Most of us like our own ideas best before they are opposed.
That is human nature.
When we develop an idea, an approach, a plan, or a point of view, we become attached to it. We created it. We shaped it. We thought it through. We may even believe we have found the best way to explain it.
And because it is ours, we naturally want it to be accepted.
What we do not naturally want is opposition. We do not want someone pointing out the weak spots. We do not want to hear the other side presented persuasively. We do not want to be told that our argument may not land the way we thought it would.
But that opposition may be the very thing we need. I have learned this important truth through preparing personal injury cases for negotiations, mediation, and trial.
When I am preparing my case, I cannot simply rehearse my own position and expect that to be enough. That rehearsal may make me more comfortable with my position, but comfort is not the same thing as building a strong case.
In fact, preparing only by rehearsing my own argument can hurt more than help.
What I need to hear early is the opposing view.
I need to hear how the other side will frame the evidence. I need to understand where they believe my case is vulnerable. I need to hear their argument delivered not weakly, not casually, and not in a way that makes me feel better — but persuasively.
Only then can I begin the real work of refinement- building a stronger case.
That process is not always pleasant. I may not like hearing the opposing view. I may not like giving it serious consideration. At first, it can feel like I am diluting my own case or giving ground to the other side.
But that is not really what is happening.
When I give the opposing view proper consideration, I am not abandoning my position. I am testing it. I am finding out where it needs to be clarified, strengthened, adjusted, or supported with better evidence.
That is how my case will be stronger in the face of the opposition I know I will face in negotiations, mediation, or at trial.
