"We all are learning, modifying, or destroying ideas all the time. Rapid destruction of your ideas when the time is right is one of the most valuable qualities you can acquire. You must force yourself to consider arguments on the other side"

This is probably the lost art of the century.

The second half of that is worth quoting too:

> “It’s bad to have an opinion you’re proud of if you can’t state the arguments for the other side better than your opponents. This is a great mental discipline.”

It's why I don't much bother hanging out in groups where people agree with me. It's much more fun when they don't, because if you cannot deal with alternative views then you don't have a convincing foundation for your own.

So what happens to you if you get something right the first time?

I agree with the principle, but I wonder if there are actually certain issues which dominate the news today where simply collecting all the arguments for the other side turns into a really large, unmanageable endeavor because the new information never seems to end (e.g. climate change).

Fascinating. I find myself trying to bring people to the middle often so they can see the other side of the argument. Having people understand the other side enough to be able to argue it may be the window to understanding why the other side believes what they do.

you'll probably enjoy: https://www.farnamstreetblog.com/2013/04/the-work-required-t...

If you enjoyed that article, you might like the book 'Poor Charlie's Almanack, The Wit and Wisdom of Charles T. Munger': https://www.poorcharliesalmanack.com/.

From the order form, you can get a personally signed copy for $150 (or $49 unsigned). Pretty sweet.

I have the signed copy, which has a very small signature on the 3rd or 4th page of the book. I would probably go for the unsigned copy.

The book is phenomenal

For those interested and this old piece is classic

https://old.ycombinator.com/munger.html

Great words of wisdom in this article.

Please don't rant like this here. It degrades the site and discredits your view.

Yea, That article isn't even close to accurate. BRK didn't remotely face bankruptcy, its bank investments were actually among the most solid, and people legitimately worried about a depression. I agree with Deurden that bank equity holders should have bern wiped out first (except banks like Wells Fargo that didn't need TARP and were forced to take it).

But unlike you and Deurden I don't twist the words of those who disagree with me in order to demonize them. It's part of thinking clearly, as done by Charlie Munger.

Meh, I merely cited the first of several Google result. Here's another:

http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/news/billionaire-bailou...