This has always been my reaction whenever i get emotional in an argument.

And i hate that feeling, thank you very much.

Of course, i've been getting better at handling it, through a fun little process called emotional self-regulation.

Part of it comes from reframing what an argument is really about.

• Old me: "arguments are two people who hate each other."
• New me: "arguments are two people shaping each other."

Especially if said argument is about a problem, not a person.

The best way to evaluate a problem is by looking at all possible angles around it.

And this is where a doctrine like Dissoi Logoi comes in.

Dissoi whatnow?

Dissoi Logoi, friend.

It's an idea without a known author, though it seems to have surfaced sometime in Ancient Greece.

And its point is extremely simple, yet extremely powerful.

We don’t really understand something until we’ve looked at it through our opponent’s point of view.

In other words, it advocates for the value of thinking as if you’re not quite being yourself.

Here's a handy thought experiment about it:

In Portuguese we say you can't please Greeks and Trojans, and this is probably why.

Everyone has their own views of things.

My stellar idea might be your idea of shame.

And, of course, vice-versa.

But the deeper problem is how inherently lazy our brains are.

How they absolutely love a narrative that creates coherence, which in turn injects life with meaning.

And once we find that narrative, oh boy is it hard to let go of it.

So we stick to it.

And we fight for it.

Even if it gets irrational.

Even if the evidence may show we're being dumb.

We know this happens, because a certain election just proved it keeps happening.

Here's the kicker though, i don't think people do this because they're evil.

I don't even subscribe to the idea that it's because most people are stupid.

I think of it as a function of people feeling overwhelmed by their reality.

And the allure of a simple (even if divisive) narrative goes down easily.

So, when faced with overwhelm, we fight, flight or freeze.

And sticking to your narrative is one way of fighting (other views), fleeing (an emotion), or freezing (via inertia).

Which takes us back to the value of debate and Dissoi Logoi.

Debate isn't about trying to win over others, it's about trying to mutually sharpen each others' views.

There should be an incentive (social status wise at least) for changing your mind after a conversation!

For this to be manageable, we need two ingredients:

• Conviction that an exchange is necessary
• Humility that it may not go our way

Notice how it's not conviction in your own views, it's conviction in the need for views to get swapped.

Very different things.

With this frame of mind, it matters less what our ego thinks is the right answer a priori.

It matters more what our ego concludes might be "the less wrong view" after the exchange happened.

After all, if all we want is to be right all the time, we will live a life of extreme pain and suffering.

But if we entertain the idea that our job is to learn to be less wrong, some levity emerges.

And i don't know about you, i could do with a renewed dose of levity.

​

Rob Estreitinho Strategist, writer, maker 💌 Read our newsletter archive​ 📱 Join our private community​ 🛠️ See our latest strategy work​ 🤙 Book a 1:1 call with me​

​