@niclas @bonifartius Good point. I could be wrong but it feels back in the day (not so long ago, granddad and grandma wars days) doing these kinds of thorough talk or consideration were part of looking at things in a 'proper manner' perhaps more objectively even to allow someone to say their piece / peace. A scientific like approach of humility or politeness being taught how to argue in a soft semi-regimental manner even to be fair to the opposite side!

And staying calm, not rush - "make time for it next week over some tennis! Your place or mine for tea after ?"

So to switch side in understanding is really useful for immersing one's self into by representing each side (learning that side as you go along and really believing it or discovering subject or person)... with the help of others doing the same too... a WIN WIN for everyone ...if they can funnel emotions into logic etc not to bottleneck.

Would be good if people could practice or teach that!

I have to catch myself occasionally but I think I have already the stance everyone is right or just human or acting in some way accordingly to something else so it's really just that or different ways to same thing. Above a minimum understanding it can work and for the below par the rest are not climbers at all probably and not willing for the friction in understanding things or longer pieces of puzzles and prefer to stay at the bottom completely. (Doesn't help everything is so layered or complicated or said 100 times or multi-meaning words and double-speak !)

A world where it makes space by default and respects how people are as individuals is my dram! So people or their principles can find their place, have stuff suggested but others, or probably to help them create the diversity a bit after really thinking it through (because a lot now deliberately is non-existence by design and needs creating again!)

Oh well, seems like a nice idea and even nice period of time but also probably not perfect or too distant in how people just ping pong over tea but not real change in their life. Head over to my profile for some of that! And happy to hear differences if it can progress a bit!

This was the original text just as reminder:
"academics were tasked to argue for/against any position on any subject, then to switch side and continue."

^----- probably called different names for this kind of process or but "devil's advocate" is probably a variation to help see things from a viewpoint without necessarily already believing in it or too stuck on one side or the other before finding out all the details or nuances.

More welcome about techniques on that or those kinds of people.Good point. I could be wrong but it feels back in the day (not so long ago, granddad and grandma wars days) doing these kinds of thorough talk or consideration were part of looking at things in a 'proper manner' perhaps more objectively even to allow someone to say their piece / peace. A scientific like approach of humility or politeness being taught how to argue in a soft semi-regimental manner even to be fair to the opposite side!

And staying calm, not rush - "make time for it next week over some tennis! Your place or mine for tea after ?"

So to switch side is really useful for immersing and understanding one's self and others and the topic by representing each side (learning that side as you go along and really believing it or discovering subject or person) and then changing side... with the help of others doing the same too... a WIN WIN for everyone (...if they can funnel emotions into logic etc not to bottleneck...).

Would be good if people could practice or teach that!
I've been in some group chat that do just that - Happy to lead one, it's quite simple and is like a round table where each goes around talking for few mins and also answering theme questions by talk organiser / moderator.

I have to catch myself occasionally feeling things but I think I have already the stance everyone is right or just human or acting in some way accordingly to something else so it's really just that or different ways to same thing. Above a minimum understanding it can work and for the below par the rest are not climbers at all probably and not willing for the friction in understanding things or longer pieces of puzzles and prefer to stay at the bottom completely. (Doesn't help everything is so layered or complicated or said 100 times or multi-meaning words and double-speak !)

A world where it makes space by default and respects how people are as individuals is my dram! So people or their principles can find their place, have stuff suggested but others, or probably to help them create the diversity a bit after really thinking it through (because a lot now deliberately is non-existence by design and needs creating again!)

Oh well, seems like a nice idea and even nice period of time but also probably not perfect or too distant in how people just ping pong over tea but not real change in their life. Head over to my profile for some of that! And happy to hear differences if it can progress a bit!

This was the original text just as reminder:
"academics were tasked to argue for/against any position on any subject, then to switch side and continue."

^----- probably called different names for this kind of process or but "devil's advocate" is probably a variation to help see things from a viewpoint without necessarily already believing in it or too stuck on one side or the other before finding out all the details or nuances.

More welcome about techniques on that or those kinds of people.