Conversations vs Disagreements

Post Reply New Topic

I'm wondering about the difference between conversations and disagreements / arguments.

I thought a conversation could have different points of view without being considered a disagreement, argument, or even a debate. Both people can share their point of view and learn from each other. No one is right or wrong, no one needs to apologise, and no one has their opinions invalidated or gaslit by the other party. Ideally, both people learn something from the exchange.

Sometimes when I engage in topical conversations, the other person reacts like it's acrimonious. If I don't agree with what they're saying, they tell me to "stop arguing". They say things like "I don't want to talk about it" and "Why are you attacking me?", or else they invalidate what I was saying to such an extent I'm gaslit. Then they go silent, and the onus is on me to apologise for having the conversation, or for expressing an opinion and asking questions in the first place.

I doubt every person I have a conversation with is a Narcissist. I don't engage in conversations with a loud voice or hostility. Sometimes it seems like the other person considers me argumentative because I'm intelligent and I can support my opinions with empirical data, personal experience, or relevant examples. They think this means I'm dwelling on the issue, or making too big of a deal out of things. Then, I feel obligated to apologise for enjoying the conversation and wanting it to continue.

How would you differentiate a conversation from a disagreement, argument, or debate?
Do you think gender plays a role? (I hate discussing things by gender, but maybe people think it's relevant.)

In my opinion, disagreements, arguments and debates all have winners and losers insomuch as the topic needs a definitive answer or they are structured to be adversarial. In my opinion a conversation isn't adversarial but can still be informed, intelligent, and respectful.


Thoughts?


* I wasn't sure if I should put this in LD or in Social Skills.
I've seen this dynamic in relationships even when the conversation isn't about conflict resolution.
I've also seen it between friends, casual acquaintances, family members, etc.

I put it here because LD seems to have more traffic and a greater likelihood of responses.

I worry that people seem increasingly unable to disagree without it being acrimonious. It really needn't be.

I always want to hear other people's points of view and how they arrived at them. I *want* to understand people who I might not have anything in common with. I want to hear why they think I'm wrong.

But I also see that it's hard not to feel attacked or diminished in some way when people disagree robustly with you. Particularly if they're right! I'm guilty of getting defensive, I'm sure.

But I believe that debate is a practice, the Greeks certainly thought so, and maybe it's one that it's increasingly easy to avoid. It's very easy to blame the internet for everything but it has fundamentally reconfigured the way many of us interact. We can retreat into siloes of agreement if we choose to. We can block those we disagree with. The internet has a way of prioritising the most entrenched positions which polarises debate and encourages people to pick teams. There's little room for nuance. I think these expectations are bleeding into real life.

In the UK, debate is generally only taught in expensive private schools. I don't believe it's in the national curriculum at all. Some comprehensive may have debate societies but that's it.

I wonder if that shouldn't be addressed.

The written word is hard to interpret. So conversations on here can be thought to be acrimonious when they are not.

I sometimes debate with my friends and enjoy it , in your post you are saying that debate is a negative thing?

I challenge my friend's viewpoints so that he will really know why he believes something and so I can see if he believes something for good reasons.

I see a conversation as something where there are no or few opposing opinions and a friendly debate as when the two take opposing viewpoints, even for fun.
Arguments are angry heated debates.

There used to be a show on PBS (not sure of name), I think it was Point-Counterpoint. The basic gist of the show was to present different points of view mainly liberal vs conservative. The idea behind the show was that a person could make a more informed decision by hearing both sides of an issue. You could present your POV and why you thought it was correct but it was not allowed to personally attack the other side . You could disagree with the other's POV but in a civil manner.

I agree the tone of written statements can be misinterpreted.

In my case, it seems that if I write well (using paragraphs which support my idea with examples, or with effective sentence structure and punctuation), it's interpreted as curt, overly-academic, or formal. People seem to find that acrimonious as if I'm a "know-it-all" who wants to win.

When I write quick one-liners or joke around, it's seen as being flippant or sarcastic.

Both are viewed as acrimonious.

The emojis here don't seem to help. Sometimes they're appropriate to show laughter or surprise, but even laughter and surprise can be misinterpreted as mockery.




Negative? Not at all, but debate is still different than a conversation. In debate, each person is expected to counter the other person's point of view with opposing arguments, in a polite and respectful way. There's usually a stated purpose to the debate, and a vote or decision at the end. Sometimes debates can become heated but by definition, they should not.

I like to debate academic topics. Sometimes I engage in debates here, usually about philosophy or human rights like R v Wade. We don't hold votes at the end, but it's understood that those topics are open for debate and the challenging of preconceived opinions. They shouldn't be negative, but some people like to hold grudges or make them acrimonious as if we do have winners and losers on site.



It sounds like you want to know why he believes something, as opposed to him wanting to know.
I think that's OK, if it's understood that you've agreed to debate.
Does he always know it's a debate, or could he possibly think it's a judgmental conversation?

Also, who is the final judge of whether his reasons are "good" ?
The definition of "good" is worthy of debate for its own merit.
There's no answer to the question, either empirically or ethically.



Interesting.

I see a conversation as two people talking. People will always have differing experiences and thoughts on every topic. Even something basic like "What does an apple taste like?" will have different answers for everyone. Add their ability to use descriptive language with metaphor or simile, their interest in the topic, or even the number and types of apples they've eaten (if any), and responses will vary considerably. People might agree and say "Apples taste good", but that's just a quick one-thought exchange. A conversation is meant to be back-and-forth, so ideally each person would say more. That's where their opinions would start to differ. The conversation would likely move onto other topics too.

