Arguments, whether at home or at work, can be unpleasant. They can either devolve into shouting matches or cold shouldering. Either way, contentious issues rarely get resolved amicably. Whether it’s about an unfair division of labour or not feeling heard, disagreements can run deep, in both professional and personal spheres. In How to Disagree Better, social psychologist Julia Minson writes that differences of opinion, on matters prosaic or profound, don’t necessarily have to breed hostility and division. If we cultivate the art of disagreeing mindfully, we can actually foster and deepen our connections with people, even as we agree to disagree.
First, we need to realize that disagreement per se is not the problem. Most complex problems that beset the modern world require experts from different domains and perspectives to problem-solve together and some disagreement is inevitable and even welcome in these contexts. In our personal and work lives too, disagreement can be beneficial as we learn to see issues from alternative perspectives and this can often spur creativity and innovation and engender insight. Further, to have truly authentic relationships, we need to be able to disagree without fear of triggering conflict.
So, how do we disagree without the conversation becoming contentious or hostile? According to Minson, being receptive is what allows people to engage constructively with people who hold opposing views. As long as people are willing to “talk to each other again” on an issue, the disagreement is productive. Minson also coaxes us to take a long-term view wherein people perceive us as being “reasonable, trustworthy, well-intentioned.” Rather than persuading others of the ‘rightness’ of our opinions, we are more likely to influence people only if they feel comfortable airing their authentic views to us.
Minson defines receptiveness as a “willingness to access, consider, and evaluate supporting and opposing views in an impartial manner.” Like any skill, we can build our “receptiveness muscle” with practice. Most of the time, we are unaware of how our biases and assumptions impact our worldviews, whereas we are quick to conclude that people who disagree with us are biased. Instead of persuading people of our convictions, we may try to understand why others hold differing positions from us.
A critical aspect of being receptive involves attentive listening. Often, when people disagree, we only half-listen to opposing opinions while thinking of the “strongest counterargument” we can put forth to get our views across. Further, Minson clarifies that the goal of receptiveness is not persuasion but to approach an issue with openness and curiosity and a willingness to gauge arguments with fairness, regardless of whether they support or dispel an idea.
Entering a conversation with the intent to be receptive is not enough as people cannot read our minds. We have to signal receptiveness with our words and behaviour. Minson suggests we follow the H.E.A.R. framework to help us exhibit our receptiveness. The ‘H’ in the acronym represents “Hedging your claims.” Rather than flaunting a black-and-white worldview by using terms like ‘always’ or ‘never,’ adopt hedging words like ‘sometimes,’ ‘possibly,’ ‘perhaps’, ‘mostly’ etc to show the other person you recognise the myriad factors that complicate most real-world issues.
Suppose you are talking to a climate change denier. Saying, “That temperatures are rising due to human activity is an indisputable fact” isn’t going to sway the person. Instead, if you say, “There seems to be evidence that human activity underlies the rise in earth’s temperatures,” the person is more likely to at least listen to your line of reasoning. Rather than coming across as dogmatic, hedging makes you seem more open and reasonable, regardless of which side of an argument you are on.
Don’t worry if the other person is rigidly sticking to their guns. If you come across as receptive to them, you are more likely to have a productive exchange. Further, Minson notes that with time, receptivity tends to be contagious. If you exhibit an open rather than a judgmental mindset, the other party is more likely to reciprocate your attitude and behaviour.
The next letter of the acronym H.E.A.R. stands for “Emphasizing agreement.” You do this using words to highlight points of view that you share. For example, you may say, “We both agree that temperatures are rising.” Further, you may add, “Like you, I too am concerned about the quality of research data.” By explicitly pointing out areas of convergence, the other person grows less defensive and might even see you as an ally of sorts.
In most heated arguments, people are more eager to speak than listen. So, it’s important that you signal that you are listening to differing and opposing viewpoints. The ‘A’ in HEAR stands for “Acknowledging other perspectives.” In a back-and-forth exchange, when you get a chance to speak, spend some time restating what the other person has said before adding your own two bits. You may do this by prefacing your statements with, “You think that…” and then summarising their position in your own words. This shows the other person that you listened intently and tried to process their views. Further, if you misunderstood their words, this gives the other party an opportunity to clarify themselves.
The letter ‘R’ stands for “Reframing to the positive.” Minson recommends avoiding negative words like “can’t, don’t won’t and no,” and also “negative emotion words” like “hate, terrible.” For example, if the other person repeatedly interrupts when you are speaking, rather than saying, “Don’t interrupt” or “I hate being interrupted,” Minson suggests something like, “I know it’s difficult for you to listen to what I’m saying and would appreciate it if you let me speak.” Minson asks us to eschew “just, simply, merely and only” as these terms may come across as patronising. Another lethal word that I suggest eliminating from your lexicon is ‘but.’
As receptiveness tends to breed receptiveness, try using this soft power. You are more likely to change minds and hearts if you enter conversations without intending to do so.
About the Author
Aruna Sankaranarayanan is the author of Zero Limits and the co-author of Bee-Witched along with Brinda S. Narayan.