~~ i disagree to agree to disagree :/
Sep. 25th, 2003 05:36 pm![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
reenkaThe concept of agreeing to disagree is strange to me, as is the idea that agreement is therefore the goal of debate or dialogue-type discourse to start with.
Thinking about this, it seems like a major fallacy. The continuous process of thinking would seem to rely on the formulation of questions, rather than that of ready rhetoric, thereafter merely used for comparison with others'. If your goal is to consider a topic, the idea of agreeing to disagree implies that your opinion is somehow intrinsically right and moreover unshakeable, and that talking about it is basically a pleasant exercise in wagging your mouth or fingers.
I'm not saying that having an opinion is somehow bad or unhealthy, but I've come across people saying "let's just agree to disagree" often enough so that now it just annoys me, whether it's said to me personally or not. It's like one of those no-no's in conversation from a list of "Nazi Conversation Tactics" I've come across on the internet once (or whatever it was called). It really kills discourse and it's just awful because there's nothing you can say to it by definition.
I suppose I'm an unusual case because I almost never disagree with anyone 100%. Everything is a question of degree, and it's within the degrees of truth that the question of refinement and improvement lies. It becomes apparent that most people who engage in so-called "intelligent conversation" don't really care about thinking (which should really be termed re-thinking, because it's not like one only thinks -once- and that's it, job done). Neither do they care about the search for the "truth", assuming that truth is worth searching for or even exists outside of the minds of some fanatics who think they've touched the mind of god. That, or they're mathematicians. Hee. Kidding.
I've noticed that a significant number of semi-random people friend me, so supposedly they read what I say, and yet the amount of replies I get is significantly lower than that of some people who're "plebes" or don't say much beyond "I had pizza today" or whose fics are questionable quality at best. (Bitter? Meeeee?) The greatest amount of discussion, whether from my own posts or those of others' seems to involve instances when people disagree strenuously, most often for personal reasons, like when I've hit upon a pet-peeve or project of theirs, so somehow I've become immensely relevant all of a sudden. If I'm just talking in general non-offensive terms, I'm not all that relevant, I guess, so discussion's at a standstill. Lasair tells me it's because what I say is either entirely convincing or I'm just confusing, neither of which inspires much commentary. And of course, it's not as if I -want- a bunch of me-too's. If anything, because hive-minds are scary, man.
I find it interesting that agreement means silence. The silence of the majority, I suppose. I also find it interesting that this complete agreement is even possible on a large scale. On the other hand, the very duality of agreement/disagreement (while apparently natural) is what concerns me, of course. I don't want to be the prophet of the righteous and the morally/philosophically correct. I also don't want to be that gibbering madman in the corner. Hopefully, there's a happy medium where I can inspire questions and discover new answers by others' questions to me. It is most often in the re-thinking of my position that I really feel that wonderful buzz of sudden insight. Taken alone, my thought is necessarily constrained by a multitude of assumptions and short-cuts and biases I take for granted. It is only when someone asks why and wonders that I can wonder with them.
I don't know what the point of this is. It's not trying to make anyone agree or disagree, by god. I don't think imploring my readers to question me would do any good, since I believe you would if you wanted to. But I feel better having verbalized it, anyway.
Thinking about this, it seems like a major fallacy. The continuous process of thinking would seem to rely on the formulation of questions, rather than that of ready rhetoric, thereafter merely used for comparison with others'. If your goal is to consider a topic, the idea of agreeing to disagree implies that your opinion is somehow intrinsically right and moreover unshakeable, and that talking about it is basically a pleasant exercise in wagging your mouth or fingers.
I'm not saying that having an opinion is somehow bad or unhealthy, but I've come across people saying "let's just agree to disagree" often enough so that now it just annoys me, whether it's said to me personally or not. It's like one of those no-no's in conversation from a list of "Nazi Conversation Tactics" I've come across on the internet once (or whatever it was called). It really kills discourse and it's just awful because there's nothing you can say to it by definition.
