It takes a certain level of rapport or even friendship I think to do this well. To me a difference of opinion is super interesting because I like to see if it r

It takes a certain level of rapport or even friendship I think to do this well. To me a difference of opinion is super interesting because I like to see if it reduces to a premise that is a new way of looking at the world for me. Just last night I had an exchange where I asserted China was going to invade Taiwan near or around the US midterms, and a friend across the table said while it does seem like the best opportunity for them and the incentives are there, US air and space superiority mean it could manage full wars with both China and Russia without the need for a land war in either country. My view was predicated on the view that the US congress was too unstable and divided to muster the political will for a draft, and that a draft would be necessary to get sufficient troops to be a deterrent to a Chinese invasion, and his view was the draft isn't necessary because the real deterrent is US air power and ultimately tactical nuclear weapons. We are politically polar opposites as friends, and both views were indeed proxies for prior opinions of the US administration, but what was interesting to me was the basic difference in opinions was not actually oppositional about the facts, but rather that the thing I thought was important (mustering a draft) was not important in his understanding (air superiority). The debate wasn't over truth or falsehood, or even that partisan, but rather the respective weights we assigned to facts we accepted at face value from one another. I've become very interested in whether his air superiority premise is accurate, as it's critical to the quality of the prediction of this outcome. Codifying not so much how to argue, but how to learn from people in the context of a disagreement seems like a very useful tool.