We all encounter people with whom we structurally disagree, also here on SN. It often stems from our own individual biases: when we critically evaluate what our antagonist has written, we struggle to relate to the author's premises or conclusions.
Groupthink, confirmation bias and ego can amplify this disconnect. Reflecting on this led me to consider the qualities of the people with whom I most frequently disagree. I think that understanding their strengths can help me approach our differences with greater respect and provide valuable feedback into my own thought process. Thoughts like what I just wrote in the discussion at #999625 reinforce my belief that the capability to respect your opponents will strengthen you: the polarized human is a weak human.
I want to see if I'm on the right track here... so I'd like to ask SN:
Without naming or tagging anyone, please, what is the main strength of your antagonist?
I'll share mine:
The person I disagree with most on SN is a very good analyst and, despite my complete disagreement with the big picture narrative they support, often right about a significant portion of the smaller conclusions and even predictions underneath the bigger narrative.