As culture collapses and rebirths, it has come to be that forbearance, and even objectivity, strikes far too many as mainly a moral matter–or worse just an aesthetic. After all: Good strategy requires it. An average person can readily develop an impressive depth of knowledge on a given topic–extensive familiarity with the facts, figures, context, etc. Yet in matters debatable, an effective strategy will subordinate (or at the very least join) a depth of knowledge to a breadth of knowledge: Familiarity with a variety of perspectives on the given matter.
Again: Forbearance, and even objectivity, strikes far too many as mainly a moral matter–or worse just an aesthetic. And such is the case, far from never, in estimations of strategies for establishing a breadth of knowledge: “That’s nice of you to give the other side their chance to speak;” or, “It sure is impressive that you’ve familiarized yourself with so many points of view!”
Meanwhile, everybody’s looking for something: Some of them want to use you; some of them want to be used by you. And so two of the best tactics always will be:
- Triangulation onto truth, or something most alike it, by finding contenders’ common-ground of objective facts, thence ferreting the foundations for their respective potential biases, in order to follow (a few phases of) the money (or prestige, etc) which would animate those biases.