Seriously Consider Alternative Views

6. Civic Knowledge and Skills

This introductory article was written by ChatGPT at the direction of Heidi Burgess, who reviewed, edited, and approved the final content.
For more information

June 24, 2026

People naturally tend to notice, remember, and believe information that supports what they already think. Pyschologists call this the confirmation bias or motivated reasoning. In ordinary life, this tendency is understandable. Changing one's mind can be uncomfortable, especially when the issue is tied to identity, morality, religion, or politics.. But in serious conflicts, the refusal to consider alternative views can be harmful. It makes people overconfident, blinds them to important facts, and turns opponents into caricatures. People then argue, not to learn, but to defend what they already believe.

Seriously considering alternative views means something much stronger than briefly looking for weaknesses in the other side's argument. If the purpose of listening is only to find a point to attack, then one is still debating, not learning. Serious consideration means trying to understand the strongest version of the other person's view. It means asking what evidence, values, experiences, fears, or practical concerns might make that view reasonable to the person who holds it.

It also means asking whether one's own view needs to be revised. Sometimes the alternative view will still seem wrong after careful examination. But sometimes it will reveal a fact that was missed, a value that deserves more weight, or a legitimate concern that one's original understanding did not adequately address.

It should be noted, though, that this kind of openness is not the same as relativism. It does not require people to treat lies as truth, cruelty as justice, or unsupported claims as equal to well-established evidence. But it does require intellectual humility: the recognition that even deeply held beliefs may be incomplete or partly mistaken. Research on intellectual humility and openness to opposing views suggests that people who can acknowledge the limits of their own knowledge are more willing to learn from disagreement. BI's summary of constructive controversy makes a similar point: disagreement can improve decision making when people examine competing positions seriously, rather than suppressing conflict or turning it into a contest for victory.

In conflict resolution, seriously considering alternative views is essential because most intractable conflicts are not caused by one simple misunderstanding or one bad actor. They are created and sustained by different interests, values, and needs; different histories; different interpretations of harm; and different ideas about what risks are most serious. A policy that seems obviously fair to one group may seem threatening to another. A reform that looks urgent to one side may look reckless to the other. The purpose of considering alternative views is not to split every difference mechanically. It is to see more of the conflict system and make better choices in light of that wider understanding.

Practically, this means building habits and processes that make real reconsideration possible. First one should have humility, and never be too sure of themselves. Be open to the notion that you might be wrong. You can deliberately read serious arguments from people you disagree with, ask honest questions before responding, and look for evidence that would change your mind. Groups can assign people to present opposing views fairly, invite critics into planning discussions, and use facilitated dialogue or joint fact-finding when facts are contested. Leaders can model the ability to say, "I had not considered that," or "This changes part of my thinking." Such practices do not eliminate disagreement, but they make disagreement more intelligent and more constructive. In a constructive conflict system, alternative views are not treated as threats to be crushed, but as potential sources of warning, insight, correction, and better decision making.

—————————

This page was created by ChatGPT in response to this prompt. It was then reviewed, edited, supplemented and approved by Heidi Burgess. More information about how and why we are using AI in this way, and about the growing number of ways in which Beyond Intractability is using ChatGPT, Claude and other AI systems to generate content and build out the BI system, is available on our BI/AI Overview Page.