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.

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

1. Take a belief you strongly disagree with.
2. Ask: "What real observation or concern does this belief respond to?" Separate the observation from the conclusion drawn from it.
3. Ask: "Is the observation itself valid, even if the conclusion is not?"
4. If yes, incorporate the valid observation into your own position. This is genuinely updating, not just tolerating.

Evidence

The 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. (mechanistic)

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.

Sources

• 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.