Thanks for posting over on my site; interesting to hear the 180-degree mirror image of what indeed sounds like the same core concept; I hadn’t thought of it that way (and as I write, I’m resisting the temptation to say ‘I agree;’–it does rise strongly in us).

The implication about stories that you raised in your comment on my site makes a lot of sense to me. I give speeches and seminars for a living, so have become keenly aware of the power of stories, of course to entertain, but mainly because it’s a powerful way to influence.

I am coming to think it is because telling a story sets us free from the agree/disagree dynamic. Something there is in us that hears a story as free of forced judgment–we are free to take it or leave it, as we may. And therefore we become open to the interpretation of another.

Thank you for a provocative piece.

He uses the words “I understand” rather than “I agree/disagree”, but he captures my sense of the problem exactly.

Coming to or agreement to disagree or agreement is a two party process; “learning to be with” or “learning to be”, where someone either develops an interface, like two crystals meeting or the boundary of a dictionary, or they absorb the other language into their own, overlaying it on their own existing pattern.

Learning to be someone comes in different forms, you can learn to be me (to some degree), I can learn to be you (same limit) or we can learn to be each other simultaneously.

All those changes can be spotted when we reach coherence; the patterns of communication between us gain a level of stability, and we can pass something back and forth without confusion, change or having to check it.

That’s my understanding of communication, you know you’ve learned it when you can teach your teacher in your own way and he can say yes. (Technically this just means someone has learned, not necesserally that he’s taught you, but does he still have the same quality of coherence relation with the situation that “taught” him? Then it doesn’t matter.)

So when you say “I disagree” you say that you have reached that point of coherence, without checking it. LIkewise if you say “ok I’ve got it”.

So many people are put out at this point, because they have not seen the clear disagreement you claim exists, and they must now trust you that an interface has developed, a partial stabilisation of that relationship. It is cutting short a process of mutual understanding, and so it can be considered as undervaluing a person.

Now this is not inevitable, as people can be considered at different levels of complexity. The “simple you” that I interact with is not all of you, because we stand at a distance over the internet, and you don’t show me everything about yourself. So when I cut short a conversation, I’m saying that I am satisfied we have reached sufficient coherence for the relationship I expect between us. People can be hurt if they expected a closer relationship.

What’s a friendlier version than “I disagree” that performs the same function? Well sometimes tone of voice can do it, saying it with a wobbly unconvinced tone (—¬¬__, my goodness text is bad at this), or saying “I think I disagree” “I’m not with you on that yet” or something. Likewise you can ask “so have we got that sorted/streight?” or “awesome I think we’ve got somewhere”.
But as jhereg says stating disagreement has more purposes than that; like a child saying no all the time, someone can start by affirming their independence. Some people use it to counter “so it’s agreed then”, and actually use it to force people to talk.

Have you ever changed the opinion of someone who was convinced that he/she was right–and that anyone who disagreed was wrong? I doubt it!

John

I’d like to just sit and listen to my friend’s story.

I have this feeling too. Hearing someone else’s story, and having other folks listen to mine, feels like plenty of affirmation to me.

Often we already make up our Agree/not-agree position as soon as we hear the current subject of conversation. Then we listen not to the experience of the Other, instead we listen to find flaws in presentation. words talking to words indeed. We focus our attention and energy on affirming or shooting down other people’s experiences.

Thinking about this a lot lately led me to the idea that my experiencing the world really doesnt need anyone’s affirmation, though it does feel good to find yourself in the company of people that at least respect your vision or willing to listen to each other’s stories without a judgemental attitude.

Frankly i feel very tired discussing things again and again. All communication breaks down from that moment we choose to identify with the ideas we defend and attack. Id like to just sit and listen to my friend’s story.

Also, one last point, i have the feeling, the whole (dis) Agreement thing, and the heated discussions and personal investment in “being” right/wrong , happens much more often in larger groups.

simon

And truth be known, I’ve probably done it a few times myself.

I don’t know, I think I need to think about this some more. I do think I understand you, but I’m a lot less certain how it plays out.

At any rate, you’ve once again given me something to seriously consider.