That is the antidote to defensiveness, according to my training in ORSC relationship systems coaching. It prevents us from dismissing wholesale the things we would rather not hear.

It's a powerful tool, especially in our current climate of mistrust, "fake news", and internet-enabled expertise.

The basic concept is that even in a statement that seems 100% wrong, 2% might be true. If so, your task is to unearth that truth. If 2% might be true, which 2% is that? This allows for a more honest engagement with an opposing viewpoint, and opens the door to reflection, learning, and even growth. My ORSC classmate Kelvin F. Alfaro writes about it beautifully in a post linked in the comments.

I remember arguing a mock appeal as a law student before a panel of real sitting judges (shout-out to all those on the bench who volunteer for these things. They make such an impression!) One judge made a comment during my submissions about my drinking water from a plastic bottle. It was unexpected and a little destabilizing. I was all set to collapse under the weight of this critique, but something in me realized that this judge was actually trying to help me. Her comment was an honest -and pointed- hint to use a glass to avoid drawing attention away from my arguments. I did not yet know about the "2% truth" rule, but I used it anyway, and left with gratitude to that judge rather than bitterness.

Hard feedback, inelegant criticism, and blunt comments are hard to hear. It is easy to dismiss them out of hand, or to malign the speaker as a way of avoiding their potential truth. The 2% truth rule holds us accountable by forcing us to ask, "what in this comment might be worth grappling with?"

Echo chambers can be a lot of fun, but at the end of the day, they're full of noise. We only grow when we engage with opposing viewpoints, even when they are hard to hear.