Charlie Munger is famous for his belief that he isn't entitled to hold an opinion unless (I should probably write 'until'!) he can state the arguments
against his position better than those who oppose it. "I
think that I am qualified to speak only when I've reached that state," he has said.
He means it. Warren Buffett and Munger--who has earned Buffett's nickname for his 'the abominable no man'--are so serious about getting dissenting opinions and outlooks that they invited a guy to join them because he disagrees with them.
This isn't a first. Concerned that the annual Berkshire Hathaway shareholder meetings were becoming too friendly and the questions raised were becoming more laudatory than interesting, reporters were invited to spice things up.
Munger is fond of rehearsing Richard Feynman's line, "the easiest person to fool is yourself." And for good reason. We don't all have the ability to invite our harshest critics over for a sit down. I wonder, though, how many of us take advantage of the chances we do have to hear, consider, and learn from conflicting points of view.
John Stuart Mill argued that no opinion--no matter how repulsive--should be suppressed by society. And he didn't argue for such a position based on first-amendment grounds (he was British, after all). Instead, like the utilitarian he was, Mill advocated for allowing all opinions because doing so would lead to a healthier, more robust society.
Among the reasons he provided for this position was that voicing an incorrect opinion strengthens a correct opinion because it allows for a healthy contestation of ideas. It goes without saying that the ideas that emerge after a vigorous debate are likely to be stronger than those who carry the day unopposed.
"The peculiar evil of silencing the expression of an opinion is, that it is robbing the human race; posterity as well as the existing generation; those who dissent from the opinion, still more than those who hold it," Mill wrote in On Liberty. And here's why, "If the opinion is right, they are deprived of the opportunity of exchanging error for truth: if wrong, they lose, what is almost as great a benefit, the clearer perception and livelier impression of truth, produced by its collision with error."
It's no coincidence that the most famous writer on liberty is a guy so careful not to trample on people's opinions. Charlie Munger is hardly bashful about letting people know they're wrong. But his example in inviting the strongest critics he can find is instructive. It means that the he lives by the creed J.S. Mill recommended for society.
The thing we can take from this, to my mind, is what a good idea it is to go out of our way to expose ourselves to ideas that differ from our own. what better way, after all, too destroy your best ideas? How often do we seek out not only someone with a differing view, but someone who passionately, ardently disagrees? But how beneficial would such a practice be?
Here's Mill again discussing the effects that strongly held beliefs carry more weight in the contest of ideas:
Those sentiments could have been written by Munger. The two thinkers share a diagnosis for the disease of uncontested opinion and the likely outcome. Mill's dad James made the arguement that no one knows how a man's shoe fits better than himself. And so he was rightly skeptical about people telling other people how to think or act. And J.S. was pretty sympathetic to that position. But it was possible for the latter to ignore what a person (or porcine) thinks. And failing to buttress one's opinion with the dissenting viewpoints of others was a good way to warrant such disdain: "It is better to be a human being dissatisfied than a pig satisfied; better to be Socrates dissatisfied than a fool satisfied. And if the fool, or the pig, are of a different opinion, it is because they only know their own side of the question.
But being a fool or a pig might be preferable to Munger's take on what not subjecting your ideas to real challenges makes a person: a one-legged man in an ass-kicking competition.
 |
| Charlie Munger & Warren Buffett. |
He means it. Warren Buffett and Munger--who has earned Buffett's nickname for his 'the abominable no man'--are so serious about getting dissenting opinions and outlooks that they invited a guy to join them because he disagrees with them.
 |
| Berkshire 'Bear' Doug Kass. |
This isn't a first. Concerned that the annual Berkshire Hathaway shareholder meetings were becoming too friendly and the questions raised were becoming more laudatory than interesting, reporters were invited to spice things up.
Munger is fond of rehearsing Richard Feynman's line, "the easiest person to fool is yourself." And for good reason. We don't all have the ability to invite our harshest critics over for a sit down. I wonder, though, how many of us take advantage of the chances we do have to hear, consider, and learn from conflicting points of view.
John Stuart Mill argued that no opinion--no matter how repulsive--should be suppressed by society. And he didn't argue for such a position based on first-amendment grounds (he was British, after all). Instead, like the utilitarian he was, Mill advocated for allowing all opinions because doing so would lead to a healthier, more robust society.
 |
| J.S. Mill: Getting different opinions is good for you. |
Among the reasons he provided for this position was that voicing an incorrect opinion strengthens a correct opinion because it allows for a healthy contestation of ideas. It goes without saying that the ideas that emerge after a vigorous debate are likely to be stronger than those who carry the day unopposed.
"The peculiar evil of silencing the expression of an opinion is, that it is robbing the human race; posterity as well as the existing generation; those who dissent from the opinion, still more than those who hold it," Mill wrote in On Liberty. And here's why, "If the opinion is right, they are deprived of the opportunity of exchanging error for truth: if wrong, they lose, what is almost as great a benefit, the clearer perception and livelier impression of truth, produced by its collision with error."
It's no coincidence that the most famous writer on liberty is a guy so careful not to trample on people's opinions. Charlie Munger is hardly bashful about letting people know they're wrong. But his example in inviting the strongest critics he can find is instructive. It means that the he lives by the creed J.S. Mill recommended for society.
The thing we can take from this, to my mind, is what a good idea it is to go out of our way to expose ourselves to ideas that differ from our own. what better way, after all, too destroy your best ideas? How often do we seek out not only someone with a differing view, but someone who passionately, ardently disagrees? But how beneficial would such a practice be?
Here's Mill again discussing the effects that strongly held beliefs carry more weight in the contest of ideas:
"He who knows only his own side of the case knows little of that. His
reasons may be good, and no one may have been able to refute them. But
if he is equally unable to refute the reasons on the opposite side, if
he does not so much as know what they are, he has no ground for
preferring either opinion... Nor is it enough that he should hear the
opinions of adversaries from his own teachers, presented as they state
them, and accompanied by what they offer as refutations. He must be able
to hear them from persons who actually believe them...he must know them
in their most plausible and persuasive form."
Those sentiments could have been written by Munger. The two thinkers share a diagnosis for the disease of uncontested opinion and the likely outcome. Mill's dad James made the arguement that no one knows how a man's shoe fits better than himself. And so he was rightly skeptical about people telling other people how to think or act. And J.S. was pretty sympathetic to that position. But it was possible for the latter to ignore what a person (or porcine) thinks. And failing to buttress one's opinion with the dissenting viewpoints of others was a good way to warrant such disdain: "It is better to be a human being dissatisfied than a pig satisfied; better to be Socrates dissatisfied than a fool satisfied. And if the fool, or the pig, are of a different opinion, it is because they only know their own side of the question.
But being a fool or a pig might be preferable to Munger's take on what not subjecting your ideas to real challenges makes a person: a one-legged man in an ass-kicking competition.
No comments:
Post a Comment