LovePrevails Posted March 7, 2014 Share Posted March 7, 2014 I find it very frustrating when people say "agree to disagree" I can agree to disagree over preferences like ice-cream vs. chocolate, or Queen vs. Billy Joel but I can't agree to disagree over matter of fact I can agree that one of us is wrong and someone does not want to continue the investigation of which one it is But since presumably the best thing to do it walk away when someone says agree to disagree how do you resolve the residual feelings of discomfort stemming from their being no resolution one way or the other you can "just know that you are right" but I still feel discomfort in trying to do that I don't know how to process the emotion efficiently Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dsayers Posted March 7, 2014 Share Posted March 7, 2014 I don't think I've ever seen anybody say agree to disagree in regards to matters of opinion. That would fall into the goes without saying category. When somebody says that, they're telling me three things. The first is that the truth isn't what they're interested in, or else they'd want to test their own theory or help me to revise mine. Secondly, they're also telling me that rather than admit that they're not interested in the truth, they wish to pretend to occupy an artificial high ground. As if pursuing the truth means brow-beating those who don't agree with you. Which means the third thing they're telling me is that rather than expose the discussion to rigorous exploration, they'd rather preempt any effort on my part to continue the exploration by labeling as being emotionally insensitive. It's really quite manipulative. Like saying to somebody whom you have no expectation isn't calm, "Calm down." So it's no surprise that somebody who IS emotionally sensitive and interested in the truth would have residual feelings of discomfort. If somebody tries to tie your hands behind your back, that's not a peaceful interaction. The way I prefer to proceed is not let it end on that note. With the caveat that I am biased towards letting it be know to somebody who is trying to manipulate me that I'm not so naive that I don't understand what they're doing. Which means my motivation might be prideful. I'm not sure if that's necessarily a bad thing. Thank you for this topic. It's inspired me to gather my thoughts on a subject that has bothered me also. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MMX2010 Posted March 7, 2014 Share Posted March 7, 2014 Imagine that you're a member of a six-person science-team, charged with investigating an important question. You spend five years of your life agonizing over data, arguing with your team members, discussing various possible answers, painfully abandoning a couple of answers you wished were true, bravely summoning the willpower to seriously (no, seriously....no, for real seriously!) consider answers you hope aren't true. And, finally, you find it. You present your answer to the general public who replies, "Funny. Just two hours ago we received our own different answer to this question by throwing a handful of rabbit poop into the air and noticing that the majority of the poop landed in this particular spot. Can't we just agree to disagree?" THAT has always been what "agree to disagree" has felt like. dsayers gave an excellent explanation, but I would add, "People who agree to disagree are seeking an equality that they haven't earned." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
shirgall Posted March 7, 2014 Share Posted March 7, 2014 Remember that the 9/11 Commission Report only included the items they could agree upon. There was plenty of other information that the committee chose to exclude because they could not agree. The "agree to disagree" tactic is simply an admission of failure. Either the arguments on either side are not compelling enough, or the parties cannot overcome their biases, or they simply are not using the tools of argument in a way that leads to a satisfactory conclusion. It's totally another matter to set an argument aside as more information is needed or the parties need time to absorb what has been learned. Agreeing to disagree is simply giving up. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tyler Durden Posted March 8, 2014 Share Posted March 8, 2014 "Let's agree to disagree" is a question. It translates to: "I don't have any arguments left to support my position. You have plenty of arguments left and that scares me. It scares me because you're taking away my sense of security, you're telling me that what I thought was good is actually evil and who I thought was trustworthy is actually deceitful. To be honest, what you're telling me is actually quite a nightmare scenario. And this may be hard to understand for you, because you're strong, but I can't handle what you're telling me. It scares the living shit out of me. Okay? And I know I don't have any freakin' arguments but I can't just tell you that you're right, because that would mean that I have to accept this nightmare that you're trying to impose on me and that's exactly what I'm trying to avoid here. So will you please, for the love of God, or whatever it is that's holy in your universe, have mercy on me and let this go?" Now the way to end this without any residual feelings is to answer this question in the right way, which depends on who you're talking to and what you're talking about. If this is someone who has been abusive to you in any way shape or form it is perfectly fair game to answer this question with: "No, fuck you. We're not gonna "agree to disagree". Because you know what? What we're doing here is not disagreeing. I'm not putting forward some random opinion here, I'm telling you the truth about something that is actually really important, and you're just denying it even though you damn well know that I'm right. So you can either admit that you're wrong and at least retain some form of dignity, or you can continue your "agree to disagree" bullshit and lose even more of my respect." On the other hand, if this is someone who has never done you any harm, is generally a nice person, and may not have even asked for the conversation to begin with, then you can answer with something like: "Sure. We can agree to disagree. Let's just leave it here for now. But I hope we can revisit this topic some other time, if that's okay with you. Because I'm really fascinated by it, and I always find our discussions really valuable because we always make each other see things from a different perspective. It gives me food for thought." So the question is always more or less the same, but your answer can be anything. Basically, the way to not end up with residual feelings is to just express your feelings. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cobra2411 Posted March 8, 2014 Share Posted March 8, 2014 When I hear someone say "Lets agree to disagree" and it's not over something trivial like mint chocolate chip is the best ice cream flavor ever, and it's something more factual and concrete like "government is a bunch of thieves and murderers" I simply hear "I'm not ready to grow and expand my mind at this time because the cognitive dissonance is too great for me to handle." Since every action is voluntary, whatever their reason is to wish to terminate the conversation I simply obey their wish. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MMX2010 Posted March 8, 2014 Share Posted March 8, 2014 So the question is always more or less the same, but your answer can be anything. Basically, the way to not end up with residual feelings is to just express your feelings. Your analysis is brilliant, Tyler. Thanks very much for posting it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Josh -Lel- Posted March 9, 2014 Share Posted March 9, 2014 Whenever someone says to me "Let's agree to disagree." I tell them, "Let's agree that you're wrong and leave it at that." