Do You "Agree to Disagree"?

I thought it'd be interesting to gauge how people interact with others about issues with which they disagree.

Day to day - whether it's family members or online - people are often convinced of their own views, so much so, that they can't help but get involved in a debate -even if that debate is futile and both sides never compromise.

As you have grown older, did you find yourself agreeing with others for the sake of avoiding unnecessary disagreement and debate?

In other words, you became more than comfortable with whatever you think, and don't feel the need to argue it or convince someone of your view.

Or are you the alternative, who must win the argument no matter what - even if it's about something tiny and relatively insignificant?

Me personally, I'm in the former category. Whilst disagreeing online is the nature of forums such as this, in real life I've given up trying to debate others. I've found it a total waste of time.

Sometimes, trying to convince others, for me at least, is more representative of how insecure you are in the position you hold. Sometimes, the best thing to do is to shut up and pretend to agree with the other side.

Then again, I've been told by some friends of mine that that's a cowardly and almost mendacious way to live.

So, what is it for you?

How do you approach disagreements and debates compared to when you were younger?

peasant

Arguing/debating has gone to sh!t over recent years.

Ever since social media has taken hold over our lives there are not many people left who can think beyond black and white and / or 280 characters.

As most complicated issues aren't black or white but multiple shades of grey there aren't any debates to be had anymore, just arguments that must be won (apparently?)

Unless it's a total redline of mine, I'll just nod and go along with it.

Your Face

I always thought that people who endlessly engage in these inane debates were lacking in something.
I used to just avoid these sadsacks.

Today though it's harder to do, so many people are like this now.
I've grown apart from friends due to them only wanting to argue about whatever is fashionable this week.
Life is way too short for that bollocks.

Church on Tuesday

You try to respect the other persons (reasonable) viewpoint at the end whilst stating you disagree with them.

Many (unreasonable) will try to continue to argue at which point there really is little point in further engagement and you then simply let them at it.

ShatterAlan

Deleted User wrote: »

I thought it'd be interesting to gauge how people interact with others about issues with which they disagree.

Day to day - whether it's family members or online - people are often convinced of their own views, so much so, that they can't help but get involved in a debate -even if that debate is futile and both sides never compromise.

As you have grown older, did you find yourself agreeing with others for the sake of avoiding unnecessary disagreement and debate?

In other words, you became more than comfortable with whatever you think, and don't feel the need to argue it or convince someone of your view.

Or are you the alternative, who must win the argument no matter what - even if it's about something tiny and relatively insignificant?

Me personally, I'm in the former category. Whilst disagreeing online is the nature of forums such as this, in real life I've given up trying to debate others. I've found it a total waste of time.

Sometimes, trying to convince others, for me at least, is more representative of how insecure you are in the position you hold. Sometimes, the best thing to do is to shut up and pretend to agree with the other side.

Then again, I've been told by some friends of mine that that's a cowardly and almost mendacious way to live.

So, what is it for you?

How do you approach disagreements and debates compared to when you were younger?

You should never agree to something with which you don't agree. That's validating the other side. Your friends are correct. It IS cowardly. Don't do it. It's better to simply say "You're wrong, and nothing you can say will change my mind.", and then leave it at that.

Facts are facts and if you are in possession of them then that should be good enough. Outside of that there is opinions, rumours, biases and a host of other cloudy angles.

Giving in to someone's opinion just to keep the peace gives them carte blanche to not step back and think about their position. If anything it encourages them to ram it down the next person's throat.

When someone tries to convince me that a mother and her daughter who can't even swim get on board a wooden pallet with no food or water and try to float from Algeria to Malta in order to "take our jobs" , I shut the discussion down most expediently and let that person froth at the mouth because they can't make me share their horrible views.

McGinniesta

If you avoid people that hold a differing opinion then you could be accused of confirmation bias.

If you engage then you could end up with an argument that degenerates into ridiculous nonsense.

Its difficult to strike a balance sometimes.

Should you waste time trying to bring someone around to your way of thing when its unlikely to work

completedit

Huge dilemma. You're damned if you do and damned if you don't.

Our brains didn't evolve to have to contend with such a complexity of issues over such a wide domain. We are bombarded from all angles with ideas, arguments, issues, events, etc., that most humans for our existence maybe encountered a couple of times over the course of their lives. Life has become so complex and our communities so dispersed that it makes establish absolute truths very difficult. Even adding all these people to the mix means we will have people with all sorts of personality types that are bound to come into conflict on issues. Perhaps in smaller societies we would have seen less diversity in personality traits and more conformity?

