I hereby propose the Tyler Cowen heuristic. If, when asked a question on which reasonable people agree, one can give an unambiguous yes/no answer...you don't have any (perspective). Indeed...if your answer is unambiguous, then you're tribal instead of thinking, and folks trying to think should remember that when parsing your opinion in terms of Bayesian updating.
Let's turn this line of thinking up to 11:
There are two modalities of thought (that are relevant now):
- Trying to understand...reasoning from evidence
- Trying to persuade...reasoning from a desired conclusion or desired groupism.
UPDATED FOR CLARITY
Corrollary (we can call this corollary The Socrates Principle):
If your goal is to persuade, or build groups, then your goal isn't to understand...and you should actively oppose perspective. Make 'em drink hemlock...perspective is destructive of groupism, becaues groupism is substantially maintained by opinion cohesion.