Disagreeing agreeably

Post Reply New Topic

I started that Moderator Appreciation thread partly to make the point that disagreeing with one particular thing doesn't mean I have a problem with a person, or with other things done by a person who I have one disagreement with. I thought it might be a discussion worth having over here in the Social Skills section, about the general ins and outs of expressing disagreement without making the person you disagree with feel bad.
It seems like so often, disagreeing with or questioning one thing can lead to this whole bandwagon of criticism that just has nothing to do with the issue. I guess it's especially common in the WP Discussion section, like when somebody brings up an issue that they feel is a general community issue and they hope to get feedback from others about it, it ends up turning into some kind of circus of blame. Somebody will hope that others will agree with them that a particular topic or whatever is relevant, and then others chime in blaming whoever first thought that it wasn't, and then it looks like the person who raised the issue was causing trouble when they may not have foreseen the trouble that gets caused.
I think ways of disagreeing agreeably differ between aspies and NTs, particularly since aspies are sometimes more objective about facts, but there are issues with it both here and in the real world. It might also make it harder among aspies to discuss opinions, because it can feel like when you're talking about something that's less fact-based, it's hard to not make it totally personal. (Um, if that makes sense..)
I've gotten in trouble so much in my life for not being able to properly address the difference between disagreement and dislike, both in what I say and what is said to me. I think the times that I have been able to do it properly have been less because of anything I managed to do and more because the other person was particularly adept at it.
So how do you guys deal with stuff like that? What works so far as disagreeing without insulting? What things have NOT worked?

I do my best to look past all opinion, including my own, in favor of "just the facts, please" as we continue along in our common journey from within a dynamic of "mutual vulnerability, openly shared" (Ernest Kurtz). And to keep from insulting others, I do not bring (talk about) "you" into the mix. All of that, however, is what so often does *not* work among selfish, self-centered people, as even I can be (or as I might at least seem).

So what if something is largely a matter of opinion? Or, for that matter, if it's something that varies between different people to the extent that there just is no one answer?


That is VERY true. I'm thinking that it's just impossible to convince somebody who is totally self-centered that it's possible to disagree with something they said but not with them in general, for exactly that reason-- if they're self-centered, they think that everything is about themselves. How do you tell somebody who thinks that everything is about them that your criticism is about something specific and not about them in general?
Another thing is that it's difficult to tell when it's appropriate. If you assume that somebody isn't self-centered and is capable of rational conversation.. then if they're not, they're likely to get royally pissed off. I frequently find that people get angry at me for thinking positive things about them. Well, I guess not so much for thinking positive things as acting on positive beliefs about the person. Like someone will say that they value honesty over politeness, and then when I later go ahead and attempt to tell them something that I might not have said if I thought they valued sugar-coating over honesty, they get angry at me. Or I act on the assumption that something they said was true, and when it isn't, my behaving as though what they said was true becomes terribly inconvenient for them.
But then other times, it's the other way around. I'm afraid that what someone said wasn't true and that they'll get angry at me for thinking that it was, only to then find out that it was true. But then I re-adjust my mind to the concept that people can mean what they say, and it gets me in trouble the next time I encounter somebody who doesn't mean what they say. (Um, I'm not sure how much sense all of that made.. I'm so clueless about how to deal with the fact that some people mean what they say, some don't, and some say that they do, but don't.)

I always end up addressing the wrong people in the wrong ways.. which goes back to what I said in my original post about how the times that I have managed to successfully disagree without offending, the accomplishment was more on the part of the other party.

Can you offer an example? Honestly, I believe all things ultimately come down to (or eventually break down into) matters of discernable fact. As my own example: Suppose you and I might disagree about that. Rather than bringing (attacking) “you” in the mix, I would simply raise the question of absolutes: Either they exist or they do not. And of course, I would never agree on the thought of “no absolutes” being the only absolute! Bottom line? I am just as willing to be wrong as you might wish to be right, and we will have no problems between us if neither of us cares who is in which place at any given moment.



