[isogon]

I think it is valuable to read a hundred convincingly-written arguments in favor of one point of view, become convinced, and then read a hundred opposing arguments and again become convinced. This maintains my awareness of the fact that I'm a terrible judge of veracity of arguments. Since I want to know what happens in the world, I must be exposed to arguments, so I think it's very important to be viscerally aware that I'm an idiot and should use a lot of care.

As for why I want to know what happens in the world and particularly where I live (i.e. North America), it is because those events affect me. If I were on an information diet, then I would probably miss, for example, the recent passing of S.386 [0] by the US Senate, which is intimately relevant to me as my long-term goal is to immigrate to the US.

[0] https://www.congress.gov/bill/116th-congress/senate-bill/386...

[jorgesborges]

That’s very perceptive. Have you been surprised at all, after reading both arguments, which side of the fence you wind up on?

[tshaddox]

This seems to presume that these points of view you’re talking about have no objective truth value, and that the only worthwhile exercise is constructing “convincingly-written” rhetoric to support one side or another.

[chordalkeyboard]

I don't take that from the gp at all. My perspective is that he seems to be saying you're not going to understand a position on an issue until you internalize it "as if" it was your own belief. By internalizing one belief and then another that contradicts it, you can truly compare them on the merits and perhaps become aware of the objective reality that they both share.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thesis,_antithesis,_synthesis