Why we dislike disagreements

Back in school, most of us had been part of debate competitions. A certain topic was allocated and then we were divided into two teams to speak “for” or “against” the topic.

While the intent was to enhance our learning from a holistic perspective, we ended up competing to win and trying our best to have the other party agree to our pointers.

As a result, the only outcome achieved was – we agreed to disagree.

Doesn’t this happen to us even today? We are so inherited by our perspective and our preconceived notions, that instead of understanding others’ point of view, we rather focus on convincing them, and hence, the discussion reaches an impasse. We tend to resent those who disagree with us.?

What is uncomfortable

We always gravitate towards people who are like us, or among whom we feel that our thought processes will sync perfectly. However, the underlying truth is that we find it uncomfortable to face polarizing views. We always look at the other side as malevolent, and with malicious intent toward us. And that is precisely why, despite being factually correct, we pay little or no heed to others’ opinion when it differs from ours.

One term which describes this behavior in psychology is “belief perseverance”. It is the tendency to stick to one’s perceptions and beliefs even in the face of evidence that contradicts them. When it comes to “uncomfortable” discussions like religion, politics, diversity, and inclusion, we come across different schools of thought. And despite facts and data backing, there will always be one cohort that will have a different opinion on these issues.

One way to deal with this is, in a situation of conflict, always approach with the intent to listen and not to win or agree. Another smart technique can be asking the individual to explain why the opposing belief might be true.?

How to move the dialogue forward

Amid a scenario like this, where polarization is here to stay, considering the avalanche of “more than usual” information available on social media, is it even possible to have a constructive dialogue any more?

Well, it may not be easy but there are a few principles we can practice in continuing to have constructive conversations.

#1 –?Have a clear purpose?– When the conversation reaches a deadlock, one of the main causes could be that the purpose wasn’t amply made clear from the outset. This is one of the most important lessons when we talk about the art of negotiations, to make the end objective crystal clear before diving in with various points of view.

#2 –?Curiosity?– Being trained to compete in a debate, we usually would go head-on at the sight of even the slightest of disagreements. This ends up shutting down people not just in the conversation but also in relationships. Hence, a good practice would be to have at least one party who chooses curiosity over conflict. Understand others’ perspectives, try and see their side of things. This triggers an instant reaction as our curiosity invokes the same sense in the opposing party too.

#3 –?Challenge and criticism?– Every conversation needs to be approached as a climbing wall, where even conflicting views add up to your knowledge source and help you to step up gradually. When the stakes are high, that’s what successful negotiators do.

On the closing note, I would again refer to the debate example. Instead of adding more compelling content and thinking about victory, how about acting vulnerable and being prone to attacks? With each attack, you refine your content, add the necessary substance, and voila. You would have climbed the ladder easily?