My best example there is drawn from a previous work experience. My co-worker and I (who is also a personal friend) had similar and complementary abilities and experience, and we had been assigned a given project to do together in a side-by-side fashion. We began with his telling me the overall parameters (since I had never before worked in his particular building), and then I began an actual design and some foundational work.

Over the next few days, I could see my co-worker was getting worked up over my challenges of anything and everything I saw along the way that could in any way cause trouble (malfunction or dysfunction) later on, but I did not understand he was hearing my challenges as personal attacks ... and I was very surprised when he eventually asked, “Why do you keep criticizing everything I say?”

It took about five minutes for me to explain I was simply troubleshooting the end result of our work as we go along and not in any way attacking him, and he and I have never since had even the slightest misunderstanding. Again: I am just as willing to be wrong as he might wish to be right, and we have no problems between us because neither of us any longer cares who is in which place at any given moment.



You bet, and I have no problem walking away and simply forgetting about him or her if there is no willingness to truly share our lives together!



How I handle that kind of thing is dependent upon what I believe best for him or her, and that can range from backing off to calling someone right on out of his or her deception, delusion or lack of knowledge (simple ignorance) ... and I even do that with my grandchildren so they can learn, although usually very gently.



Yes, that can be very challenging. For the most part, I take people “at their word” until their actions might later prove their word unworthy of a reasonable degree of trust, and I simultaneously try to hear within the individual’s own context whatever has been said.



Sure, and that is why I just try to stick to facts and not say anything to “you” about “you” unless you have specifically asked! That does not guarantee no conflict, of course, but it sure does at least help keep me from *truly* being the offending party (as often alleged).

PS: I have not been here at WP for long enough to know everything its moderators might do along the line of keeping this a friendly place, but I do know it to be one, and I thank everyone here for that!

A lot of political discussions can come down to opinion, or to things that just can't be proven. If there were solid facts about what works and what doesn't and how to make things work without totally sacrificing all ideals, then we'd live in a perfect world. Of course, I try to avoid political discussions for exactly that reason. Or things about human nature, or about gender roles. I guess some of the conflict that I run into on that is that people think I see things as more black and white than I do. They'll make it sound as though I said something applies to everybody when I just meant that there's a general trend or something.


I've given that same explanation, and had people claim to understand-- but then the next time, they're yelling at me all over again for the same thing. I guess those are people I just shouldn't deal with. When people say there's a misunderstanding, I always want to understand. But sometimes they say that just to manipulate.


I keep finding that it gets me in trouble. I can't believe how angry people can get for being thought of as honest.. but they actually do!! And then I think I shouldn't believe what people say, so I stop believing when I should.

If I may ask: What do you mean by "without totally sacrificing all ideals"?

And also if I may, here would be my own statement proffered in conjunction with yours:

If all people were inclined to at least be willing to believe there are solid facts about what works and what doesn't and how to make things work, this world in which we live must just soon at least be a much better place!

But until then, of course, we must all do as best we believe with each other.

I think what I mean is that there's never been a perfect government-- there have been ideals that have worked on paper, but that people screwed up because they didn't work practically. So since "political perfection" has never been achieved, how do we even know what it would be? Things can work in some ways but not others, or can work on small scales but not larger ones, but knowing what was successful in politics when the world population was smaller doesn't guarantee that it could work today.
So getting something to "work" practically frequently ends up meaning forgetting about why it was supposed to "work" to begin with. Like communism. It was supposed to be about equality, but it ended up being incredibly oppressive, because the theory just didn't pan out the way it was supposed to.

I'm getting the feeling we might be talking about different types of "solid facts." What kinds of solid facts do you mean? More like specific things in the past? I don't quite have a concrete idea of what you mean when you say that there are facts about what works. (I'm sorry I'm dense.. )

No, you are not dense, and I am not sure of the best way to answer you.

Based on my own 59 years of experience in life as we presently know it, I say the idea of mankind ever governing itself successfully no longer flies. So, and at least because I could never in the past successfully establish my own goings and govern my own life, I now try to live (as best I can) as a subject within a divine monarchy ... and a community there is what I am convinced works.