Take for instance the Covid debate. Should we lockdown or not lockdown? Is the cure worse than the disease? In a smaller society the issue would be a lot clearer and it would be easier to see the direct consequences of our actions. Put 5 million people into the equation and the permutations of possible consequences are so divergent that it means both sides have vindication in their outlook.

ShatterAlan

McGinniesta wrote: »

If you avoid people that hold a differing opinion then you could be accused of confirmation bias.

If you engage then you could end up with an argument that degenerates into ridiculous nonsense.

Its difficult to strike a balance sometimes.

Should you waste time trying to bring someone around to your way of thing when its unlikely to work

It's not easy but it's not that difficult either. I suppose you have to choose your battles.

As I said before, many conflicting discussions come down to opinions and the facts are neglected.

You will constantly hear people banging on about being in favour of the death penalty. But it's purely their own blinkered opinion. They let emotion and rage guide their argument. They have no interest in results or solutions to problems. Tell them that it's proven not a deterrent or any other fact and you'll be met with a barrage of "what if it was your daughter/mother/wife who was raped?". So it's best to just give them the facts, disengage and leave them with their thoughts. Saying "Yeah, you do have a good point, I guess" just lets them trot off smugly thinking "See, I know I'm right...who's next to get an earful from me?".

.anon.

I prefer to say what I want to say and then leave it at that. If you want to 'win' an online argument, log out and you've won by default.

In the real world, you count to ten and decide how much you really want to win an argument.

In the internet world, you can just go for broke.

I've definitely mellowed online over the last couple of years. Once upon a time I'd just dive head first into a conversation/debate and would go the rounds of the clock.

I was a real internet debate lord.

IAMAMORON

I am usually right about everything, it might take a while for everyone else to comprehend that.

Strumms

I don’t in real life really associate with people who’ve got too much differences with...to much of an energy drain, too much effort.


I’ve really strongly confronted my Dad over covid restrictions and certain one off behaviors a couple of times... I’ve sat down, judged myself, wondering was I right to do it, say what I said, how I said it ? I concede that I wasn’t at my most diplomatic but I don’t regret it. I’d regret it more if I was too soft with him and he went on catching covid, made himself or my mother, ill or worse.

In this life regarding some people and situations I’ve been far too diplomatic, to the point It almost cost me my life...I learned from that, problems and problem people need to be dealt with head on, first by fair means, but if necessary by foul...

ShyMets

In terms of person to person debate I haven't got the energy anymore.
I just simply nod and agree

ShatterAlan

ShatterAlan wrote: »

It's not easy but it's not that difficult either. I suppose you have to choose your battles.

As I said before, many conflicting discussions come down to opinions and the facts are neglected.

You will constantly hear people banging on about being in favour of the death penalty. But it's purely their own blinkered opinion. They let emotion and rage guide their argument. They have no interest in results or solutions to problems. Tell them that it's proven not a deterrent or any other fact and you'll be met with a barrage of "what if it was your daughter/mother/wife who was raped?". So it's best to just give them the facts, disengage and leave them with their thoughts. Saying "Yeah, you do have a good point, I guess" just lets them trot off smugly thinking "See, I know I'm right...who's next to get an earful from me?".

I think you're on to something here.

I believe that such arguments have a net effect of being pointless precisely because people invest in themselves rather than taking a cold, hard, independent, and objective view of a question.

Take politics, for example. With many people, there is no point debating because they may be financially or emotionally invested in a policy - so much so, that no amount of reasoning will change their mind. What does change their mind is their personal circumstances and, when those change, their favored political policies change. All other discussion that deviates from that path will not be tolerated by these people.

These days, I would rather say to someone - even a conspiracy theorist with whom I avowedly disagree - that, "I understand your perspective but it's not something I agree with", and leave it at that. The problem with many people, and not just conspiracy nuts, is that they won't be happy until everyone else believes what they believe. So whilst I would prefer the discussion to simply politely move on, they almost refuse to accept that. It's very frustrating - and this attitude is not limited to conspiracy theorists either. It manifests in many quarters.

They are almost psychologically vulnerable unless they manage to convince someone of their view. It's not enough that someone listens and says they disagree. Instead, it must be a conversion.

_Kaiser_

There's a guy in the chat group I have with friends whose 'debating style' is to basically wear others down by not just stating his position but attacking others intelligence with terms like 'flat earther', 'anti vaxxer', 'your type/side' etc and overlaid with attempts to be 'funny' and grandstanding for the rest.

