Why I May NOT Respect Your Views, Even If I Agree...
How to Create a Bullet-proof Argument That Holds Up to Any Opposition
I seem to puzzle (and sometimes upset) people when they learn that I am able to respect the views of some who hold opposing political/social/economic views to me while not respecting the perspectives of some even though those beliefs are in line with my own. How does this make sense???? A recent social post by Steve Magness that explains it beautifully:
“I did my research.”
Its the ultimate trump cared in modern arguments.
We claim victory because we found a link that agrees with us.
But there is a massive difference between searching and researching.
True understanding requires work...
In a world of instant answers, we mistake the act of Googling for understanding.
Finding a quick answer provides a feel-good hit of neurochemicals.
We confuse that fleeting satisfaction with actual knowledge.
Access to information is not the same as wisdom.
Look at the word itself: “Research” has “re” in front of it.
It implies going back, looking again, and searching multiple times.
If you stopped at the first page of results, you didn’t research. You just browsed.
I like to think of understanding in four distinct layers.
The first is search.
This is the superficial hunt for a quick, convenient answer.
Its perfect for finding a song title, but terrible for understanding complex social issues.
The next level down is Explore.
Here, we move past the convenient, easy answer.
We look at multiple sources and seek out different perspectives.
We take the time to look around rather than grabbing the first thing we see.
The third level is review.
Think of a student conducting a literature review.
You’re combing through studies to make sense of the whole.
You’re synthesizing conflicting data to find the nuance.
Finally, we arrive at actual Research.
You move from simply collecting information to testing it.
You take your theory and put it through the wringer.
Whether through formal experiments or real-world stress testing, you demand proof.
You don’t need a literature review to know who won the Super Bowl.
A simple search works fine for verifiable facts.
But as complexity increases, your depth must increase too.
You can’t solve nuanced problems with surface-level tools.
Yet... too often that’s what we do.
The way I use this paradigm is ask myself what level of understanding does the problem demand? What level am I at currently?
And if in argument, do I need to bow out because I don’t have sufficient understanding.
Too often, we let a little knowledge fool us into thinking we know a lot...especially with ready access to Google and AI...
We need to stop claiming comprehensive knowledge when our quest ended at a Google search.
Be honest ab out the depth of your work.
True understanding earns its keep.
When it matters, stop searching and start thinking.
If you have researched your position, and I don’t agree with the position, I will still respect it SO LONG AS your position has been researched - it is based on fact, questioned before presented, and fully understood.
If you are adamant that you right because you merely searched it - I don’t care what you believe...no respect given.