4 ms·

choosing to disengage is one thing, but the specific idea of "agree to disagree" is a very passive aggressive way of saying "I want to disengage, but don't want

by fargle 3y ago

choosing to disengage is one thing, but the specific idea of "agree to disagree" is a very passive aggressive way of saying "I want to disengage, but don't want to admit being close-minded and/or having a weaker argument" Just tell the truth: "I've heard your arguments and I am not convinced - but I don't think I can make progress explaining my position". Colloquially: "Uncle". Trying to re-frame this as an agreement let alone a forfeiture is passive-aggressive and petty.

kstenerud 3y ago
> Colloquially: "Uncle". No. It's not a competition. "Winning" an argument only serves the ego and accomplishes nothing of value. When you have a disagreement with someone, it means that you have differing ideas about a particular topic. You then engage in discussion and argument to reach a common ground based on what each of you holds to be true. If you come to an agreement, great! If not, that's unfortunate but not something to damage the relationship over. Turning an argument into a competition is the absolute WORST thing you can do, and displays a lack of maturity. > Trying to re-frame this as an agreement let alone a forfeiture is passive-aggressive and petty. Notice the competitive language here: "forfeiture". "Agree to disagree" is not a competitive act; it's a disengagement to prevent the human competitive psychology from making your egos do stupid things. This really is the key to arguing effectively: removing your ego from the process, and knowing when the process is no longer fruitful and it's time to quit.
- fargle 3y ago
  I'll be generous and assume that you simply misunderstand me. I agree, it's not a competition, nor should it be. However, when someone starts engaging with you and then decides they are disadvantaged, and bows out with "agree to disagree" it's very passive agressively re-framing an attack as a truce. I'm sorry no. I don't "Agree" to disagree with you. You decided to disagree with me - which is fine, but own it. I don't get forced to agree that we just have different opinions that are both OK. I think you are wrong and I don't agree to anything short of that. Passive aggressive behavior like this is worse than the disagreement in the first place! You can disagree - that's fine, I'd love it if you heard my thoughts, that's great. I'm engaging to try to convince and reach consensus. But shut me down with "agree to disagree" (with dismissive waving hand), nope - not OK.

by fargle 3y ago

kstenerud 3y ago

> Colloquially: "Uncle". No. It's not a competition. "Winning" an argument only serves the ego and accomplishes nothing of value. When you have a disagreement with someone, it means that you have differing ideas about a particular topic. You then engage in discussion and argument to reach a common ground based on what each of you holds to be true. If you come to an agreement, great! If not, that's unfortunate but not something to damage the relationship over. Turning an argument into a competition is the absolute WORST thing you can do, and displays a lack of maturity. > Trying to re-frame this as an agreement let alone a forfeiture is passive-aggressive and petty. Notice the competitive language here: "forfeiture". "Agree to disagree" is not a competitive act; it's a disengagement to prevent the human competitive psychology from making your egos do stupid things. This really is the key to arguing effectively: removing your ego from the process, and knowing when the process is no longer fruitful and it's time to quit.

fargle 3y ago
I'll be generous and assume that you simply misunderstand me. I agree, it's not a competition, nor should it be. However, when someone starts engaging with you and then decides they are disadvantaged, and bows out with "agree to disagree" it's very passive agressively re-framing an attack as a truce. I'm sorry no. I don't "Agree" to disagree with you. You decided to disagree with me - which is fine, but own it. I don't get forced to agree that we just have different opinions that are both OK. I think you are wrong and I don't agree to anything short of that. Passive aggressive behavior like this is worse than the disagreement in the first place! You can disagree - that's fine, I'd love it if you heard my thoughts, that's great. I'm engaging to try to convince and reach consensus. But shut me down with "agree to disagree" (with dismissive waving hand), nope - not OK.