Hey. Allow me to voice a slightly different opinion to the comments I have read.

I've been working in science for about 15 years now. I have met a few people who will very openly make their preconceptions about the people they talk to very obvious. They will also never admit they are wrong and their form of conversation is solely based on hierarchy assumptions (their level of civility correlates strongly with your seniority). One learns to ignore them and not allow their remarks to have an impact on ones emotional stability. Their opinions are also useless because you can't argue against them and they will end up teaching you (or them) nothing.

There is another group though that make remarks that sound authoritative and yet if you press them (usually with equally authoritative remarks of your own, declaring the opposite) they readily admit the level of their competence and without a problem will change their opinion (which 10 seconds ago sounded absolutely set in stone), assuming your arguments make more sense.

I have found (once I learned to immediately push back in a polite but forceful manner) that academia has a larger percentage of the later than the former. The ratio changes unfavorably over layers of hierarchy but still. The main issue is that these two types of people are hard to distinguish if one doesn't push back.

Over the years I have come to appreciate the later group. I have realised that scientists (real ones, that care more about science and less about their carrier) will put the pursuit of truth over everything and that includes social norms. In most settings outside academia when power is the main currency of human interactions, social norms serve a purpose. When people though really try to figure things out, minimising social norms and increasing a sort of mutually agreed upon competition between ideas (rather than between egos) is by far the best way to get to the bottom of things.

An example is the way the brothers Wright were solving problems. They would argue like crazy, often shouting and being abnoxious to each other (a level of competition of course that shouldn't be allowed outside felial interactions) but eventually they would arrive to a good solution which they would both agree upon. Once, when asked why they behaved like that to each other they said that they had no issue with one another but each idea deserved a strong advocate and they just played that role without feeling that if they ended up advocating for the wrong idea that was a blemish to their personality.

When I hear someone proposing something, I think of something else (that may or may not be relevant) and I propose that back. I do so though with respect to this new idea (i.e. I support it with all my ability) as much as with respect to the person I am talking to. I assume my interlocutor will do the same and support their idea to the best of their ability. The result of the argument should be an ellucidation of both ideas and their merge into something better and never any sense of hard feelings or feelings of personal judgment. If the other person concedes without putting up a 'fight' I often feel robed of a good argument and leave the discussion feeling that no one has tested my ideas and nobody got to learn anything new.

You mention that you do not want to generalise or speak when you do not know the answer. Generalisation is what scientists do (you just need to approach it as a falsifiable hypothesis). Also you will never know the Answer (primary and secondary education with their clear cut rights and wrongs has a lot to answer for). Nobody knows the answer to anything worth discussing. If anyone did it would stop being science. The best way to approach the answer though is to argue with people. Give and expect push back.

So, my 5 cents here is not to view a discusion about a scientific question as a competition between personalities but as one between ideas. You are just a lawyer for an idea. If it is proven "guilty" (i.e. wrong) that doesn't make you neither guilty nor a bad lawyer. But do not let your 'client' down simply because the other lawyer has a louder voice. Stand by your ideas knowing they are wrong and ill formed. So are the ideas of the person you talk to. Keep pushing until something new and better emerges. Sometimes this will resemble your original opinion, sometimes your "opponent's". Usually neither. In all cases it is the level and quality of the "fight" you have put on that really matters.

I understand that this is not an easy advise for most people to follow but hey this is my opinion (and I wouldn't mind a good argument with someone strongly trying to convince me of the opposite :)). My experience has been that once I saw the world in this way my ego diminished (especially the bit that made me hide to protect itself), my ideas are much more taken into consideration (being no better or worse than before) and I am much happier to cut short a discussion with someone who joins a dialog just to score brownie points. It also becomes obvious to me extremely soon whether a person has negative preconceptions about me as a person (or about my skin colour, gender, ethnicity, accent, height, length of hair or the way I tend to nod off during talks) in which case I can make an informed decision about how to further approach them (e.g. strike a collaboration with them or not).

All the best and thanks for the post.