I’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?
Kevin Brown www.kbsinsight.blogspot.com
No comments:
Post a Comment