I suppose I'm an unusual case because I almost never disagree with anyone 100%. Everything is a question of degree, and it's within the degrees of truth that the question of refinement and improvement lies. It becomes apparent that most people who engage in so-called "intelligent conversation" don't really care about thinking (which should really be termed re-thinking, because it's not like one only thinks -once- and that's it, job done). Neither do they care about the search for the "truth", assuming that truth is worth searching for or even exists outside of the minds of some fanatics who think they've touched the mind of god. That, or they're mathematicians. Hee. Kidding.
I've noticed that a significant number of semi-random people friend me, so supposedly they read what I say, and yet the amount of replies I get is significantly lower than that of some people who're "plebes" or don't say much beyond "I had pizza today" or whose fics are questionable quality at best. (Bitter? Meeeee?) The greatest amount of discussion, whether from my own posts or those of others' seems to involve instances when people disagree strenuously, most often for personal reasons, like when I've hit upon a pet-peeve or project of theirs, so somehow I've become immensely relevant all of a sudden. If I'm just talking in general non-offensive terms, I'm not all that relevant, I guess, so discussion's at a standstill. Lasair tells me it's because what I say is either entirely convincing or I'm just confusing, neither of which inspires much commentary. And of course, it's not as if I -want- a bunch of me-too's. If anything, because hive-minds are scary, man.
I find it interesting that agreement means silence. The silence of the majority, I suppose. I also find it interesting that this complete agreement is even possible on a large scale. On the other hand, the very duality of agreement/disagreement (while apparently natural) is what concerns me, of course. I don't want to be the prophet of the righteous and the morally/philosophically correct. I also don't want to be that gibbering madman in the corner. Hopefully, there's a happy medium where I can inspire questions and discover new answers by others' questions to me. It is most often in the re-thinking of my position that I really feel that wonderful buzz of sudden insight. Taken alone, my thought is necessarily constrained by a multitude of assumptions and short-cuts and biases I take for granted. It is only when someone asks why and wonders that I can wonder with them.
I don't know what the point of this is. It's not trying to make anyone agree or disagree, by god. I don't think imploring my readers to question me would do any good, since I believe you would if you wanted to. But I feel better having verbalized it, anyway.
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
no subject
Date: 2003-09-25 04:06 pm (UTC)I've recently added you and I almost always I read what you write. I love hearing what you have to say about the fandom in general and HD in specific, but sometimes I don't read everything you write because non-capped sentences and really long paragraphs put me off. (Trying to get over my fear of anything that looks like English essays. :D
To answer your query: I either don't comment because I a) don't have enough time, b) am lazy, or c) have nothing to add your thoughts, because most of the time you expound everything so well, echoing your thoughts would just be like beating a horse twice dead.
And I disagree your 'disagree to agree to disagree.' From what I've gathered, almost all of the time, people agree to disagree because they've been disagreeing for so long it would be it a waste of time to keep stating that you disagree. By then both parties would have already heard enough of each other's views to know that they can't concur with each other no matter what. So then it's good to call a truce. I mean, there's only so much you can say before you end up reiterating yourself. Hence, agreement to disagree = good to me.
*goes back to shrip shaomai*
no subject
Date: 2003-09-25 04:18 pm (UTC)And see, you didn't really disagree with me because you merely brought up a point I haven't thought of before, which I can agree with. Sigh. That's what I meant-- the very idea of violent disagreement is a sign of a weak mind which refuses to question itself. Or something. *laughs*
I have in fact noticed that this `agree to disagree' thing happens when people are beating a dead horse into the ground. On the other hand, it's their fault that their communication/discourse skills are so awful that they cannot compromise and really effectively pursue their topic. I mean, I realize it happens but it's just kind of... sad.