I'm not totally sure what you mean by that.
But you also indicated that what "works" is a community that sounds like it's fairly small? So the politics of something that is small can be personal, and work on a level that wouldn't work on a larger scale. You can't just take a political philosophy that works for 100 or 1,000 or even 10,000 people, and then try to apply it to millions or billions of people..
Just like how communes work but communism doesn't. So someone couldn't use the fact that a particular commune is a nice place to justify worldwide communism.

Good point. There are countless things that work in some settings and not in others. They work for some people and not for others. People do tend to generalize from their own experience. I know I do that so I'll just assume everybody else does too Oftentimes it's best just to agree to disagree because two people can be in complete disagreement but also both right. One person says, "I see X constantly, it's very common" and another person says "I have never seen X and I'm 50 so it must be pretty rare" and they're both right...for their respective experiences. I will agree to disagree just so long as what I'm agreeing to disagree about isn't something that actually affects my life and my family---then I'll stick to my guns.

I believe that sometimes there are solid facts and sometimes there are just guesses that get mistaken as solid facts. There is a timeline. When you say "solid facts about what works" that assumes that X has worked in the past and can be assumed to work again in the future. That's a safe assumption only when no variables change to make the future situation different from the past situation. A common logical (and policy making) error is to assume that the future situation will be just like the past situation and so it is a "fact" that X will work. But then some unnoticed variable changes things and X doesn't work AT ALL but people have a hard time accepting this because it worked so well in the past.

There can't be facts on how to make things work. There can only be educated guesses. Mistaking educated guesses for facts will not make the world a better place.

Autonomous spiritual communities within a divine monarchy.



If/when everyone was/is a willing subject of a divine monarchy, their communities within it could not (cannot) possibly fail. However, and since mankind has yet to admit its complete failure at self-government, such a life for all is far from imminent.



Agreed, and I truly hope I have not sounded like I mean to impose anything!



With no conflicting facts present, I see no need to "agree to disagree" here. It is a fact that mankind cannot govern itself successfully, it is a fact that nothing imposed upon mankind will be found acceptable by all (and/or "work" for all), it is a fact that autonomous spiritual communities within a divine monarchy cannot fail as long as all subjects are willing participants, and I believe we all definitely agree here (at least in principle):



Personally, I have seen "X" just enough to know it is real, yet I also acknowledge it is, at least in my own experience, rather rare.

We have not solved the world's troubles here, yet this has been the most civil discussion I have ever had on such a troublesome subject!

Good things happen here on the wrong planet.

In answer to your question, I'm reading something right now which I think may be useful, language pragmatics. Basically there's more than just describing the world, our words actually do things, purpose. The way we talk implies various things. There's the literal meaning, and then what someone is actually saying. There's an area of linguistics, pragmatics, which goes past the literal semantic meaning and covers the speaker meaning based on the context (don't confuse with pragmatics of language from speech pathology which is using language socially, although that's supposed to have overlap and I heard is also very useful).

The workbook http://books.google.com/books?id=xHTErd ... q=&f=false has a chapter discussing politeness. It says people sometimes can be indirect while at the same time controlling context to get the same point across, to be more polite. If you need to say something unpleasant about someone, the more indirect while getting the point across, the more polite (when saying something good you can be more direct). Example, "How do you like my sweater?" You, "I hate it," versus, "I don't," versus, "It's a sweater," versus, "It's pink." If you ask someone to do something that requires effort on their part, versus offering someone something, the same can apply ("Clean the floor" versus "You wouldn't mind cleaning the floor?" versus "The floor seems to be getting dirty"). Of course there are situations where you have to be more direct. There's also positive versus negative politeness, which doesn't have to do with effectiveness but rather how deal with those close to you versus those who are either strangers or someone to be treated like an independent.

Although it only discusses disagreeing briefly at the end of the chapter, it says one linguistic researcher says one way to be more polite is by briefly agreeing with part of what the other person says before saying the part that you disagree with. If you absolutely cannot, apologizing with something like, "I'm sorry but ...." is seen as more polite than just straight out disagreeing.