Jainism developed a doctrine called anekāntavāda — the idea that any complex thing can only be fully described by holding multiple partial perspectives simultaneously, none of which is complete on its own. Jain philosophers used this not as an excuse for indecision but as a discipline: before concluding anything, you had to articulate at least two genuinely incompatible views of it and treat both as partially true. Product managers face a version of this problem constantly — a feature is 'ready' from engineering, 'too early' from sales, and 'already overdue' from customers, and all three are correct. The trap isn't that one team is wrong. The trap is treating any single account as the full picture and optimizing for it. The Jain practice offers something practical: when you're about to make a call on priority, timeline, or scope, try stating the strongest version of the opposing view before you decide — not to compromise, but to find what each partial truth is actually tracking.

What's the view on your current roadmap that you've been dismissing — and what real problem would it be correct about?

Drawing from Jain epistemology (anekāntavāda) — Mahavira / Jain philosophical tradition