This is very relevant here as well. I really liked the following part:
Don’t assume the conclusion that certain ideas are the right ones (something similar might be right but in their current form those ideas are unable to address the other side’s points well enough to reach a conclusion, so they’re actually wrong).
I always thought that if something is true why shouldn’t I just tyrannize myself. The explanation inside the brackets explain why I shouldn’t. Even though I think I know the right theory it’s not totally correct because if it were it would’ve defeated/convinced the other theory.
Wait, could it be the case the the other (emotional/inexplicit) part of me that is having other ideas (of not feeling motivated about doing something which I can explicitly conclude is right) is irrational so it is not convinced by a true theory?
Edit: My bad. It says in the next paragraph that don’t declare parts of yourself as irrational among other things.
Edit 2: Question after noticing the error: how does one reason with emotional part of themselves? By using non-judgmental introspection?