If both sides of the argument hate you, what does it mean?

 

In a typical polarisation of views around a subjects, we could consider:

-A set of beliefs that both sides agree with

-A set of beliefs that only side A agrees with

-A set of beliefs that only side B agrees with

-A set of beliefs that neither side agrees with

There could thus be 4 such sets. But there could be less than that.

The minimum would be one set, except then there’s no argument. Therefore minimum is 2.

 

If both sides of the argument hate you — it could mean you’re espousing set of beliefs that neither side agrees with.

But perhaps you’re only espousing some beliefs that group A agrees with, and some beliefs that group B agrees with. And each side is disappointed by you agreeing with any beliefs of the other side.

 

What does neither fully agreeing with side A, nor B, even mean?

It could mean that your understanding is inconsistent. If it was consistent — you’d espouse more of the beliefs of one side, and reject more of the conflicting beliefs of the other side.

Or it could mean that your understanding transcends spurious consistency — and finds a deeper pattern, deeper meaning.

It could also suggest that you’re less susceptible to the bandwagon effect — irrespective of your understanding or lack thereof (e.g. it doesn’t take understanding to align with one side, out of conformism)

 

However

I imagine both sides hating you is rather meaningless

What is meaningful is you being able to argue BOTH sides

That’s meaningful

And that’s revealing of greater understanding, greater nuance

And I suppose when this is achieved — indeed the conditions for “both sides hating you” will occur.

But the cause is your deeper understanding of both sides. Being rejected by both arguing sides is merely an effect.