Oct 21, 2009
I've often
been accused of being anti-authority, and just as often branded as
someone who likes to argue just to argue. These are fair and valid
points in some measure, but they are often made in a way that makes
these traits sound bad.
I disagree with this assessment, and in fact I would argue that any
group or company NEEDS someone who wants to pick apart most ideas.
I recently read
this article which subscribes to this negative view of the
naysayer.
I say, Champion The Naysayer!
As long as those individuals have a basis for their dissents, stoke
those fires and make sure that you've got someone keeping people
around awake and ready to defend their ideas and beliefs. Since
when is it so bad to disagree? Are we so scared of the fragility of
being incorrect that we have to deny any contradiction to our
theories?
Now don't misunderstand. I'm not saying that there's value in every
disagreement, but I think that life shows us that having to fight
for your belief (in a verbal sense) might actually make you refine
it. And beyond that, what if the naysayer ends up denting your
previously untarnished view? Is that bad, or is it good that
someone has forced you to address a weakness in thought? If doing
this show week after week has taught me anything, it's the
importance of trying to base my views on the broadest spectrum
possible. In that vein, it's a good thing to have that base shaken
once in while, to have a nice seismic rumble now and again to make
me evaluate why I feel the way I do. Nature abhors a vacuum, and
what else could you call it when you are so settled into a line of
thinking that you never stop to consider anything outside the walls
you're comfortable with?
Dissent is desirable. Feed it!