The value in collaboration is in contending with our differences in opinions

It’s not collaborative if you cannot disagree about anything and everything.

A lot of times I disagree with an entire premise, like the reason for conducting a research study in the first place. It can be difficult to voice this because it’s destructive to the project in question. But, sometimes it makes sense to take two steps back in order to take one step forward in a more fruitful direction.

It’s contending with each others’ differences in opinion that makes collaboration meaningful. This is how we ascertain what is real and it’s what Ray Dalio means by “radical truth“. He says: “Truth – or, more precisely, an accurate understanding of reality – is the essential foundation for any good outcome.”

If you feel anxiety about voicing your disagreements, it’s either because you’re not free to or you’re insecure about the value of your opinion. If it’s the former, quit. If it’s the ladder, take your seat at the table and disagree anyways. Even if the disagreement isn’t perfectly thought out, it’s better to muddle your way through an explanation than perpetually defer your turn to speak.

Your collaborators may not understand this half-baked explanation but it still provides a useful piece of information: not everyone is on the same page, the decisions being made here are not unanimous. Then, you’ve done your part, and the path forward depends on the integrity of your collaborators.

The alarming return of the IQ debate - UnHerd

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *