Filter Coffee # 182

On Devil's Advocate

Hello All, FC 181 on ‘moving the needle’ fetched me a few comments. Thank you!

• Lakshmi Raman says: “As always, I enjoyed today's edition of Filter Coffee on 'moving the needle.' My health has been of concern in the past few months. I realise now that with resuming yoga, the needle has moved indeed in that aspect.”

• Lynn Weiss from USA writes: “Sorry to be political again but it seems that nothing that Trump does ‘moves the needle’! It seems that this resembles my old 2003 car, where the gas gauge has difficulty moving the needle even though I fill the tank. Ultimately, the needle moves to full, but can I be sure it still has fuel when the gauge goes down with the same resistance? I can only hope that in Trump’s case, the needle moves in the right direction with greater speed than my car, so our country doesn’t lose our democracy. Pras, I truly enjoy your topics and thoughtful analogies that continue to inspire us.”

• Shahji Jacob says: “Another learning for me. Though I guessed the meaning of the phrase, I had never heard it being used before, at least I do not remember. Thank you Pras.”

😈 Devil’s Advocate

All of us use this phrase frequently in a variety of situations and during discussions. I am an advocate, but to call myself that requires academic qualifications. None of us need any qualification to be a ‘devil’s advocate’. All you need is the ability to reflect, analyse and cogently present a contra-view.

Who is a devil’s advocate? It is commonly understood to be a person who questions, counters or for that matter argues (as a lawyer would) against a stated viewpoint. They find it difficult to accept a viewpoint unless it is tested with a contra view, even if that is hypothetical. They often make people pause and reflect on their views over a particular decision, conclusion, person, or matter of significance.

We are often critical of someone’s actions and are quite willing to be judgemental. The devil’s advocate (hereafter referred to as the DA, though a District Attorney would not like to be called a devil’s advocate) would want you to put yourself in that person’s position and visualise what you would have done. The DA may give you reasons to either soften your attitude or even change your views, or stick to your views after having tested it with the DA’s contra view.

There are instances when the DA presents logical reasons as to why you should give up thinking in a certain manner or not pursue a course of action, and you may find yourself brushing aside the DA’s views only to realise at a later point in time that you wish you had heeded their logic. This lends credence to one of the views that the DA at times helps you realise that your argument or reasoning is flawed.

So, where did this phrase come from? I did a deep dive and this is what I found. Way back in 1587, Pope Sixtus V established an official position of advocatus diaboli, meaning devil’s advocate. It was in the context of granting sainthood, which was the culmination of canonization. The candidate is first recognised as a “Servant of God” and later given the designation “venerable” followed by beatification and finally sainthood. 

Advocatus Diaboli or the DA, was entrusted with the care and duty to call into question the candidate's qualification or entitlement to be considered for canonization and in particular the candidate's saintliness. The duty was a difficult one, but was necessary. It is said that Pope John Paul II revamped the canonization process and eventually discontinued the office of advocatus diaboli. It appears that even without this office, the tradition of challenging and validating continues even today and this is said to have happened during the canonization process of Mother Teresa when she was granted sainthood.

There’s a novel “Devil’s Advocate” by Morris West and its narrative is predicated on the concept of advocatus diaboli. In an impoverished village in southern Italy, the life and death of Giacomo Nerone have inspired talk of saint­hood. Father Blaise Meredith is sent from the Vatican to investigate. Here’s the link if you are a bookworm 🔗Devil's Advocate (Loyola Classics) by Morris L. West | Goodreads

The popular notion is that a DA takes a contrary position for the sake of testing an argument. It is also believed that devil’s advocacy is when someone pretends, in a discussion or argument, to be against a widely supported idea or plan with the hope of uncovering flaws or mistakes.

Before the attack on Pearl Harbor in 1941, internal messages intercepted from Japan revealed that the Japanese planned to attack the Pacific region. A warning was sent to officers stationed at Pearl Harbor, however, they were not taken seriously. Officers doubted Japan would attack first, and were confident that the US would be able to destroy Japanese fleets if there were an attack. We now know this confidence was mistaken and recognize the Pearl Harbor attack as the catalyst that caused the US to enter World War II.

What could have been done differently? The Americans thinking they were invulnerable and not questioning the proposed decision are the main reasons attributed to this historical incident. Had someone purposefully doubted the opinion of the majority, perhaps history could have taken a different turn. Pearl Harbor needed a devil’s advocate. You can read more about the DA here: 🔗Devil’s Advocacy - The Decision Lab.

Perhaps this may have served as an inspiration for the Israeli army to have the tenth man, who did not and was not expected to, subscribe to the views of nine others. The Tenth Man Rule is a method used by Israeli intelligence after they failed to take threats seriously on several occasions. Here’s what the Mossad Chief Jurgen Warmbrunn, said:

If nine of us who get the same information arrive at the same conclusion, it’s the duty of the tenth man to disagree. No matter how improbable it may seem. The tenth man has to start thinking about the assumption that the other nine are wrong. 

To know more, check out this link: 🔗The Tenth Man Rule - Principle Explained.

DA is also often branded as a sceptic who doubts everything and requires evidence before accepting a viewpoint. In my view, the DA is not a sceptic, but one who has his views over a subject and aids in the validation or invalidation of the majority view.

DA is also not a whistle-blower who openly or secretively squeals about the wrongdoing of others who may be his colleagues or outsiders having dealings with an organisation. A whistle-blower may point to people taking advantage of the inadequacies of the system and the porosity in financial or process controls.

There’s a 1997 film titled ‘Devil’s Advocate’ about an exceptionally adept Florida lawyer who is offered a job at a high-end New York City law firm with a high-end boss. The biggest opportunity of his career to date. If you are a lawyer-movie buff, it is on Prime Video.

Nine years ago, the famous lawyer & jurist Late. Sri. Ram Jethmalani spoke at the Jaipur Litfest and the segment was ‘Devil’s Advocate’. If you are interested in watching him in conversation with Shobha De and Madhu Trehan, it is on YouTube.

Here is a comedian from the UK, James Acaster, with a funny set on DA:

Never imagined when I wrote FC 82 (🔗 click here to read it) that I would carry on and be writing FC 182. Thanks for your patronage!

I shall end this post with a joke, simple but quite mirthful, and a quote, simple but powerful.

Why did the atheist get into an argument with the priest?
He was playing devil's advocate.

A challenge to the majority position actually liberates people.
– Charlan J. Nemeth (Prof at UC Berkeley)

Until next week, take care. Don’t accept anything at face value. Be your own devil’s advocate. Ciao.