## Assumption Archaeology in Disagreements When two sides disagree, both feel they are being rational -- and they are, from their different assumptions. Surface-level debate is futile because each party's logic is internally consistent. Resolution requires excavating the foundational beliefs, values, and assumptions driving each position. **The method**: Instead of arguing conclusions, ask "What fundamental beliefs, values, or assumptions are we really disagreeing about?" This shifts from debating outputs to examining inputs. **Why it works**: Most disagreements are not about facts or logic but about which axioms to start from. Once the hidden axiom is surfaced, the disagreement either dissolves (shared axiom, different reasoning path) or becomes an honest values conflict (different axioms, both valid). **Connection to existing models**: Complements [[Right vs Effective Decision Framework]] (ego vs outcomes) and [[Source-First Opinion Formation Method]] (verify before forming opinions). Where Source-First checks facts, Assumption Archaeology checks premises. **Diagnostic question**: "What would I have to believe for the other side's position to be rational?" --- *Source: [[When two sides disagree, you need to get to the...]] — Jason Cohen (@asmartbear), March 2026*