Find what is genuinely right about positions you disagree with
Most positions you strongly disagree with are right about something important — finding that part is intellectually obligatory.
Key takeaways
- What it is: Most positions you strongly disagree with are right about something important — finding that part is intellectually obligatory.
- Why it works: Persistent beliefs, even those you think are wrong overall, typically persist because they accurately identify a real phenomenon or concern even if they misdiagnose its cause or solution. Finding the true part of a false belief does two things: it provides an honest account of why the belief has traction (useful for changing minds), and it often reveals a genuine insight you had not incorporated into your own position. The mechanism is update-oriented rather than debate-oriented.
- Evidence: Plausible mechanism, limited direct outcome data.
- Avoid: Using "there’s something to this" as a polite concession rather than a genuine analytical finding — the practice requires actually incorporating the valid part, not just acknowledging it.
Why it works
Persistent beliefs, even those you think are wrong overall, typically persist because they accurately identify a real phenomenon or concern even if they misdiagnose its cause or solution. Finding the true part of a false belief does two things: it provides an honest account of why the belief has traction (useful for changing minds), and it often reveals a genuine insight you had not incorporated into your own position. The mechanism is update-oriented rather than debate-oriented.
How to do it
- 1Take a belief you strongly disagree with.
- 2Ask: "What real observation or concern does this belief respond to?" Separate the observation from the conclusion drawn from it.
- 3Ask: "Is the observation itself valid, even if the conclusion is not?"
- 4If yes, incorporate the valid observation into your own position. This is genuinely updating, not just tolerating.
What the evidence says
MechanisticThe practice of finding what is right in opposing views is a philosophical norm and is consistent with the psychological literature on integrative complexity — the ability to hold multiple perspectives simultaneously correlates with better judgment quality in some research.
Honest caveat: Finding what is right in an opposing view is different from false balance. Not all views have equal truth value in their kernel; some views are responding to misperceptions rather than real observations.
- — Tetlock (1983), "Accountability and complexity of thought," Journal of Personality and Social Psychology — on integrative complexity
Common mistake
Using "there’s something to this" as a polite concession rather than a genuine analytical finding — the practice requires actually incorporating the valid part, not just acknowledging it.
IX Coach surfaces the valid core of objections and resistance you encounter, rather than helping you argue past them — because the kernel of truth in an obstacle often contains the key to resolving it.
Practice this with IX Coach →