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!