Just dipped back into “12 Rules for Life,” by Jordan B. Peterson after several month’s neglect. He talks about thinking, an act which most of us fail to do most of the time.
Thinking is listening to yourself. It’s difficult. To think, you have to be at least two people at the same time. Then you have to let those people disagree.
Peterson goes on to suggest that real thinking requires a special kind of honesty (my words, not his), because no one monitors your thoughts to see if you’re giving them free play, or merely willfully deceiving yourself. There’s no social pressure to tell the truth between your ears.
You can’t set straw men against one another when you’re thinking, either, because then you’re not thinking. You’re rationalizing, post-hoc. You’re matching what you want against a weak opponent so that you don’t have to change your mind. You’re propagandizing. You’re using double-speak. You’re using your conclusions to justify your proofs. You’re hiding from the truth. — Jordan B. Peterson, 12 Rules for Life
I’m working on a book, too. It’s about winning arguments by first winning people — by being winsome. What Peterson wrote, reminded me of this portion of my forthcoming book.
WinSome strategy calls for careful, authentic consideration of the other person’s case. This is not a mere tactic, but actual wisdom. It’s not a call to simply listen in order to refute, but rather to listen to learn.
To persuade effectively, one must be persuaded. If your views stand on one leg alone, because you have never considered the other possibilities, then your efforts will ultimately fail.
If you actually listen to learn, you have to be prepared for the possibility that your own mind might change on a particular point, or perhaps on the entire issue.
While that sounds scary, it’s actually at the core of speaking the truth.
I have confidence in my views on a wide range of subjects, and I’m always open to new information, or ideas I’ve not yet considered fully or fairly.
“Wait a minute, Scott Ott! Are you suggesting that in order to persuade others of what I believe I must be open to the possibility that they could persuade me instead?”
Yes. That’s why it’s called dialogue rather than monologue.
Political, philosophical and theological dialogue is not a mere parlor game indulged by witty contestants. The issues discussed affect the well-being of one’s self and of others. These ideas run to the essence of life.
An intelligent, authentic person must engage in such discussions with a devotion to the truth that supersedes preconceived notions. If you’re not willing to be persuaded by truth and facts, then you’re not really engaging in dialogue.
Am I afraid that I might get into a discussion on some important topic and find myself transitioning to the other side?
No.
I’m not afraid of using my mind for legitimate inquiry, nor of acknowledging my own finite capabilities. I know I’m not right about everything all of the time, but I want to be. The only way to get there is to keep listening and learning.
To be fully persuaded of my own position on an issue or question, I must legitimately consider the alternatives, give those arguments their full weight, avoid mischaracterizing or caricaturing them. I must never close the door to the possibility that I’m wrong.
If my views are correct, then there is no fear in this approach. It will merely reinforce what I already believe – perhaps even more strongly than before.
If my views are questionable, or wrong, then there is no fear in this approach. After all, I certainly would not want to hold views that could not withstand scrutiny, or that tottered on flimsy evidence or dodgy reasoning.
— Scott Ott, WinSome: How to Actually Win Arguments (forthcoming book)
2 replies on “On Real Thinking: Jordan B. Peterson”
Have you come across the term steel man? The inverse of straw man i.e. considering a stronger form of an argument even though a weaker form may have been presented.
I have not seen that term, RG, although my understanding of a “straw man argument” is one that underestimates the weight of your opponent’s case. The contrary of that (e.g. “steel man”) would seem useful if one wishes to strengthen one’s own case by mustering the most powerful arguments against it.