3 ms·

Agreeing to disagree is the death knell of our social system

superchroma 4y ago
Kind of a sloppy article where it seems the author's beef isn't really with the phrase nominated in the title. The article culminates with: "We need a new kind of healthy relationship with disagreement, one in which we’re better equipped to challenge and defend our ideas and be challenged and defended by others. We must be better equipped to form thoughtful opinions and engage in critical thinking." This is so general as to be almost a feel-good affirmation. Sure, we need to be smarter. I'm not sure anyone would disagree. What does this boil down to in practice? Better quality education? Free education to get it more widespread? Promoting courses on reasoning and logic? Reducing air pollution so people can think clearer? My generation grew up on empty generalizations like "Reduce, Reuse and Recycle" and I'm not sure they materially helped us, so I think concrete ideas would be more helpful.
- quantified 4y ago
  Few reduced, even fewer re-used, and recycling is great for aluminum and only a bit useful for plastics. Acting on others' insights doesn't happen without leadership and influencers.
- jfengel 4y ago
  It's about more than just reasoning better. It's about calling out poor logic and bad information. Increasingly misinformation can be dangerous, and it is not ethical to say "it's ok for you to believe that". Which is to say, it's ok to refuse to agree to disagree just to achieve a temporary peace. Their proposal is not about education, but about refusing to back down even when it would be easier to declare a truce and a draw. That is much harder. Simply refusing to give in does not give you a route to convincing people. People with misinformation are at least as certain of their position as better informed people, and often more so. This is a call to fight an often unwinnable fight in the hope that the truth will win out eventually just because it is the truth. I myself am not that brave and much more pessimistic. But I want to believe that the fight is worth participating in even if it loses. I used to believe it and I wish I still could.
  - superchroma 4y ago
    Ok, well, that seems an untenable view when we know the Backfire Effect exists.
    - jfengel 4y ago
      Quite possibly. But we are reaching a point where these disagreements are having real world effects on people. To pick a recent example, "agreeing to disagree" about KiwiFarms resulted in the harassment of a woman who could literally have died in a swatting. Many people here will object bitterly to what I just said, and nothing I say will convince them. But it may well be worth it to be seen to say it, just so that people know that it's something I not just believe, but will risk the wrath of Internet commenters. It still won't do any good and may even make things worse, but it would be lazy and unethical to simply fall back on that while a human being suffers.
      - foncmo 4y ago
        The person you refer to also encouraged swatting of others. He's no innocent in this, despite what is being popularly portrayed.

Kind of a sloppy article where it seems the author's beef isn't really with the phrase nominated in the title. The article culminates with: "We need a new kind of healthy relationship with disagreement, one in which we’re better equipped to challenge and defend our ideas and be challenged and defended by others. We must be better equipped to form thoughtful opinions and engage in critical thinking." This is so general as to be almost a feel-good affirmation. Sure, we need to be smarter. I'm not sure anyone would disagree. What does this boil down to in practice? Better quality education? Free education to get it more widespread? Promoting courses on reasoning and logic? Reducing air pollution so people can think clearer? My generation grew up on empty generalizations like "Reduce, Reuse and Recycle" and I'm not sure they materially helped us, so I think concrete ideas would be more helpful.

quantified 4y ago
Few reduced, even fewer re-used, and recycling is great for aluminum and only a bit useful for plastics. Acting on others' insights doesn't happen without leadership and influencers.
jfengel 4y ago
It's about more than just reasoning better. It's about calling out poor logic and bad information. Increasingly misinformation can be dangerous, and it is not ethical to say "it's ok for you to believe that". Which is to say, it's ok to refuse to agree to disagree just to achieve a temporary peace. Their proposal is not about education, but about refusing to back down even when it would be easier to declare a truce and a draw. That is much harder. Simply refusing to give in does not give you a route to convincing people. People with misinformation are at least as certain of their position as better informed people, and often more so. This is a call to fight an often unwinnable fight in the hope that the truth will win out eventually just because it is the truth. I myself am not that brave and much more pessimistic. But I want to believe that the fight is worth participating in even if it loses. I used to believe it and I wish I still could.
- superchroma 4y ago
  Ok, well, that seems an untenable view when we know the Backfire Effect exists.
  - jfengel 4y ago
    Quite possibly. But we are reaching a point where these disagreements are having real world effects on people. To pick a recent example, "agreeing to disagree" about KiwiFarms resulted in the harassment of a woman who could literally have died in a swatting. Many people here will object bitterly to what I just said, and nothing I say will convince them. But it may well be worth it to be seen to say it, just so that people know that it's something I not just believe, but will risk the wrath of Internet commenters. It still won't do any good and may even make things worse, but it would be lazy and unethical to simply fall back on that while a human being suffers.
    - foncmo 4y ago
      The person you refer to also encouraged swatting of others. He's no innocent in this, despite what is being popularly portrayed.