Disagreeing with others is both natural and necessary. We advance our ideas by struggling through our disagreements with others and by learning how they see things differently. We gain clarity by advocating for what we believe in and hearing the arguments and reasons others offer, in both support and opposition. This is how leaders learn.
You'll notice that the specific behavior you reference, when discussed in it's nuance, isn't fairly placed as an oppositional force to "agree to disagree"
"Agree to disagree" has become a lazy bucket to scrape and catch the lion's share of advice around this topic - which often happens with bromides unfortunately.
We wanted to write this to redeem the idea. Agree to disagree certainly has some specific cases where it is the best way to engage or disengage at a specific stage of discussion.
In my experience, I think we are too apt to 'agree to disagree' when the conversation isn't going are way instead of first trying to see if we can better understand the other person's POV and reach some level of common understanding.
Yes, Max, great point. So long as stating "let's agree to disagree" isn't used by the more powerful person in the discussion as a tactic to shut down dialogue they don't like (which is a common usage) then there is value in using it the way you suggest.
There is easily a tone one might slip into that makes the phrase sound like you are "taking the ball and going home"
What happened to disagreeing agreeably?
Great question, David.
The two aren't exactly opposites.
You'll notice that the specific behavior you reference, when discussed in it's nuance, isn't fairly placed as an oppositional force to "agree to disagree"
"Agree to disagree" has become a lazy bucket to scrape and catch the lion's share of advice around this topic - which often happens with bromides unfortunately.
We wanted to write this to redeem the idea. Agree to disagree certainly has some specific cases where it is the best way to engage or disengage at a specific stage of discussion.
In my experience, I think we are too apt to 'agree to disagree' when the conversation isn't going are way instead of first trying to see if we can better understand the other person's POV and reach some level of common understanding.
Strong agreement from us, David.
That illustration where 'agree to disagree' feels more like a barrier preventing discussion, and 'disagree agreeably' feels like a bridge...
Doesn't make one better than the other.
In some circumstances the wall/barrier metaphor is preferable.
https://www.instagram.com/p/Cf9dctMuK6S/
Yes, Max, great point. So long as stating "let's agree to disagree" isn't used by the more powerful person in the discussion as a tactic to shut down dialogue they don't like (which is a common usage) then there is value in using it the way you suggest.
There is easily a tone one might slip into that makes the phrase sound like you are "taking the ball and going home"