Disagreement vs. Disagreeable

July 21, 2010 | by Amber Naslund

Brass Tack Thinking - Disagreement vs. DisagreeableI’m a big fan of disagreement.

Conflicting ideas, dissenting viewpoints, differing opinions are healthy and a really good thing. They stretch our minds, broaden our perspectives, help us understand people and their motivations just a little bit more. They make us all better in the long run, right? Most people would agree with that, and I’m sure all of you would SAY that, even if you acknowledge that disagreement can be uncomfortable, sometimes scary, and once in a while it can devolve into something ugly.

The trouble is in the distinction between disagreement, and being disagreeable.

We ferociously defend our right – and our now rapid ability – to express our viewpoints and to differ with others on theirs. But we often miss the subtle distinction of delivering that disagreement with calm, respect, and some basic manners.

And in this quick-to-lynch environment, if someone is put off by our delivery or the way we treat them in the midst of the discussion and they remove their attention (via unfollowing, or walking away from the conversation), we quickly point fingers to accuse them of not tolerating differing opinions or wanting feedback, rather than considering that it might be our approach that’s the trouble. As humans, we indeed have a right to express ourselves however we like. But likewise, we also have the right to decide where we direct our attention, and when we remove it.

I’ve personally unfollowed or stopped getting into discussions with individuals not because I don’t respect their right to disagree, even passionately, nor even because I can’t consider that they might be right. I walk away because the tone, tenor, and approach of the conversation often leads to negativity, judgment, resentment, or at worst, personal barbs.

For some, every statement seems to be an invitation to do battle under the guise of playing “Devil’s advocate”, and that grows tiresome after it becomes habitual instead of thoughtful. (Someone recently wrote a great post about the downside of Devil’s Advocacy, but I’ll be darned if I can find it. Drop a link in the comments if you have it). It’s as if dissention is a badge of honor, that agreeing with someone means you’re nothing more than a lemming, and that being argumentative is the only way to prove that you have something valuable to say because you aren’t following the herd.

Walking away from disagreement that’s fruitless doesn’t mean we don’t respect the importance and the reality of diversity of thought. It’s a choice to entertain it in a less combative environment.

My good friend and intellectual sparring partner Matt Ridings is adept at disagreeing with things without being disagreeable, and he’s taught me plenty. So is my co-author Tamsen McMahon (and I deeply admire the temperance with which she greets the world at large). Julien Smith is brilliant at challenging my assumptions and perceptions while never making me feel attacked, inferior, or condescended. All of those make for great discussion, for self reflection, for great intellectual food for thought.

There is a difference, my friends, between disagreeing, and being disagreeable. Have you felt this? Do you see the difference? And how can we all be more conscious of which we’re doing?

image credit: Mintball

{ 64 comments }

1 Meg Fowler July 21, 2010 at 9:44 pm

I thought I would add the “you” I forgot in that sentence. :)

2 Scott Gould July 21, 2010 at 10:00 pm

Very good distinction. To be quite honest, I look for disagreement in relationships because it tests the relationship and makes it stronger.

The bone that breaks heals back stronger :-)

3 Allison T July 21, 2010 at 10:06 pm

I'm not good at conflict, so work hard at finding the right note in a disagreement. A smile and a laugh go a long way, even as you're expressing a different opinion. That's not always easy to achieve in the written form – email and twitter – so I tend to walk away from disagreeable types in those forums.

4 Joseph Manna July 21, 2010 at 10:14 pm

Questioning my own ideas is a subtle agenda of mine, but sometimes it's not made that apparent. You raise a good point about being able to do that to gain further authority on a given topic. I feel what it really what it comes down to is intent.

Maybe I should clarify by “picking a fight” … I don't mean it to be non-constructive. It's more so a process of exploration. Questions are a great way learn more about a given topic with an author. The willingness to question ones' own ideas is a huge progression from merely hoping an idea sticks.

You made a good point and appreciate your take on it. Thanks! :)

~joe

5 Mike Zavarello July 21, 2010 at 10:20 pm

Quite true, Amber. Most times, I would like to think that I share my disagreements based purely on the goal of getting others to see the alternate perspectives, but I don't think any of us can fully divorce ourselves from self-motivated intents. I guess the distinction for me would be that, in a professional environment, my thoughts are more “altruistic”, whereas personal discussions have a larger chance of that “selfish” bent.

6 Matt Cheuvront July 21, 2010 at 10:21 pm

A resounding “Yes” to this, Amber. The ability to 'hide' behind the computer causes people to act a little (or a lot) bolder than they normally would, say things they normally wouldn't say, and argue, well, for the sake of arguing. Constructive criticism? Great. Civil disagreement? Awesome. Disagreeing to the sake of ruffling feathers = pointless. Thanks for writing this.

7 Katie Morse July 21, 2010 at 10:53 pm

You stole the words right out of my mouth!

I'm naturally conflict-averse (though I love a good debate, funny that one), and I've lately found myself being a lot more “agreeable” just for the sake of avoiding those who ALWAYS have something to say in a disagreeable way.

I love Meg's point above about understanding the opposing viewpoint before you ever enter into a debate, as well. It rings true and I've found that the best disagreements I've had have been because we both understand each other's side and can make intelligent points without disrespect.

Perhaps that what it comes down to for me, the difference between disagreeing and being disagreeable – respect.

8 Matt Cheuvront July 21, 2010 at 10:59 pm

CIVIL disagreement is becoming pretty rare these days…I think a lot of folk preach their open-mindedness but are quick to contradict it with an 'I'm right, you're wrong' type of conversation. Understanding all viewpoints is important, and common sense things like keeping your cool, not getting personal, etc. – all important to keep in mind.

I tweeted a week or two ago that I had lost the will to debate in the blogging world for the exact point that you stated here. I love a good debate, but some people CLEARLY disagreeing for the sake of disagreeing – I don't have time to defend myself or others to someone who falls into Amber's 'disagreeable' category. For the most part, I'd rather just get along :)

9 Eric Pratum July 22, 2010 at 12:19 am

Oh, you know, I mainly come here seeking approval :-P In all seriousness though, thank you. I was fighting the urge…or perhaps habit, who knows.

That is a great way to think about it. I probably need “In a year, will this matter to me?” pasted at the top of my monitor just so that I don't slip.

10 Sabrina July 22, 2010 at 2:19 am

Great post! It isn't so much what you so sometimes, but how you say it. As an HR professional, I have to disagree or share bad news often, but if my approach is right and I'm not doing it just to do it then it is usually received openly.

11 Aaron Lee July 22, 2010 at 4:24 am

Great blog post, one problem i see most people have is that they don't listen when they give their opinions, because they think they are right and everyone else is wrong, and it has been a put off to so many

12 Fred July 22, 2010 at 3:09 pm

You nailed it. I've learned that without disagreement, you get one-dimensional solutions to three-dimensional problems. I also know that a majority of people (in my experience) have a hard time distinguishing between being disagreeable and having a disagreement. When tackling problems, those folks inevitably end up in the adult version of “Nuh-uh/Yuh-huh.”

13 steveolenski July 22, 2010 at 4:12 pm

“quick-to-lynch environment” as in say this… http://tinyurl.com/3xmkdvp

BTW, great post Amber. As one who likes to debate (another operative word), there are rules of decorum for sure that must be and should be abided by…

14 Paul Durban July 23, 2010 at 3:14 am

It's been my experience that those who disagree ask a lot of questions in order to understand, while the disagreeable make unsolicited statements in order to make YOU understand.

Comments on this entry are closed.

{ 3 trackbacks }

blog comments powered by Disqus