1. Both parties should accept the possibility of being wrong
If you were wrong, would you want to know? If the answer is no, then no point in discussing.
2. Discussion should be about premises (facts) and reasoning, rather than views directly
Views themselves should not be pre-determined or challenged. Views should be a function of premises and reasoning. If a premise changes, or better reasoning is found, your view should update accordingly. E.g:
# GOOD
reasoning_function(premise) -> view
Note: The opposite of this is confirmation bias, illustrated as:
# BAD
find_facts_to_backup_view(view) -> premise
3. Accept that you probably have a bias, and go into conversation actively looking for it
People are generally good at critiquing opposing sides/views, but not their own views.
Signs you may have bias:
- If you find yourself constantly trying to “make one side work” in your head (see #2 about confirmation bias)
- If your reason/premise for a view is “Everyone knows” or “It just is” instead of hard fact (see #2)
- If presented with evidence against an existing view, you refuse to accept this new view as a possibility (this violates #1)
4. Nuanced perspectives are valid and encouraged
Things are generally not black and white, there are usually gradations. Avoid the hyper-partisan trap of modern politics.
- You can agree with one component of an argument, and disagree with another.
- Agreeing with one component of a side does not imply total agreement of a side.
- Separate logical arguments should be recognized as separate.
5. Attempt to understand the intention behind someone’s statement
Rather than pedantically pick apart specific wording of a statement
6. Being right / wrong doesn’t matter, only figuring out the truth
A “weighing balance” mentality instead of “My team vs your team” helps here.
This is science and discovery, not competition.