One of my preferred strategies for thinking about–and dealing with–the future is “to embrace ambiguity.”
Not surprisingly, I’m often asked, “How does a person learn to embrace ambiguity?”
It’s a great question and I’d argue that it begins by acknowledging the existence of ambiguity.
To illustrate this point, I turn to the famous “If by whiskey” speech by Judge Noah S. “Soggy” Sweat, Jr., a state legislator from the state of Mississippi, who eloquently and firmly came down on both sides of a controversial bill seeking to prohibit whiskey sales:
My friends, I had not intended to discuss this controversial subject at this particular time. However, I want you to know that I do not shun controversy. On the contrary, I will take a stand on any issue at any time, regardless of how fraught with controversy it might be. You have asked me how I feel about whiskey. All right, here is how I feel about whiskey:
If when you say whiskey you mean the devil’s brew, the poison scourge, the bloody monster, that defiles innocence, dethrones reason, destroys the home, creates misery and poverty, yea, literally takes the bread from the mouths of little children; if you mean the evil drink that topples the Christian man and woman from the pinnacle of righteous, gracious living into the bottomless pit of degradation, and despair, and shame and helplessness, and hopelessness, then certainly I am against it.
But, if when you say whiskey you mean the oil of conversation, the philosophic wine, the ale that is consumed when good fellows get together, that puts a song in their hearts and laughter on their lips, and the warm glow of contentment in their eyes; if you mean Christmas cheer; if you mean the stimulating drink that puts the spring in the old gentleman’s step on a frosty, crispy morning; if you mean the drink which enables a man to magnify his joy, and his happiness, and to forget, if only for a little while, life’s great tragedies, and heartaches, and sorrows; if you mean that drink, the sale of which pours into our treasuries untold millions of dollars, which are used to provide tender care for our little crippled children, our blind, our deaf, our dumb, our pitiful aged and infirm; to build highways and hospitals and schools, then certainly I am for it.
This is my stand. I will not retreat from it. I will not compromise.
That, my friends, is a great example of embracing ambiguity, and one which I believe we can all learn from.
(If you’re looking for something a little more tangible, Charlie Munger also offers some excellent advice, which can be found in this old post, Argue With Yourself, It’s Not Debateable.)