly difficult to listen to different sets of people who may be drawing inspiration from sources or experiences that are alien to us. As such, it is important that we prepare to listen by considering counter arguments before and when we engage with others. Former US Supreme Court Justice, Lewis F. Powell Jr, knew this all too well and hired clerks that were likely to disagree with him so that he could encounter compelling arguments on differing positions first in the privacy of his chamber rather than unexpectedly at conference.
And what about tolerance?
My very good friend, Neb, accuses me of being a moral relativist because I think, in part, that there is often no right or wrong counsel, only the circumstance. I think it has a lot to do with constructing counter arguments; for to construct a counter argument is to explore extensively the circumstances in which one might be wrong, and to realise that to be right is not a given. It is a humbling experience that often forcefully brings to light the complexity of the question under consideration and draws our attention to the fact that nothing is set in stone.
I once read that the most damage in history has been caused by people who were absolutely certain that they were right. While exploring counter arguments may make us “moral relativists”, to the extent that it makes us appreciate the various shades of grey, I think it is an important tool for building tolerance.
Anytime you feel so strongly about anything, a good point of reflection will be to ask yourself, “What/where is the counter argument?” To not know what the counter argument might be is an indication that you may not know that you are wrong and that you may have a hard time listening to and/or tolerating other people.
What/Where is the counter argument?