Do you think being able to see both sides of an argument makes you smarter, dumber, or more compassionate or a mix of the last one and one of the first two?

[Waitingforthesunnydays]

I’ve always been able to see both sides of most arguments or political debates (not all) but I often find myself arguing parts of both sides and empathising with both sides. I’m even very passionate about some things yet can still see the other side. Some people would call this sitting on the fence, which is seen as negative, non-committed, maybe even a bit unintelligent? I’ve noticed it’s pretty unusual for people who can feel very passionately about something. Eg. I feel passionately about women’s rights but also empathise with the struggles of trans people. Can’t think of any other examples right now and I don’t want this thread to be about the trans debate but I’m wondering if other people find themselves often being in two camps and what people’s opinion is of people who are. Obviously i personally think we’re more intelligent and compassionate 🤣 but others may think we’re more stupid, less informed and lack critical thinking skills…

I was going to vote YABU but, actually, YANBU has some merit.

I also empathise with both perspectives. I think it’s a flexible thinking thing. May or may not be related, I can also read upside down and back to front very easily. I have trouble with sequencing, all things can go in any order!

I’m sure it’s a skill rather than a handicap. Lawyers, debaters, philosophers, ethicists are expected to argue all sides of a topic.

I can always see both sides too. Kids used to debate at school and argue both sides of the argument. Not sure if that happens now but I’m bloody good at it.

I thought this was normal? I don’t think I’ve met anyone so non-empathetic that they can’t see both sides to an argument, even if they disagree with it. I can see both sides, doesn’t mean I agree with them though.

Interesting thread. One of my friends once told me I didn’t have my own opinion and couldn’t think for myself because I could see both sides. We are no longer friends

I often read articles by writers I know have very different views from me. But I enjoy having my views challenged by well argued and well informed writers.

I find it helps me understand how, faced with the same facts, people can draw different conclusions. It helps me understand, for lack of a better term "the human condition".

It also helps me to recognise lazy journalism predicated on nothing more than prejudice and claptrap.

I rarely totally change my view, but it does tend to soften the hard edges of my opinion, so I'm more ready to hear, if not agree, with other points of view.

I think they are unrelated, being able to analyse and being empathetic. Being able to analyse an argument, from any “side” is a logical skill which can be practised and developed. Being able to understand each aspect of a debate is again a skill which can be improved.

Empathising is something that people may or may not be able to do, and can be hard to practice or improve. Whether you can empathise with one side of a debate clearly can depend on how valid you personally feel their argument and position is.

Intelligence would definitely affect the ability to analyse and may help with empathy although that can be down to much more emotionally based thinking and be not so dependent on intelligence.

I would just call it maturity if we had to label it

Depends on the situation sometimes a situation and someone’s reaction is never acceptable, other times there are often 3 sides to a story.

I don't see how anyone could possibly argue it makes you stupider to be able to see both sides of an issue? How would that work?

I think it shows you have a certain type of character, i.e. possibly more objective, rationale and flexible. I think most people who can do that are more likely to be quite intelligent as they'd tend to consider facts more than solely emotions, and have the ability to question themselves and entrenched views, all of which require at least a bit of knowledge and analytical thinking, but generally I'd say it's a personality thing more than a sign of intelligence.

Not sure about compassionate, I can see why it might be that way in some instances. I have to be able to see/evaluate both sides of a story for my job, but that doesn't mean I empathise or sympathise with both. Just because I can understand why they think/act the way they do, I don't necessarily agree with it - sometimes I think they're all muppets!

Definitely a personally trait that can be very useful, assuming you can harness it to make a decision as opposed to the alternative.

Intriguingly, unless you developed it through education or having parents who modelled it to you, it generally develops as an adaptation mechanism in people who grew up in emotionally unpredictable environments. If it’s a strongly reflexive habit then most likely the latter.

I’ve always been quite disappointed that I can find a selling point for pretty much every political party. The idea that you can be 100% committed to being a Tory/Labour/Lib Dem/Green without wondering about the others genuinely puzzles me.

Smarter; definitely. Extra intelligence bonus points for being able to change your mind when the evidence / facts / data changes.

Dumber; definitely not. Quite the opposite, in fact.

More compassionate; not necessarily. For example, I have always been able to see both sides of the debate on immigration. I used to be very pro, citing greater cultural diversity, skills which boost the economy etc. The benefits exceeded the downsides. But my views have now changed due to the enormous numbers of legal & illegal unskilled migrants that have divided our communities, refused to integrate & undermined the wages of working class people. On any objective analysis, the downsides now massively exceed the benefits. Have I become less compassionate? To the migrants, maybe. To the communities worst affected by the issues they have caused, maybe not.

Same!

I also excel at falling over my own feet!

My Headteacher at school said she’d look out for me in the future headlines. I’d said that logically I didn’t agree with boxing, but still the Barry McGuigan fight against the Cobra was very exciting. She found that surprising. I felt it honest 🤣

Considering both sides is intelligent not stupid. Fence sitting - saying you can see both sides but not actually considering them and being afraid to say your own view can be seen as ‘stupid’. I don’t enjoy having a conversation with people who never share their opinion about things.

I think it means you are flexible and fairly open minded in your thinking, which is surely a good thing!
I can usually see both sides of an argument and I do love playing devil's advocate sometimes, even if I disagree just because I really do enjoy arguing!
By which I mean a really good debate not just having a screaming match! 😁

😆

I’m the same. I think it’s a good thing, especially in this increasingly divided world. I’m not a fence-sitter, but I can usually empathise with both sides, even when I am more politically aligned with one side.

So, I am the same, but I'm also very fact and data driven. So I will engage with someone who wants to talk about something we hold opposite opinions on (I dont start these conversations myself) but im always going to ask (nicely) what sources/evidence they are basing their opinion on, so I can understand their side better and possibly learn something, however I've its actually rare that someone in these scenarios will give them to me! People dont like being asked, no matter how nicely you ask!! (Example: ooh, thats interesting, so where did you get that information from, i want to look it up?) It gets some weird reactions. Whereas im quite happy to go 'let me get it for you!' and pull my sources up. Even if someone says 'this guy on YouTube xxxx' and i recognise the person as a grifter, I will say thanks, I dont go 'arent they full of shit' (okay... apart from one time when the source was Trump...)

I can always see both sides of an argument I have definite views on some things but I often empathise with both sides even if I don't agree with them.
I don't find this to be a problem, and I can make decisions when I need to.

That’s basically what critical thinking is. In general, it’s considered a good thing, and since it is a skill most especially relevant to postgraduate study and academic professions, it tends to be associated with higher intelligence.

The key thing is that both or all opinions/ viewpoints really need to be supported with some kind of reliable evidence to be meaningful. There’s often sound evidence to support different or opposite viewpoints, so you can assess the value of all the evidence to decide which view is more convincing. Sometimes, the evidence is pretty well balanced, in which case, you can suspend judgement until something tips the balance one way of the other.

I don’t know what vote means what?
I’ve always been able to see both sides. But I did a lot of RE and Philosophy in my student years!

They sound rather dim!