On Disagreement

Published on Sep 8, 2024, filed under misc (feed). (Share this on Mastodon or Bluesky?)

I don’t enjoy disagreement. I never have.

I’ve never enjoyed disagreement not because of someone not sharing my views, not because of possibly erring, not because of maybe not being able to proceed with something.

I’ve never enjoyed disagreement because it always seems to come with a risk of entirely unnecessary conflict.

Now, this may be—and probably is—all subjective, and your and other people’s experience of disagreement may be entirely different, pleasant perhaps.

I may also carry and project conflict into disagreement.

But I don’t and never did enjoy disagreement, as I believe said risk of conflict to be entirely unnecessary.

Contents

1. Disagreeing and Understanding
2. Disagreement as a Shortcut
3. No Disagreement ≠ Agreement
4. The Hard Part
5. A Tentative Summary

Disagreeing and Understanding

Why would conflict be unnecessary?

Because conflict is generally unnecessary; in this case, because disagreement seems to equal misunderstanding.

I’ve always felt that there cannot be disagreement if there is understanding.

(“Understanding” means mutual understanding here, on a spectrum ranging from shared understanding of facts to wholehearted empathy.)

Any form of understanding seems to transform disagreement.

Accordingly, disagreement feels unnecessary—aim for understanding.

Disagreement as a Shortcut

But here, too, something has usually felt off… in my experience, trying to get to this understanding easily leads to the other party (or myself!) appearing uncomfortable about that, possibly avoiding further conversation, proposing to better “agree to disagree” (I’m sure you’ve heard or even used this, too).

Any further attempt to understand each other might then make that other party feel even more uneasy, to the point that they label the one trying to reach understanding “pushy,” or difficult to talk to.

It took me a long time to see through this: Disagreement seems to be a form of shortcut.

As this can make sense—understanding the other party may take time (sometimes, prohibitively much time)—, it seems legitimate to take the disagreement shortcut. (“Agree to disagree” should probably be seen in this light.)

But this shouldn’t distract from the idea that understanding would dissolve disagreement.

Disagreement shouldn’t be accepted out of laziness, either—that seems to lead to more problems than it solves. Unchecked, disagreement lingers with some risk of conflict, and it keeps people apart because acceptance of disagreement may prevent understanding.

No Disagreement ≠ Agreement

Would no disagreement mean agreement, then? Am I suggesting that understanding dissolves disagreement, and therefore implies agreement?

No.

Understanding appears to be the synthesis here.

We don’t have to agree with someone not to disagree with them.

Someone can make an argument for conservatism. We disagree. They share their views, we get to understand them. But we can still have different priorities, and prefer a different political philosophy.

We understand them, allowing us to respect their priorities and choices. (A kind of respect that we may be missing in the political discourse.)

Therefore, a good test before disagreeing is to ask ourselves, do we fully understand the other party?

The Hard Part

The hard part, however, is not that understanding requires an effort, and that we may still not reach agreement.

It’s that people may seek the drama and conflict of disagreement.

This comes without judgment, as it’s being supported from the vantage point of choice: There seem to be good indicators that we’re very much wanting all the drama (it’s a choice). Also, in a philosophical model in which we live more than one life, we’re likely to make “irrational” choices (in quotes as these choices may be less irrational than they appear).

(I have no good sense for how popular this thinking is, but I deem choice an underrepresented but central part of a more accurate model of our reality. I don’t believe that our consciousness—for lack of a more approachable term—ever “dies,” while I do believe we’re here to experience our choices. Which comes with more assumptions, as around freedom, as well as implications, as for ethics.)

A Tentative Summary

Disagreement seems to come with some risk of conflict.

If we fully, entirely understand each other, there may not be disagreement (which isn’t and doesn’t have to be the same as agreement).

Disagreement may only exist if and when one or more parties take a shortcut. (“Agree to disagree” appears to be such a shortcut.) This shortcut may be taken for useful and not-so-useful reasons.

A good test before disagreeing is, do we understand the other?

With understanding, disagreement may not necessarily convert into agreement, but rather dissolve into respect and nuance.

And nothing here says to tolerate anything intolerable; and everything here says that the topic is more complex than that.

About Me

I’m Jens (long: Jens Oliver Meiert), and I’m a web developer, manager, and author. I’ve been working as a technical lead and engineering manager for companies you’ve never heard of and companies you use every day, I’m an occasional contributor to web standards (like HTML, CSS, WCAG), and I write and review books for O’Reilly and Frontend Dogma.

I love trying things, not only in web development and engineering management, but also in other areas like philosophy. Here on meiert.com I share some of my experiences and views. (I value you being critical, interpreting charitably, and giving feedback.)