When someone expresses their position on something, you ideally would like to know if they are being honest or consistent. A rational discussion can rarely reach any meaningful milestones if one or both sides are arguing whatever suits their side, beliefs, or positions at that moment. One great way of gauging honesty and consistency, is to see what happens if the shoe is on the other foot. Switch positions and see what happens.

Switching positions

In most cases, assuming we really are trying to understand another person’s position or argument, explain our own, or reach some form of common ground, we need logic and rules to be applied consistently at some level. Logic is the structural backbone of most rational arguments and discussions. Consistency is in logic key. So how can you figure out if that is the case?

There are probably a lot of answers to that question, but one way I have found working very well, is to see or imagine what happens when positions are switched. This works better when positions and arguments are more extreme or different, so examples like the polarized political system in the US or more radical conspiracy theories lend themselves really well, but it is applicable in many more cases.

Examples

Example 1: In many of my arguments with conspiracy-theorists, they will demand I produce proof and evidence for every statement I make, but when I turn that around and ask for evidence for their positions, they refuse. I have to prove everything but they can say anything they want unfounded? The discussion became meaningless.

Example 2: After Charlie Kirk’s assassination, many right wing influencers (rightfully) called it a tragedy, and blasted (again, rightfully) people who celebrated his death. But when the shoe is on the other foot, for example when Paul Pelosi was attacked in his house, these same folks including Donal Trump jr. openly made fun of the attack. You cannot be outraged if it happens to your side if you laugh if it happens to the other side. You’re inconsistent, and in most cases hypocritical.

Example 3: Person A argues for conspiracy X on the basis of a few people with phd’s giving X merit, arguing these persons are too smart to be concerned with nonsense. Yet person A ignores the overwhelming number of phd’s opposing X, and applies this mistrust in authority in general, but only for positions he doesn’t agree with.

What do you do next?

There is no one size fits all answer on what to do next as well unfortunately. The best option will depend on who you’re talking to, what the topic is, how important the discussion is to you, or what the level of missapplied logic or dishonesty is.

In some cases, say a random encounter with an anonymous person on X, your best option is to just walk away and not waste anymore time. If a person is reasonable you might try to point out the failings in their logic and/or arguments and try to see if they can agree and move on from there. If the person is close to you you might want to know WHY this person holds these contradictory beliefs.

As with many errors or inconsistencies in either logic, arguments, evidence, or truthfulnes of people, just being able to spot that it is happening is already such an advantage, no matter what your ideal outcome might be. Whether you can remedy or resolve it, remains to be seen…