From [Moral Responsibility for Backlash](https://josephheath.substack.com/p/moral-responsibility-for-backlash): > A wise man once told me that, in order to win an argument, it wasn’t enough just to have the correct position, you must also give your opponent a face-saving way of accepting that position. If you leave your opponent no option but to say “you were right, I was wrong,” that person will never back down. You need to say things like “I can see what you are thinking, and if the situation was of type *x* I would agree with you, but I think we’re in more of a type *y* position…” This is the argument version of the apocryphal Sun Tzu quote > Build your opponent a golden bridge to retreat across. This feels a little annoying. Shouldn't we [[Darwin's Golden Rule|like updates to my beliefs]], and try to hold [strong opinions weakly](https://medium.com/@ameet/strong-opinions-weakly-held-a-framework-for-thinking-6530d417e364)? But this is not where most people are. And on a bad day, this is not where I am. So as part of [[Allow for noise margin in communication]], be extra gracious. Find a hypothetical universe in which your opponent would be right, outline that universe so that they can come to your conclusion. #published 2025-02-23