We live in an age of instant agreement. An article lands in your feed that perfectly captures what you already believe. You share it. Your network nods along. The algorithm takes note and serves up more of the same.
It feels productive, but is it?
The Question That Started It
A few weeks ago, I found myself reading yet another compelling piece about [insert same same here]. Well-written and perfectly aligned with my existing beliefs. Something nagged at me: What would the smartest person who disagrees with this say?
I realized I didn't know.
This led me down a rabbit hole, hunting for credible dissent and contrary evidence. What I found was super interesting. The strongest counter-arguments didn't demolish the original idea, but revealed crucial nuances I hadn't considered.
I often found myself agreeing with BOTH, and without feeling a need to pick sides.
This is how CounterArticle was born.
Reading Against Yourself, Gently
The concept is simple: When an article gains traction or makes bold claims, we deliberately seek out a strong case for another perspective. Not to tear down the original, but to illustrate a fuller picture.
Each piece follows the same structure:
- Clear explanation of which article prompted our response
- Well-researched arguments exploring a different hypothesis
- Transparent sourcing so you can check our work
- An invitation to read both pieces together
Why This Matters
In my work I see teams latch onto frameworks and new ideas because they sound compelling in isolation. They implement wholesale, only to discover context matters more than concept.
The best people I've worked with have developed an instinct for this. When presented with new strategy, their first question isn't "How do we implement this?" but "What are we missing? Who might disagree and why?"
CounterArticle is that instinct.
The Real Leverage
I know what you're thinking: "We barely have time to read one perspective, let alone two." But consider this—how much time do you waste implementing ideas that seemed brilliant until reality intervened?
A few extra minutes considering alternatives can save weeks of course correction later.
Besides, this isn't about reading everything. It's about reading differently. It's practice for holding multiple ideas in tension rather than racing to judgment.
Because in a world where everyone's picking sides, sometimes the most radical act is staying curious long enough to understand what the other side actually believes.
CounterArticle is live at counterarticle.com. Please let me know what you think!