Disagreement is gold. Argument can be toxic. Confusing them is a trap.

“What a lovely sunny day today,” said one. To whom the other replied, “How can you be so stubborn as to not admit the sun shines today?”

As paradoxical as it may sound, the simplified conversation above reflects the status of many interpersonal relationships, and of what people often call disagreement.

They should call it argument instead, for argument and disagreement are not synonyms by any means.

Scope of this article is to clarify the difference between argument and disagreement, and to explain why many people think they’re interchangeable.

Also, we aim to highlight the effects disagreement and argument have on personal relationships, and on the individual and collective growth of the people involved.

Last, we will present strategies to help the reader learn how to disagree well and how to avoid unnecessary arguments.

Let’s clear the sky and define the two:

WHAT IS DISAGREEMENT?

The dictionary defines it as “lack of consensus of approval”.

The reader may instinctively label this definition as negative, which makes the case for the usefulness of this short essay.

In real life, disagreement is instrumental to the success of any venture, and also to achieve higher levels of personal and professional growth.

Learning how to listen to and evaluate voices that oppose your idea is a superpower, to say it with financier turned philosopher Ray Dalio.

It is also one of those skills that needs continuous honing.

There are several challenges to disagreeing well; the first of which is the ego of the people involved.

Let’s start with our own ego.

Usually, when someone disagrees with our ideas, we tend to label the fact as personal. We overlook the elements that support the criticism, and we focus instead on the fact we’re being contradicted.

The brain doesn’t take it well. Emotions get in the way, and emotions consume brainpower, something the brain is designed to minimize at all costs.

For this reason, most people prefer to surround themselves with individuals sharing the same view (or pretending to do so) and leaders make no exception.

Think of once successful companies like Kodak, Blockbuster, or Motorola.

Their CEOs certainly could have had access to information useful to avoid the tragic downfall of their companies, if only had they implemented a culture of honest and transparent disagreement.

The other ego that makes it difficult to disagree well is the counterpart’s ego, and sometimes their hidden agenda.

I’ve heard the (often controversial, and always thought provoking) psychologist Jordan Peterson saying, “be careful of who you share your good and bad news with”.

It just makes sense, because not everyone can and will always be objective.

Let’s say you present an idea, something like moving to a new country or starting a business, to a friend who sees its potential to succeed, but also knows she or he would never find the courage to try.

Their feedback can be severely affected by how they feel about themselves in this circumstance.

If a sense of inadequacy or powerlessness takes over, they’d likely share a negative feedback despite their previous positive assessment, and the interesting fact is that they may not even do it on purpose.

They will experience a simple and fast psychological journey: as they project themselves into your idea and the disempowering emotions pop up, they’ll try to get rid of them as soon as possible, and the shortest path is to label the idea as wrong.

The counterpart may also have a hidden agenda, and therefore, although disagreement is of paramount importance, you must be extremely selective.

Like all precious things, disagreement cannot and should not come from any source and you must be careful who you want to stress-test your ideas with.

Family and friends, although conveniently located, may not be your best choice.

For disagreement to be valuable and add a strategic perspective to your idea, you need the source to be:

1. Believable. You want someone with a positive track record on the specific subject. What’s the point of taking business advice from someone who had a modest (if any at all) career? You wouldn’t ask your uncle how to fight a disease, unless he was a medical doctor. Would you?
2. Transparent. You must do your own due diligence and make sure the other person is in good faith and has no hidden interests before asking for advice. If they have a hidden agenda, they may very well point you in the wrong direction, to mislead you and profit from the situation.
3. Willing to speak. Not everyone likes to disagree, and not everyone is confident enough to stand for their ideas. For disagreement to be effective, it often requires a certain level of debate. You shouldn’t give up your ideas too easily in favour of the counterpart’s (except if their level of the believability on the specific subject is much higher than yours). Keep in mind you need a good debate in order to stress-test as many facets of the idea as possible.

This last point leads to the principle that, if you want other people to open up and disagree freely with you, you must develop a communication style that accommodates and favors disagreement.

You must start by telling them you value their feedback and that, whether or not you’ll implement their advice, you won’t take any action before evaluating carefully everything they said.

You must also avoid interrupting them, and expect them to change their mind at the end of the debate. This is not your goal.

You must listen more than you speak, and you should ask more questions and make fewer statements. In the end, you want to understand their (opposing) perspective as much as possible in order to reassess yours.

Another communication tool that helps to unleash concrete feedback is to ask for confirmation. Repeat what the other person has just said, and ask them f you’ve understood them well. This trick will probably bring to the table additional elements.

WHAT IS AN ARGUMENT?

The dictionary defines it as “an exchange of diverging or opposite views, typically a heated or angry one.”

While disagreement can come as an argument (although as explained above, one should try to avoid it) many arguments are not grounded in, or triggered by, genuine disagreement.

And we should avoid them because to argue with someone who doesn’t really see things differently, but argues for the sake of arguing, can only take us to a miserable place.

After studying the subject and reflecting for years, I created a simple formula a few years ago. I’ve lived by it ever since:

Disagreement = progress

Disagreement + argument = slower progress

Argument - disagreement = regress

The reasons people argue unnecessarily (hence without really disagreeing) are very similar to the ones that make hard to disagree well; ego, hidden agendas, and also unexpressed discomfort and rage.

We’ve addressed ego and hidden agendas earlier in this article. We must also consider that some people may just be uncomfortable or angry at the moment of your conversation.

Lack of sleep, physical pain, worries, depression. There are many reasons you may have an argument with someone without a logical reason to disagree.

Common sense would suggest to avoid, or at least cut short when not avoidable, such conversations. And yet, who hasn’t been a victim, at least once, of the pride that makes you want to win an argument, as useless as it may be?

I certainly made this mistake more than a few times and I’ve never, not even once, gained anything.

Argument for argument’s sake can only escalate and create a snowball effect. If you engage in one, have the humility and the determination to withdraw from it.

Recently, I interrupted a collaboration because I realised that, despite sharing a common vision, the other person and I were trapped in a spiral of arguments from which we couldn’t find a way out.

It wasn’t an easy decision, for it was a collaboration I had invested time and resources in, and with a person I both like and respect.

Yet, I wanted to be true to myself, follow my own my formula, and spare myself and the other person further, increasingly unpleasant conversations.

I trust I did the right thing and I don’t hold the grudge. I also think that door may reopen again in the future, and if it does, it will be on better terms.

But if it doesn’t, it is also an additional proof that the shared vision was not strong enough to survive an argument.

To conclude, I invite the reader to reflect upon the possibility of radically embracing a culture of disagreement.

A culture in which opposing views are welcomed, rewarded, sought after and celebrated. But also a culture that stigmatizes hidden agendas, ego trips and any form of abuse.

Insults are the arguments employed by those who are in the wrong. - Jean-Jacques Rousseau

The only way to get the best of an argument is to avoid it. - Dale Carnegie

If you enjoyed this article, feel free to give it a thumb up, and share it with your network.

You can also opt to receive my next articles straight in your inbox, by subscribing to The Weekly (Luxury) Reflection