If the topic is about the sharing of experiences and personal opinions, it's OK for the people to have markedly different opinions. Discussing autism, I might say my experience has been __________ because I'm speaking from my own POV as a woman, an NB brain, a single parent, a person with trauma, a person with brain injuries, a person with sensory processing disorder, a person who is mute, or a person with alexithymia, etc. That could be markedly different from another person discussing autism in a different context or if they're neurotypical. We'd have vastly different opinions and experiences but it doesn't mean this is a debate, disagreement, or argument.



I think that's the stereotype. I know what an argument is, but I'm not always angry or heated when I argue. Sometimes I'm sad. Sometimes I'm confused. Sometimes I'm neutral but I still want to "win" or prove I'm right (e.g., in court, in customer service disputes, in conflict resolution which needs a firm answer at the end.) Arguments can still be academic and orderly without anger. I could argue with someone that all human beings deserve equal rights. Ideally, I would want to win that argument or be in charge of the world so it could be so. I wouldn't become angry or heated because I wouldn't be able to express my point of view logically, or provide a rationale. Anger and being heated don't really serve a purpose other than "fight or flight", in my opinion, neither of which I'd want to do when discussing / arguing about important topics.

This is human nature. Most people don't like being disagreed with and if they think their side is valid they will be defensive. If the disagreement is based solely on fact, for example if you got the date wrong and someone corrected you the right date then there's obviously no point in defending that, because obviously the date is the date. But if someone criticised you for getting the date wrong then you may be defensive by giving reasons why you got the date wrong, maybe because you're embarrassed or that they have insulted you.

Just an example.

It is inevitable that somebody will disagree with someone about anything.

I don’t get upset if somebody disagrees with me. People sometimes get upset when I disagree with them. I’ve had times when I’ve agreed with someone on 16 points—but if I disagreed with that someone on one point, then I’m a “right-winger” or something like that.

The US Congress is a place where people cannot just “agree to disagree.” This is one of the causes of the gridlock which occurs there now.

The line between “conversation” and “argument” seems very blurred these days.

I think it takes more time to get to know you than some people. You seem very intellectual.I think the way your posts are written, they can be misinterpreted that way....because its so difficult to get the true meaning from text.
I think if someone got rid of all paranoia and assumed the best, then they'd get your posts truely.



I think now I know that's how you are, I can debate or discuss without thinking you are being those negative things you mentioned.

I think he understands when I debate with him, I think his reasons are good if he can back them up with something. I like to know what evidence he uses to form his opinions.


yeah i agree with that, i just gave a very short off the cuff answer, which can work sometimes but didnt that time

Thanks everyone.
It's a bit of a busy day so I might take a while to reply.
I appreciate the input.

I'd also like thoughts regarding an interpersonal / dating context.
For example, when a couple has a conversation with different opinions about a relationship issue.

Conversations seem to take on a more subjective nature - sharing different opinions, or even differing opinions, but neither seen as ultimately "right" or "wrong". "I like vanilla, but hate chocolate / Well, I hate vanilla, but love chocolate" - differing opinions, but no dissonance related to perceived fact or truth.

Disagreements seem to take on a more objective tone, directly relating to a discrepancy over an assumed fact or truth held by one or both parties. "I like black licorice / you're wrong, black licorice is gross, end of story!" - one person is perceived to be wrong by the other.

Arguments seem to occur when one or more party takes the issue very seriously, and is strongly invested in the outcome. Disagreements seem to occur when both parties don't take things as seriously, and are only moderately invested in the result. Debates seem to be the result of weakly held beliefs, which are more open to discussion. Strong-willed individual, with strong-held beliefs, seem more likely to argue than debate. Accommodative individuals with weakly held beliefs seem more likely to debate than argue. One person's argument may be another person's debate, and vice versa.

Some people hold some ideas with such conviction, that simply having an opinion that differs with theirs is enough to make them feel personally attacked. "I personally don't believe in Jesus / How dare you doubt my Lord and Savior! Apologize!"

Some people look for reasons to feel attacked, and everything anyone does is "wrong".

To paraphrase a statement by Cory Booker, you are not obligated to participate in a debate (or argument) just because you were invited to one.

I struggle with this. A lot. I'd like to be able to say that my difficulties with this are confined to text speak, but they aren't. They might actually be worse in a face to face setting. Confrontation can make me really uncomfortable and unless I know someone really well, I struggle to know if they are enjoying a nice debate or are about to lose their cool due to building anger because of the disagreement in that conversation. Even if I know someone well, it can be hard for me to know for sure because sometimes people who love heated topic talks can get upset by them. I lack the telepathic ability to gauge that stuff by body language or what have you.

I enjoy conversations where people can bring different thoughts and perspectives to the table. I like calm, rational, sane, talks where two people disagree and treat each other with respect and decency and gain some understanding. I think that's awesomess. I'd like to be able to engage in more talks like that but due to my own difficulties, I tend to keep away from such talks unless it is a talk with someone I am either comfortable with, or someone who's communication style I understand to be similar...meaning they also like respectful talks where understanding is the main point.

Somebody mentioned emojis. My impression is that those making liberal use of emojis do so with the intent to annoy. It feels as though they're mocking those with whom they disagree.

Some people take real offence to other people's opinions.

Sometimes people think that if you disagree with them or even just express a different opinion that means you don’t like them. That is ridiculous IMO.

Was that your 50th thousand post?

There's nothing more ridiculous than someone who rejects opinions that disagree with theirs because they consider themselves to be the only rational, logical thinker around. As if proclaiming yourself the Paragon of Veracity actually lends credibility to what one claims.