Unreasonablenesss as a Superpower

In his book, "This Book Needs No Title: A Budget of Living Paradoxes," Raymond Smullyan gives an example that demonstrates the paradox of compromise:

Once upon a time two boys found a cake. One of them said: "Splendid! I will eat the cake:" The other one said: "No, that is not fair! We found the cake together, and we should share and share alike; half for you and half for me." The first boy said, "No, I should have the whole cake!" The second said, "No, we should share and share alike; half for you and half for me.' The first said, "No, I want the whole cake." The second said, "No, let us share it half and half." Along came an adult who said: "Gentlemen, you shouldn't fight about this; you should compromise. Give him three-quarters of the cake."

The second boy is being reasonable and suggesting a 50/50 split. By being unreasonable, the first boy will end up with more than half the cake if a "fair" compromise is sought.

This is an issue when you honestly assess the state of your beliefs. If you recognize that there are often many sides to an issue, that each side has valid arguments, and that the data backing up each side's beliefs (including your own) has significant shortcomings, you instantly start on the weak side of the argument, and end up on the losing side.

The socratic technique of accepting your ignorance and then probing the ignorance of your opponents only works if you have Plato re-writing your history and setting up philosophical straw men for you to defeat.