When Opinions Differ . . .

Working at Height Good Practice Advocacy

“Why are you always F***ing right . . . .”

A few years back, a mate and I were arguing about something technical. A common practice, usually involving my mate conceding, but this time he was sure he had me. As usual, when two knowledgeable people are adamant about opposing viewpoints, we get into a battle of opinions, trying to “convince” each other. It didn’t work.

The problem, of course, is that when it comes to opinions, everyone has the right to their own, and in an argument, your opinion carries the same weight and validity as mine.

Opinion alone leaves you at an impasse. What you need is something independent.

To back up our opinions, we did what we always did: we looked for sources.

Not all sources are equal. I learned a long time ago that primary sources are the best every time. Interpretation, shorthand, and drift happen the further you get from primary sources. It's not deliberate; I do the same when communicating ideas from primary sources because, for any given communication, the full source is likely not needed, or the principle can be contextualised to aid the discussion, which helps in the moment but narrows the definition if carried further than it was intended. This narrow definition of the source applied to a different context might not transfer the principle, or imply a different scope.

After we had found some good sources, it turns out my viewpoint was correct, and in a moment of jovial frustration, my counterparty exclaimed, “Why are you always fu**ing right?”.

Of course, I am not always right, but a counteropinion rarely changes my mind. I built a knowledge schema on referentially consistent, well-reasoned insight from primary sources that I apply every time. To convince me otherwise is perfectly doable, but it must attack this independent foundation and demonstrate the error. My opinion simply follows accordingly.

To my mate's proclamation, I retorted with the quip I now repeat whenever someone shares a similar sentiment.

“I am always right, because if I ever find out I am wrong, I change my mind”.

For working at height, there are so many differing opinions; some are so old that they are even codified into secondary sources. If you look past these and try to reconcile them with other facts, principles, and primary sources, you may notice an uncomfortable truth. The presented truth is very low fidelity compared to the objective truth.

We can’t keep everyone happy, but we can choose to be curious; we can acknowledge when we are wrong, and we can change our opinion based on new insight. If you disagree with me, great. Let's talk about it. There is no downside. We will both learn something in the debate, and challenging ideas is how surviving ideas become strong.

But let's set our personal opinions aside and seek the comfort of empirical data and logical inference from that primary source or principle. Only when we commit to ignorance do we limit our potential to understand and grow. Let's commit to curiosity instead. Let's have the debate, and then let me support those ideas to see them communicated in updated guidance.