As he usually takes the 'right on' position on any given topic it can be extremely annoying for someone like myself who thinks that social media in particular has become a curse on people's ability to think for themselves, but has led to the importing of issues and positions that have no place here in Ireland - Americas social and racial issues for example.

This guy is in his late 40s too so not exactly a child, but he does fit the 'woke' stereotypes - quotes from twitter a lot, drinks those coke can sized craft beers (and regularly posts pictures of them), does weed regularly, and behaves as though he's still in college.

There's no arguing with someone like that but I still get sucked into his baiting all too often until I just give up and he declares victory. I should know better really.

Danzy

Another thread could be Can you be a functional adult and not agree to disagree or ignore certain aspects of others.

It would be a lonely world for you if you could not.

See a few young activist types I know who are always falling out with people who have thought incorrectly.

That catches up in the end

bigar

I stopped going into discussions where it obvious the other one will not agree or their view is plain ridiculous. I tend to say something like "that is interesting" (a lie of course) and change the subject or just walk away.

Life is too short to spend time on pointless conversation.

peasant

peasant wrote: »

Arguing/debating has gone to sh!t over recent years.

^^This. Just listen to the likes of Saturday View on RTE yesterday. A farce of "I don't know but...." and trying to speak over each other and paint them into the corner. Pure hot air and no more.

DeanAustin

ShatterAlan wrote: »

You should never agree to something with which you don't agree. That's validating the other side. Your friends are correct. It IS cowardly. Don't do it. It's better to simply say "You're wrong, and nothing you can say will change my mind.", and then leave it at that.

Facts are facts and if you are in possession of them then that should be good enough. Outside of that there is opinions, rumours, biases and a host of other cloudy angles.

Giving in to someone's opinion just to keep the peace gives them carte blanche to not step back and think about their position. If anything it encourages them to ram it down the next person's throat.

When someone tries to convince me that a mother and her daughter who can't even swim get on board a wooden pallet with no food or water and try to float from Algeria to Malta in order to "take our jobs" , I shut the discussion down most expediently and let that person froth at the mouth because they can't make me share their horrible views.

That’s a bit arrogant. Ever think that the other person may have considered their position just as much as you if not more so and may actually have a point?

For all the people posting on here that “I tells them what I think”, I find most people don’t get into confrontation in general conversation. In reality, most people bite their tongue.

IAMAMORON

IAMAMORON wrote: »

I am usually right about everything, it might take a while for everyone else to comprehend that.

Username checks out.

It depends on who I’m arguing with. I have one family member, for example, who is now against vaccines, even though she’s had every vaccine ever offered, a flat earther because God definitely created the Earth, a moon landing denier despite watching it on tv and believes in a one world government trying to rid us of religion. If she wasn’t in her seventies and related to me I’d kick her up and down the place, verbally at least.
Other people, it depends on what they’re fuming about. If it’s the trendy woke brigade I tend to steer clear these days. You can’t reason with certain people.

Capt'n Midnight

Depends, but no point in arguing with someone who won't change their mind when faced with overwhelming evidence or has beliefs that might as well be a religion, unless it's for the benefit of third parties.

RobertKK

Capt'n Midnight wrote: »

Depends, but no point in arguing with someone who won't change their mind when faced with overwhelming evidence or has beliefs that might as well be a religion, unless it's for the benefit of third parties.

True, like starting a reply to someone in a tweet and before its started you know disagreeing could be confrontational, then maybe writing out the tweet and then thinking 'why bother, it changes nothing', and then not sending the tweet...and life is better.

Other times one has to listen in day to day life and maybe say nothing because no point...

Though I can never resist answering back to anti-Vax people.
I had these two Irish women upset I am pro-vaccination on twitter, they responded to one of my posts, one was spouting a load of rubbish and the other woman was thanking the first woman for educating her to be anti-vax and claimed she was still learning from her...how to believe conspiracy theories.
I just couldn't let this crap go, and they ended up blocking me - I was polite in my arguments, they got upset I didn't believe anti-vax nonsense.

I agree to disagree up to a point, but if something directly affects me then maybe a little less...and I am sick of this pandemic without these idiots who had no solutions among lacking other things...

ShatterAlan

McGinniesta wrote: »

If you avoid people that hold a differing opinion then you could be accused of confirmation bias.

If you engage then you could end up with an argument that degenerates into ridiculous nonsense.

Its difficult to strike a balance sometimes.

Should you waste time trying to bring someone around to your way of thing when its unlikely to work

I avoid members of the KKK.