Jainism developed a doctrine called anekāntavāda — the principle that any reality worth describing has more facets than any single description can hold — and built from it a rigorous practice for how to argue. Not relativism. Not 'everyone has a point.' The Jain logician Hemacandra in the 12th century insisted that when two people reach genuinely opposite conclusions from the same evidence, the most likely explanation is not that one person is wrong but that each is measuring a different cross-section of something three-dimensional. The mistake is treating your slice as the whole. Modern conflict researchers call this 'naive realism' — the automatic assumption that what you see is what there is, and therefore disagreement proves distortion in the other person. Combined, these two traditions point to something uncomfortable: most of the arguments that feel like they're about facts are actually about which axis you're measuring along. The practical move isn't to suspend judgment — it's to name your axis out loud before defending your position, which forces you to realize you had one.

In a disagreement you've had recently, what implicit axis were you measuring along — and did you ever say it out loud?

Drawing from Jain epistemology (anekāntavāda) synthesized with social psychology of naive realism — Hemacandra (synthesized with Lee Ross's naive realism research)