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Prairie Posted March 9, 2014 Share Posted March 9, 2014 Thanks for your post, cobra2411. That is a courteous way of handling it. An even more benign translation is simply, "I'm not interested in this discussion anymore, because it's uncomfortable, seems to be going nowhere, seems to be pointless, whatever. It seems to be about one person winning and I'd like for us to walk away from it without declaring any kind of victory/loss for either one of us, so that there is no loss of face." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cynicist Posted March 9, 2014 Share Posted March 9, 2014 It's an insult. They are stating that your assertion is opinion, and no more or less valid than theirs. Obviously it's manipulative, since it allows them to discredit your statement without disproving any of your arguments or supporting evidence. I think the true purpose is to intentionally anger you so that you respond in a passive-aggressive way, which lets them appear to have the more rational position. That's how I used to respond, and now I don't talk to people who are willing to use cheap tricks like that in order to "win" arguments. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LovePrevails Posted March 9, 2014 Author Share Posted March 9, 2014 ok people thank you for your responses and insights into why people say they want to agree to disagree, can we now move from interpreting here and start with proposals on how to deal with residual feelings of discomfort I know you are all really smart and have a great insight into the human condition but I need help with my original question I already understand that when the person says they are wanting to agree to disagree it is (most likely) because they are emotionally invested in their position and don't want to change it based on reason and evidence, or (very rarely) because they think you yourself are beyond reasoning with, and sometimes because they are tired of talking about the subject Whatever it is the question was about dealing with emotions, not about what motivates people to say that how do you resolve the residual feelings of discomfort stemming from their being no resolution one way or the otheryou can "just know that you are right" but I still feel discomfort in trying to do that I don't know how to process the emotion efficiently Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cynicist Posted March 9, 2014 Share Posted March 9, 2014 Whatever it is the question was about dealing with emotions, not about what motivates people to say that The whole point is to irritate you. The way to deal with that is to get away from them. Sorry if that wasn't clear but that's what I was trying to get across by explaining the motivation. This is how your post looks to me, maybe it will help. I find it very scary when people point a gun at meI can feel calm in regular situations like driving to the mall or shopping in a storebut I can't feel that way in situations of dangerI can see that one of us is violent and does not want to negotiate with the otherBut since presumably the best thing to do is get away from someone who threatens violence against you, how do you resolve the residual feelings of discomfort stemming from having a gun pointed in your face?You can "just know you are safe" but I still feel discomfort in trying to do that I don't know how to process the emotion efficiently. See I don't know what "processing the emotion efficiently" or "resolve the residual feelings of discomfort" mean here. In situations where people are provoking you into feeling an emotion, you need to remove the stimulus. After some time the feeling will pass and you can move on. On the plus side, "agree to disagree" isn't traumatic so you don't have to pay a therapist. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LovePrevails Posted March 9, 2014 Author Share Posted March 9, 2014 I see what you are saying that is quite a take - I will have to process Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dsayers Posted March 9, 2014 Share Posted March 9, 2014 can we now move from interpreting here and start with proposals on how to deal with residual feelings of discomfort I thought Tyler Durden made a great point on how to do this in almost any situation: Basically, the way to not end up with residual feelings is to just express your feelings. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LovePrevails Posted March 9, 2014 Author Share Posted March 9, 2014 that is a good point, and I know there were some approaches discussed thanks for bringing it to the forefront of my attention I will try to express feelings if I get in that situation again I also thought the "I hope we can come back to it at a later date" suggestion was good as well Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cynicist Posted March 9, 2014 Share Posted March 9, 2014 that is a good point, and I know there were some approaches discussed thanks for bringing it to the forefront of my attention I will try to express feelings if I get in that situation again I also thought the "I hope we can come back to it at a later date" suggestion was good as well I want to be clear, since it seems like you are talking about a situation involving a friend, that by 'remove the stimulus' I don't mean end the relationship. What I mean is end the conversation and get away because you are no longer having a debate/discussion. Later you can explore the passive-aggression and where it might be coming from, or try to continue the topic again, but you can't make yourself get over your feelings in that situation. I will add though, that if they don't want to acknowledge what they did or show any indication that they regret it I would probably end the relationship right there. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Three Posted March 9, 2014 Share Posted March 9, 2014 I find it very frustrating when people say "agree to disagree" I can agree to disagree over preferences like ice-cream vs. chocolate, or Queen vs. Billy Joel but I can't agree to disagree over matter of fact I can agree that one of us is wrong and someone does not want to continue the investigation of which one it is But since presumably the best thing to do it walk away when someone says agree to disagree how do you resolve the residual feelings of discomfort stemming from their being no resolution one way or the other you can "just know that you are right" but I still feel discomfort in trying to do that I don't know how to process the emotion efficiently I'm not really sure if I can help, but i'm interested to learn more about those residual feelings of discomfort. so, you experience more than one feeling? What's that like? Where do you experience it in your body? Is it more than just irritated? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MMX2010 Posted March 10, 2014 Share Posted March 10, 2014 @LovePrevails - I thought Tyler Durden's suggestions were brilliant. But I also think you need to be angry enough to follow those suggestions. So first get really annoyed that your friend is doing this to you, then remember what Tyler Durden suggested, and finally do what Tyler Durden suggested. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JohnH. Posted March 14, 2014 Share Posted March 14, 2014 Tell them that you disagree. "Let's agree to disagree." "No, I disagree." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts