— 半半拉拉:

Those closest to me characterise me as an ‘intense’ person, due to my inclination to openly disagree with others in passing conversation. I have always celebrated conversations as mutual exploration into unknown space, rather than to impose priori worldviews.

For me, it is an implicit responsibility to create environments that allow participants to freely express their thoughts. These environments are fundamentally tested when facilitating the disagreement of views. Left unkempt, these disputes manifest into antagonism.

In general, conversations should incorporate participants who have a deep desire to explore the nature of truth, even at the risk of hostility. That said, there are best practices to disagree with others, whilst staying respectful. Specifically:

1, Being curious. Highlight genuine interest in others’ views. Often disagreement leads to antagonising the identity of whoever you’re in discussion with. ‘They only think that because they are XX’. Asking the inquisitive ‘can you walk me through that’, highlights a curiosity that shows respect for opposing views.

2, Help not harm. When dealing with conflicting views, ask questions that invite reconsideration under new circumstances, ‘does that still hold under XX’. The goal should be to move away from outright disagreement (which inherently divides people into in-group/out-group), to instead promote collaborative exploration.

3, Express an open mind. Allow others to gain concessions. Verbally expressing ‘that’s a good point’, ‘i’ll need to consider that’, ‘fair dinkum’, allows you to win trust with others. Recognising valid counterpoints signal that you listen with an open mind, motivating others to do the same.

There is another concept that is relevant to this overarching topic of disagreement, which is the distinction between having conversation and providing advice.

When people ask for advice, they rarely want answers. This is because when seeking advice, there is an inherent dominance hierarchy, which compels the superior to revel in their intelligence.

Giving advice becomes two independent single-player games, where the superior plays to provide generalist advice (often limited to what has worked for them in the past), and the inferior plays to selectively pick what justifies their own thought processes and further validates their perceived logic.