970x125
Have you ever seen two people about to have a difficult conversation square off for an argument like they’re ultimate fighters or two bucks about to crash their antlers together? That may work in the ring or in the wild, but it never works to persuade another person or even to understand them.
When someone sees the world differently than we do, our instinct is to figure out who is right and who is wrong. Conversations become debates. Differences become obstacles. The goal shifts from understanding another person to convincing them of our own view. We marshal arguments, present evidence, and try to demonstrate why our position is superior. When this fails, frustration grows. The other person seems unreasonable, and the conversation breaks down.
This is both natural and understandable when we assume that positions are wholly rational. If reasoning is applied correctly, it should lead to the same conclusions for everyone. If someone disagrees with your position, it can feel like they are missing something, overlooking evidence, or simply thinking incorrectly.
Facts and Values
How we decide the best course of action is shaped not only by what we know, but by what we value. The priorities we hold – whether we emphasize security or freedom, loyalty or fairness, stability or change – influence how we see situations, what we notice, and what we consider important. Moreover, these values will always be in tension with each other. Prioritizing one will come at the expense of the other. To make room for both, compromise is inevitable. You can’t choose between facts, but you can choose which value you hold more dearly.
Two people can look at the same set of facts and come to different conclusions, not because one is irrational, but because they are oriented by different concerns. When someone disagrees with you, it may be that they prioritize things differently than you do or they have a different understanding of a shared value. Rather than the other person being illogical, disagreement is often a reflection of different attachments.
Understanding this can change how we approach conflict. When we recognize that disagreement reflects different priorities, the goal of the conversation shifts. Instead of asking ourselves, “How do I prove that I’m right?” we can ask, “What does this person care about, and how does that shape their view?”
Similarly, we stop asking our opposition, “Why do you believe your position is correct?” Instead, we ask them, “How did you come to your position?” The former triggers defensiveness, and your sparring partner may try to convince you with arguments you don’t buy. The latter question allows the person to tell you about who they are and what they prioritize to arrive at their decision.
This approach does not pit disagreement as a zero-sum game, where one person has to abandon their beliefs to come to resolution. Rather, it invites us to understand the perspective of others more fully. It opens the possibility that disagreement can be explored rather than eliminated.
Personal Clashes
This approach has practical implications for how we communicate. Consider a common situation: a clash between friends, colleagues, or family members about a decision. Both perspectives may be reasonable, but they may lead to different recommendations. If each person insists that their approach is simply the “right” one, the conversation is likely to stall or get heated and unproductive. Each side will defend their position without recognizing the values underlying it.
If each person articulates what they care about and how those cares inform their decision, the conversation changes. It becomes possible to see how both perspectives contribute something meaningful. Solutions may emerge that incorporate multiple priorities or at least clarify where trade-offs exist.
At a personal level, this shift can improve relationships. Disagreements with those close to us often feel more charged because they touch on what we care about most. When we interpret disagreement as a sign that the other person is wrong – or when we feel like the other person is ignoring what we care about – it can create distance or even a breakdown in the relationship. However, when we recognize how each of us prioritize values differently, we can still disagree and nevertheless be closer than before.
Relationships Essential Reads
Civil Disagreement
This is particularly important in a broader social context, where disagreement has become increasingly polarized.
Public discourse often treats opposing views as errors to be corrected or threats to be defeated. This framing can make political disagreement feel like a battle for the country, where one side must win and the other must lose. Yet many disagreements persist not because one side has failed to understand the facts, but because different groups prioritize different values. When this is the case, more information alone may not resolve the conflict.
What is needed instead is a different kind of engagement – one that acknowledges the role of what people care about in shaping their views.
This does not mean that all positions are equally valid or that evidence does not matter. Facts remain important. Some claims can be supported and others refuted. However, acknowledging the role of values in shaping decisions when facts are equally recognized can explain why disagreements endure even when information is widely available.
It can also make public conversations more productive and civil. When people feel that their concerns are understood, they are more likely to engage openly. When they feel dismissed, they are more likely to become defensive. Shifting from a focus on winning arguments to understanding perspectives can reduce tension and create space for dialogue.
The Value of Disagreement
Differences in perspective can be valuable. They can challenge assumptions, reveal blind spots, and expand our understanding of complex situations. Our goal should not be to eliminate disagreement through debate or coercion, but rather to engage with it more constructively to discover more creative and nuanced solutions.
In this way, disagreement becomes less about determining who is right and more about understanding what matters – to ourselves and to others.
