This will hardly be the first time that two TED speakers have verbally jousted oon the TED stage. Here, sets of TED speakers who have disagreed — either in an official debate or in separate talks — to give you a taste of what to expect at TED2013, where the TED Blog will be reporting live every second.

Paul Zak vs. Molly Crockett: Is oxytocin the moral molecule?

In these two talks given a year apart, neuroscience experts Paul Zak and Molly Crockett disagree on what we can say about oxytocin.

Paul Zak: Trust, morality -- and oxytocin?Paul Zak: Trust, morality — and oxytocin? Morality is a distinctively human trait and it might be because of the hormone oxytocin. In this talk from TEDGlobal 2011, neuroeconomist Paul shares his 10-year search for what he calls “the moral molecule” and reveals his studies on how oxytocin boosts trustworthiness, empathy and even the desire to give money to charity.

Molly Crockett: Beware neuro-bunkMolly Crockett: Beware neuro-bunk Neuroscientist Molly Crockett wants everyone to spot “neuro-fiction” — claims that overshoot our current understanding of the brain. Crockett evokes Zak’s work with oxytocin. According to Crockett, studies on oxytocin “are scientifically valid and they have been replicated, but they’re not the full story.” She explains, “Other studies have shown that boosting oxytocin increases envy, it increases gloating. Oxytocin can bias people to favor their own group.”

Peter Diamandis vs. Paul Gilding: What will the future look like?

Because these two speakers expressed such different views at TED2012, TED Curator Chris Anderson invited the pair onstage for a formal debate.

Rick Warren vs. Dan Dennett: Do our lives have purpose?

Dan Dennett couldn’t help but respond directly to Rick Warren at TED2006, after hearing his talk.

Rick Warren: A life of purpose Rick Warren: A life of purpose At TED2006, pastor Rick Warren said, “I believe spiritual emptiness is a universal disease.” He explained his belief in God, and how he thinks each one of us is here for a specific purpose that matters, and describes his crisis of purpose in the wake of releasing a best-selling book.

Dan Dennett: Responding to Pastor Rick Warren Dan Dennett: Responding to Pastor Rick Warren Speaking at the same conference, philosopher Dan Dennett suggests that religions are natural phenomenon, evolving over time to survive. Dennett says that life — both ours and that of animals — has been designed by evolution, and lacks an individual purpose.

Stewart Brand vs. Mark Z. Jacobson: Nuclear energy?

>

Before you watch this debate from TED2010, try this experiment: Ask yourself, who do you agree with now? Watch the debate. And then — ask yourself again.

Note: This post was originally published on August 6, 2012, and was updated with a new introduction and set of examples on Feb. 13, 2013.

Rob Manning did everything in his power to screw up the Curiosity rover’s landing on Mars last night. Manning not only cut radio signals to the Jet Propulsion Laboratory’s control room, but also simulated a hole being poked in the rover’s fuel system and solar flares flying toward the spacecraft.

Why would he do this?

Because he is the chief engineer for the rover mission, and wanted his team to be able to handle any worst-case scenario.

“Being a gremlin allows me to soul-search and look at all the things that I missed,” Manning told the Chicago Tribune in the days before last night’s landing.

Manning’s mischief would certainly get a thumbs up from management expert Margaret Heffernan. In a thought-provoking talk given at TEDGlobal 2012, Heffernan shared a counterintuitive lesson learned in her years running businesses and organizations — that conflict and opposition are essential for good thinking.

To make her point, Heffernan shared the story of Alice Stewart, an epidemiologist in England in the 1950s, who studied a steep uptick in the incidence of childhood cancer. Stewart made a startling discovery in her research — that children developing the disease were overwhelmingly born to mothers who had prenatal x-rays. Still, even with her research widely circulated, it still took more than 25 years for the medical establishment to listen to Stewart and abandon the practice of giving x-rays to pregnant women. Most people would have started to question their work. But Stewart stayed confident because she had a collaborator, statistician George Kneale, who actively tried to disprove her in any way he could — with zero success.

While our cultural zeitgeist tends to think of the ideal partners as two people thinking together — and doling out high fives at regular intervals — Heffernan says of Stewart and Kneale, “It’s a fantastic model of collaboration — thinking partners who aren’t echo chambers. I wonder how many of us dare to have such partners.”

In her talk, Heffernan shared a stunning statistic — that 85% of executives had concerns with their company that they were afraid to raise, out of fear of the conflict that would ensue. Heffernan warns that this not only means that businesses aren’t getting the best work out of their employees, but that issues which could be nipped in the bud internally perpetuate themselves.

So how do you foster conflict in businesses and science labs that leads to nimbler thinking rather than, say, a lot of yelling and hurt egos? After the jump, Heffernan shares her guidelines for productive disagreement.

1. Appoint a devil’s advocate. Someone whose excellence is demonstrated by the quality of questions they ask. Great questions include: “What are the best reasons not to do this?” “What don’t we know that, if we did know, would change our decision?” “If we had more money or time, what would we do?” “If this were a documentary, what would be the narrative arc?” It’s important that different people play the role of devil’s advocate: if it is always the same person, they’ll get tuned out — and burned out.

2. Find allies. If you have concerns, try asking others privately, “Are you okay with this? Does anything about this bother you? Is there another way to frame this question?” Having allies allows you to work together to be creative and solve the problem.
.
3. Listen for what is NOT being said. If the conversation is being framed about money, consider what is not being talked about. If everyone’s talking technology, what have they left out of their equation? Sometimes it’s helpful to bring in an outsider to help with this. They should do nothing but listen. Then, ask for their impressions — not recommendations. They may notice trends that people embroiled in the conversation simply can’t.
.
4. Imagine you cannot do what you all want to do. In other words, think about what you would do if you could fire someone, if you could change the timetable, or if you were allowed to cancel the deal. If you could do any of those things — would you still proceed with your plan? What are the hidden orthodoxies nobody is challenging?

5. After a decision is made, declare a cooling off period. Ask everyone to go home and think about the decision on their own as well as discuss it with their family. Come back after a prescribed amount of time and ask the group: does the decision still look great?

Explains Heffernan, “All of these guidelines are neutral and designed to aid exploration rather than judgment. There’s never any reason not to try these — who doesn’t want to make better decisions?”