4 ms·

Does anyone have any experience actually applying this idea? Devil’s advocates often seem to engage in a lot of rhetorical sleight-of-hand in the first place. I

Does anyone have any experience actually applying this idea? Devil’s advocates often seem to engage in a lot of rhetorical sleight-of-hand in the first place. I’d worry that a social convention of always having one would somehow cause even more argument gamesmanship. Authentic disagreements are better, I think. Maybe inauthentic ones are better than nothing, though.

OutOfHere 2y ago
It's a good idea, second only to authentic disagreement, but if management does not understand or support it, you will get in a lot of trouble for being the one who disagrees. Odds are high that management seeks 100% agreement 100% of the time.
baerrie 2y ago
This has been my role on virtually every dev team ive been on. I don’t necessarily disagree but i do wait until most have discussed a new feature, etc, ask myself, “does this make sense in every way” and if not, I ask questions until it does, or in a lot of cases we reach understanding that it doesn’t make a ton of sense. The types of questions I ask are often subjective but disagreeing as well, like, “do we need more complexity?”. Because they are questions I avoid the disagreement stigma, ala Socrates