Adam Grant’s Post

Very few people are genuinely bad. They just see things differently. If we approached people who think differently with the goal of understanding them instead of destroying them, the internet would be much less toxic. But the algorithms like “This Person DESTROYS That Person” much more than “This Person THOUGHT ABOUT AND UNDERSTOOD THE ARGUMENT OF That Person.” The motivation structure online is backwards.

This advice is well-intentioned, but it is not general-purpose, it is not valid in all circumstances. If people already know each other and there is a previous history of, for example, hidden agendas or disloyalty, it would be naive to talk as if nothing ever happened. Any behavioural advice that does not specify in which circumstances or situations it can be used is naive and often useless advice.

“Good debates don’t have winners or losers.” How does competitive nature and real debating play into this topic? Many “debates” do have a winners and a loser, at least at the Oxford Union and at many other educational institutions with debate clubs that compete. The winner is usually voted on by those reviewing the performance. Here is the most recent article on the winner selected by voters at an Oxford Union debate: https://theeuropetoday.com/2025/01/31/federal-minister-prof-ahsan-iqbal-triumphs-at-oxford-union-debate-securing-180-votes-against-145-in-a-historic-win-for-the-global-south/

I think we have forgotten that we don't need to enter debates, we can be in dialogue when each other... Just recently we ran a session in a workplace where this was a primary reflection. That they hadn't experienced before just being in dialogue without the pressure to convince or the tension or defensiveness that comes from thinking someone is trying to convince you

I will also add- to open the other side up for discussion, start with the common ground, what you do agree on ans see eye to eye. Something like:"I agree with you on X, regarding Y I think...

So true. Most people aren’t as certain as they think, they’re just unchallenged. There’s a psychology concept called the Illusion of Explanatory Depth: we believe we understand things better than we actually do (until we’re asked to explain them). Good questions don’t just open minds. They make people realize what they don’t know. That’s where real learning starts.

Very thoughtful and so true. Unless both debate gladiators embrace this golden rule, the result might become acrimonious. Coincidentally, just this week, I published a LinkedIn article to help leaders navigate and proactively tackle passionate debates in the team. This is especially difficult when debates are not work related but have potential to poison team culture if not handled by the leader. https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/lessons-from-salutation-mr-musk-managing-conflict-culture-dastoor-ob8uc/   The intensity and frequency of these events are not in the control of the leader but how you manage the debate defines your leadership. 

I completely agree with this, but sometimes you just have to agree to disagree because there’s no consensus, and no shifting perspectives.

Or are there other processes that need to be highlighted, funded, and utilized as much as and perhaps more than “debate?” To me, the “debate” mindset is a huge part of why “you’re wrong” is so pervasive. We need other processes, frameworks, and human technologies.