- have firm (but not rigid) opinions on their own
- have logical reasons for those beliefs and be able to articulate them clearly
- are driven by ideas and not ideology
- not attach their egos to their opinions.
- be willing to concede a valid argument even if it forces them to possibly re-examine their beliefs
- know how to listen
Saturday, February 25, 2006
The Importance of Having Friends Who Disagree
Paul Graham says, in one of his essays (emphasis mine)
"....Why do you need other people? Can't you just think of new ideas yourself? The empirical answer is: no. Even Einstein needed people to bounce ideas off. Ideas get developed in the process of explaining them to the right kind of person. You need that resistance, just as a carver needs the resistance of the wood.
This is one reason Y Combinator has a rule against investing in startups with only one founder. Practically every successful company has at least two. And because startup founders work under great pressure, it's critical they be friends....."
In my experience, this need for "friendly resistance" extends to far more than creating startups. Every time you have a new idea, you need people you can bounce it off. To get any real benefit out of this process you need people with a complex combination of characteristics.
They should
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
17 comments:
Great post!
- Sonny Lurker :)
Somethings I have observed,which are indirectly related to topic (well more to the topic of ideas really) are:
* Now a days, more than ever, even if you implement an idea/prototype which you do not yourself believe in much or consider low-impact; people may find it interesting and find out a new way of using than what you could not even think.
Somethings become popular just like that:(. (This is not to suggest that popularity is necessarily a measure of cool ideas)
* It is difficult generally in practice for people to reject an "new" idea which is implemented (tangible) and available to play with; than an idea presented in theory/verbally. I mean both can get rejected, but it relatively takes greater time to reject the former than latter unless someone has implemented very badly(in which case even a good idea can get rejected quickly).
* A good measure of finding a person which you mention, quickly, is how fast and right that person understands the concept of "po". After explaining "po", from the other persons reaction, you can make out how close he is to the perfect guy.
I have seen that some guys do not bothered to listen; then there are those who nodd their head and say they understood ; but the closest are those who just start building upon an idea from where you left or branch out from it or start another path. Basically, if idea has any inspiration/possibility they seek before giving it up immediately.
It means they give due consideration before judging it black or white. Most of the times I have seen that both people involved comeout with something slightly or completely different than the original.
* Some people develop "disagreement" as a coolness trait, assuming it to be a characteristic of an "independent thinker". They generally are successful in drawing a lot of attention. It is in my opinion, important to cross-check them, by looking at their cool ideas/reasons/explainations carefully and having your own opinion about it. It is sometimes easy to fall in the trap of pseudo-disagreement friends too:)
Mridul,
High time you started blogging :)
Ravi
I hope Ravi is not falling in pseudo-disagreement with me ;-)
-- KD
KD,
No chance at all :-D. Prepare for debate!
Ravi
Only in very genuine friends do you find this trait of being outrightly courageous to disagree and validate clearly what they speak. Often you see outbursts of their own ego.
I am looking for a Sergey Brin. Anyone ut there?
Your post reminded me of a quote from Nietzsche. After much searching, I finally found it:
"The surest way to corrupt a youth is to instruct him to hold in higher esteem those who think alike than those who think differently."
-Friedrich Nietzsche, The Dawn, Sec. 297
I guess I'm in luck: my wife disagrees with everything I say. Up till now, I thought that was a bad thing. ;-)
What is meant by the difference between "ideas" and "ideology"?
My dictionary says that ideology is "a system of ideas". So it's OK to be driven by free-floating, unconnected ideas, but not by a system of ideas?
dear "anonymous",
You may want to get a better dictionary.
from http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=ideology
1. The body of ideas reflecting the social needs and aspirations of an individual, group, class, or culture.
2. A set of doctrines or beliefs that form the basis of a political, economic, or other system.
neither of these definitions is equivalent to "system of ideas".
Even better, look beyond teh dictionary meaning to how the word is actually used in discourse.
Algebra is a collection of (mathematical) ideas. It is not an ideology.
the sense in which I use "ideology" is,
"A system of beliefs or theories, ****usually political****, held by an individual or a group"
I think the sentence is fairly clear as it stands.
Having said that, thanks for the heads up. I will try to be more precise in the future.
Excellent post. It reminds me of a quote by Oscar Handlin:
"Education is that process by which the exposure of one's mind to the thinking of others creates not answers, but a lifetime of questions."
Implicit in his definition is a knowledge of alternatives that comes from bouncing your ideas off of others. A tolerance for ambiguity is also part of this process. We may be better served by believing in such a process than an ideology. Ideologues do not offer alternatives. Critical thinking only confuses them. They would probably consider a tolerance for ambiguity an inability to commit.
There is a right in this country to have braces on your brains to believe in fairy tales, religious fundamentalism, neo-conservatism, etc. We just have to stop electing this misguided souls to public office.
I have a couple of friends like this and it is really helpful.
Great Post!!
Great blog. Too often we want to be stroked by those that agree with us. As stated in your blog, this can be very detrimental.
This blog made me think about a committee at work that I head. I have two people that I consider annoyances, but after reading your blog, they provide a good counterpoint to my positions, though a little too often.
Again, thanks to for the blog, it will be forwarded.
Suzanne,
Good points all. I am one of those fortunate people who has a wide variety of friends - geeks, models, photographers, artists, soldiers, policemen, criminals (I kid you not!), left wing extremists, right wing extremists, middle of the roaders etc etc.
Makes for a very enriching life :-)
(I didn't know this entry had been posted at lifehacker. Thanks for the heads up.)
I think one of the keys is that if your identity or value is somehow (in a delusional way) attached to your ideas or your results, you'll have a hard time with getting opposing feedback, because you might view it as a destruction or attack on you, rather than feedback on an idea.
As for ideology, I think it can be very good to have a personal ideology, but one based on loose ideas and beliefs - such as 'I believe 'x' is destructive, and I will not support destructive things in the world', and recognizing that everyone might have their own personal ideology and that it is okay if your ideologies do not need to be identical...
It's like a recognition of other and a recognition of self combined with the realization that one (other) does not threaten the other (self).
Post a Comment