Topics Rationality

Question How do you know if you are reasonable? I'm arguing with my boss when she says something stupid. I know in my gut it's stupid. But I also know that my emotions are elevated and that she might be right--maybe what I think is stupid is really just evidence that I haven't grasped her perspective. So I try opening my ears to figure out what she meant. I figure out her perspective, and suddenly she seems to be making perfect sense, and everything I'd said before was stupid. Fast forward an hour. The argument is over, and I'm trying to work on a project. But something is bugging me and I can't figure out what it is. Suddenly I realize I never made my argument clear to my boss. I adopted her perspective, figured out where she was coming from, and abandoned my perspective. But now I'm realizing that for one reason or another, I was right all along. Her perspective was more narrowly focused than mine. Mine was better the whole time. And dagnabbit, she walked away having won the argument despite it being stupid. But then for a moment I'm in her brain again, and it all makes sense again. I just needed to get back to her perspective. At what point do we give up on this game? I just want to be a reasonable guy who sees things as broadly as possible. I want to avoid those "Oh god, I was wrong the whole time" moments that are so embarrassing. Can we approach something like a definitive perspective, or are our brains just too stupid for that? Is the ground that we cover in broadening our perspective going to be insignificant when compared to the amount of reality that we'll never be able to perceive? If the boss really is narrow-minded and full of transparent rationalizations, does that impact the responsibility of a reasonable person to see the argument through her eyes? Or does the reasonable person tune her out, accepting the loss of some truth that the stupid boss could offer from her narrow perspective? Does the reasonable person have less of an obligation to see things from other perspectives if it is clear that others aren't putting in the same effort?

Accepted:
February 2, 2011

Comments

Great set of questions. In any community (whether on the job or in a family) it can feel quite unfair if one party is having to do all the work or at least more work to understand the other person's point of view (using more empathy, imagination, listening more). Ideally, one expects that each party will be equally open to being persuaded by the other. Actually, political philosphers today are spending quite a bit of time on this topic. For example, this is Joshua Cohen's description of ideal deliberation:

"Ideal deliberation aims to arrive at a rationally motivated consensu -to find reasons that are persuasive to all who are committed to acting on the results of a free and reasoned assessment of alternatives by equals."

I suppose you are not equals with the "boss" but Cohen would probably argue that from the point of view of fair deliberation, one should be on an equal footing even if (at the very end) the boss decides on (for example) what policy should be followed. For further technical work on discourse and inquiry, you might check out Jurgen Habermas's Between Facts and Norms.

Putting aside the technicalities of work on fairness, I suggest two things: even when faced with conditions in which one person is doing more work in terms of empathy, imagination, trying to see it from other points of view, etc, that does not give one reason to abandon the efforts. You are being more open and inquiring, and that can't help but lead to better (more reasonable or wise) results. Second, I think your frustration is very natural and common when we are honest with ourselves and arguing about matters that are truly controversial (matters when reasonable, non-stupid people can disagree). I think there may not be a better solution to this vexing difficulty than patience, patience both with yourself and those around us.