This is a bit of a random post, but something that is interesting in the way most trainers use social media is the following:
- most use Instagram
- if they want to argue a point, they do so on their own story or page
- there is no way of formally arguing back and forth on a point-counterpoint basis
- if the point is argued on their story, responses are private
- if the point is on their post, likes are more likely to be in their favour by virtue of being on their page vs their opponent's
Effectively, we have a situation where many "thought-leaders" in the personal training / fitness space rarely have to actually defend their viewpoints in a manner that would tease out where they may be wrong. This is something I have been thinking about a lot lately, as when I am writing an article from scratch, I try to play the role of multiple characters. Allow me to explain...
When writing the Nutrition & Blood Pressure articles, I asked myself "what counterpoint might a [vegan / carnivore / doctor skeptical of the role of nutrition] have here?", allowing me to create opponents against which I can argue my points. The thing is, I don't really care what diet is best for blood pressure, so I can do that freely without allowing significant biases creep in (of course, none of us are free of bias).
The point here is that, if you want to be someone who pursues a comprehensive understanding of subjects you are interested in, you must find some way of arguing. That could be with yourself, but in some cases, that may not be very reliable, especially if you are someone who identifies as a "low carb trainer" or "low volume HIT trainer". The more open and flexible you are with your thought process as to what is "best", the more you will probably get out of the
self-argumentation process, but it does also require a certain level of pre-requisite knowledge; for example, you will need to actively seek out the points argued by people from various camps (e.g. in the nutrition context, what do low carb people say? what about vegans? where are the holes in their arguments if they exist?).
In the case that you already have very strong beliefs about something, it would be very wise to actively seek out counter-arguments. The goal of doing this is NOT just to strengthen your own arguments; this is a bonus if you happen to be on the right side, but it's also a flaw if you do not already understand your opponent's arguments well. The more honest you are in this process, the closer you will end up to the truth. Arguing in good faith necessitates a
genuine desire to create a "steel man" (vs straw man) of your opponent's argument, although it is very, very challenging to do and is certainly a virtue to work towards over time. It's much easier to argue against the weakest version of your opponent's argument, and while that is incentivised on social media (e.g. Gary DESTROYED with FACTS and LOGIC by Vegan Paddy), it's not the best approach for the genuine truth-seeker.
Writing is always helpful. This does not mean you need to start publishing public articles. While this is beneficial, it is enough to just start by putting your thoughts on paper. You might be surprised at how difficult it can be to articulate what you believe, why you believe it, and what evidence you are aware of that supports those beliefs. It can be discouraging at the start, as you will find that a lot of what you belief probably rests on very shaky
foundations. But, trust me, it's a worthwhile endeavour.
