Arguing With Your Opposite Creates an Idea Neither of You Had
The friction is the point, says Rabbi Angela Buchdahl, and the same rule that unlocks sacred text can unlock politics.
Freakonomics Radio Network · What If Being a Stranger Is Actually Your Superpower? | Better in PersonThere is a reason the old joke says two Jews, three opinions. The third opinion is the point.
That is how Rabbi Angela Buchdahl, the leader of Central Synagogue in New York, explains it. In Judaism, sacred text is not meant to be studied alone. It is studied in hevruta, a practice in which two people read and argue through a text together as partners.
The method depends on disagreement. You pair up with someone you think of as your opposite, and then you spar. Each person presses the other, points out what is missing, and refuses to settle for a simple yes or no.
That friction sharpens both thinkers. Out of the back and forth comes another idea, a third opinion that neither person could have reached on their own. Buchdahl calls that the genius of Judaism.
The same mechanism, she says, works outside study. It works in politics and in every realm where people get locked into either-or thinking. You break the binary not by thinking harder by yourself, but by staying in conversation with the person who sees it differently.
That is getting harder to do. Disagreement no longer feels like a difference of opinion, she says. It feels existentially threatening, shaped by fear and demonization, so that talking with the other side can feel like talking with the enemy.
Her reason to engage anyway is practical. Even when the other side feels like the enemy, Buchdahl says, "we can't move forward by pulling the country farther apart."
Questions people ask
What does the word hevruta actually mean?
It comes from a Hebrew root meaning friend or companion. In practice it means a study partnership, usually a pair, that meets regularly to read and debate Jewish texts together.
What does a hevruta session look like in real life?
Two partners read a short passage aloud, then take turns proposing interpretations and challenging each other. The teacher often gives little direct instruction, and the learning happens in the argument itself, with partners asking for evidence from the text.
Is there evidence that disagreement improves thinking?
Yes. Psychologists find that groups with dissent catch more errors and generate more solutions than groups that agree quickly. Being forced to explain and defend an idea exposes weak reasoning and opens up alternatives.