“You don't need to like a thing in order to agree with that thing.” Thoughts?

[hoag]

So this may be a fairly common concept to many people, but weirdly, it only occurred to me a decade or so ago, and I've really come to love it; it's helped put me in the correct mental state regarding several pressing issues over the years.

And before someone says something like "yeah, that's what following the data is all about" or something similar, I agree: plenty of times working at our startups in the past I certainly had to make a business decision I didn't like simply because I couldn't disagree with the data.

So I guess that's a fairly good example, but I'm curious to hear of other examples where you really don't like something -- or perhaps you're opposed to it, for instance, for religious reasons, or simply because of how you were raised I suppose -- but you're nevertheless compelled to agree with it and to support it just because it's the most correct thing amongst all other alternatives.

It could be a philosophical belief or idea; a political view; a social/cultural value or behavior; a legal matter; really just about anything.

[themodelplumber]

Interesting q & experience, thanks for sharing it. In my experience like/dislike is usually more of a topic raised by people who are focused on A) integrity to a subjective concern and B) relational and fidelity-focused subjective ethics. For example one of the main lenses on their life is, "I will show the world that I'm a good person, and someday they will see it".

An interesting response to A, for example, is to show how the situation is a false dichotomy or an unnecessary question. A similar solution to B is to define the problem with more detail, because the blind spot of this kind of issue is typically attention to the particular details being folded in, and the details being left out.

For those reasons, zooming out a bit, I'd also ask: When do you think this particular question is relevant? In what kinds of situations does it offer leverage? In what kinds of situations may it also cause unnecessary frustration or delays? A lot of times an intriguing question comes up, but people don't stop to consider that a question like this is also like a prompt or invite to apply a given subjective model. In this case it makes sense to question the questioner, especially if the stakes are meaningful and there may be better models.

It also seems like it might then be worth considering rephrasing as: "Why do you agree with that thing, and do likes/dislikes have anything to do with it?" This way one doesn't force the model and can still determine how it may impact the situation.

There are a lot of people out there who are not only uncomfortable with the like/dislike perspective on any given issue, but who will do almost anything to subvert the raising of that perspective. It is either too personal or too random for them to care, since they are rather interested in group intent, subjective hard-logic based on a given definition, etc.

Interesting q, hope you keep going with it.

[czstar]

I think Donald Trump is a man lacking any redeeming qualities. He is self serving, a liar, incurious, a charlatan, etc. He was right to pull out of Afghanistan and he was right about German dependence on Russian resources and he was right about European NATO members needing to pay more for defense.

[superchroma]

And making hospital pricing transparent was a good thing too.

[inphovore]

“An idea is not responsible for those who believe in them”

-unknown

Too often closed minds discount good ideas by virtue of enmity with those who hold them in high regard.