Ideally, one should be able to kind of grow within a conversation rather than just stating opinions and trying to hit other people over the head with them like they're blunt objects, as
And see, I'm working on the cap thing. I'm so altruistic it hurts >:D
no subject
Date: 2003-09-25 04:48 pm (UTC)Anyway, like, with short posts or comments, caps don't really matter. Me, I resort to non-caps when I'm plain lazy. *g* Don't wanna cramp your natural preferences and such--just write how you like.
on disagreement and agreement
Date: 2003-09-25 05:10 pm (UTC)Point conceded.
the very idea of violent disagreement is a sign of a weak mind which refuses to question itself
Ahahahha, for some reason, that reminded me of my feelings for HD. I'm one of those people who refuses to read anything else (unless someone guilt-tripped me into it *g*) no matter how well-wrttien it is, and I understand it's narrow-minded, but do I care? [insert laugh here] well. that was OT.
On the other hand, it's their fault that their communication/discourse skills are so awful that they cannot compromise and really effectively pursue their topic.
I see agreeing to disagree as a compromise.
And what I said earlier about "stating," that was my lazy way of saying "carrying on an intelligent conversation." I didn't mean that people were uncivil. Just that they can only argue up to a certain point, a point where they realize they can't change the other's mind, but it's enough that the both sides acknowledge the other's point of view. That's the best time for a call to 'agree to disagree.'
Hope that makes sense.
--and a nod to what Thamiris said about silence not necessarily indicating agreement. because sometimes it doesn't. it's more of an indication of that people don't have the time or energy to invest in an argument. like me, I'd only voice dissension in LJ posts if I have the time to discuss about it.
Re: on disagreement and agreement
Date: 2003-09-25 05:32 pm (UTC)I suppose it's just... the mode of conversation which uses "changing of mind" as the goal is what bothers me, because I personally see value in all thoughtful things people say, so it's a process of discovery of new things rather than... er... the acquisition of minions. Or something.
But I'm beginning to think that this is just the way -I- think, and is somehow ineffably alien to a lot of others ^^
And um. I don't read much beyond H/D either. I'm a complete H/D-obsessed narrow-minded minion. Not 100%, but close enough. Then again, I'm only -in- the fandom for the H/D, so. On the other hand, I can certainly see the merits of other things, and have written other things, so I'm like... er... sort of flexible but not really :D
Re: on disagreement and agreement
Date: 2003-09-25 07:31 pm (UTC)Hear hear! I feel the same way. Most people do seem to approach debate as a proselytizing activity -- they are indeed trying to change the other debator's mind, and (perhaps more successfully) the minds of onlookers. A lot of people approach fannish debate the same way they'd approach public political debate, in which the point is not to sway one's opponent (which will never happen), but to define the ideological boundaries for undecided (or sway-able) onlookers.
In political debate, there's a purpose to this. You're hoping the onlookers will vote your way, come election day. Whether they agree with you _matters_. In fannish debate... well, it just doesn't.
Although, actually, I approach political debate the same way I approach fannish debate -- I'm open to being persuaded, and I'm really more interested in enlarging my understanding of the issues than in convincing others that I'm RIGHT RIGHT RIGHT.
Do you happen to know what Myers-Briggs type you are? Because I've come to think of my approach as an INFP thing.
Re: on disagreement and agreement
Date: 2003-09-25 08:09 pm (UTC)I think this might have to do with the judging/perceiving duality in the Myers-Briggs system. If people want to -judge- as part of how they -think-, they won't be able to even conceive of the apparent contradiction of agreeing by degrees. Not that I don't strenuously disagree with some things, but even so if I were to talk with someone about something I totally didn't believe in-- say, The Earth Was Created In 7 Days-- I would probably require they be open-minded, because I am unwilling to try and brainwash them or even be aggressive in my arguments, and them repeating the same thing over and over would just give me a headache.
I just don't see the point of talking to start with if you're unwilling to see other people's points. In terms of fanatics of any sort, it's not that they "believe" that about the 7 days-- they -have- to believe it. I don't actively believe something else (ie, noooo, it was the Big Bang because my physics textbook says so!), I just refuse to accept -anything- as the Absolute Truth. Unless my partner in discussion is willing to forego absolutes, I just consider them mentally deficient and leave it at that.
Ahahaha. I'm secretly a scary prejudiced person, hee. The Enemy, in other words ;)