[iamnafets]

This is mostly off-topic, but being able to identify or root out the value mismatches between people in a discussion (as you've done) seems like an essential ingredient to productive discussion.

I've noticed that people who can do this are disproportionately better at achieving their goals than those who can't, especially in engineering organizations. Exceptions of course for zealots and revolutionaries.

[rak00n]

"Observe, this is the beginning of philosophy, a perception of the disagreement of men with one another, and an inquiry into the cause of disagreement, and a condemnation and distrust of that which only `seems', and a certain investigation of that which `seems' whether it `seems' rightly..." - Epictetus, The Discourses.

[chris_st]

Absolutely. This even works at a somewhat lower level... I remember hearing an argument between two cow-orkers, and realizing that each was thinking different (but similar!) things, but assuming the other was thinking the same thing. Angriness ensued...

[Chris2048]

> Angriness ensued...

This usually only happens when one begins to make personal insults, i.e. "only a poor programmer would think that!"..

[bthallplz]

This skill is one of the key differences that I've noticed among philosophy students (majors) and everyone else, with their skill being far more developed than others'.

I'm not sure if persons with the skill are more disposed towards studying philosophy or the study of philosophy prompts the development and demonstration of that skill more, but hang out with the philosophy kids and you might come to refine this skill by social osmosis.

[superjisan]

Wow! This made me think deep thoughts man.