Discovering Your Disagreement Style

What is a convincing orientation?

View video

What is a learning orientation?

View video

If you want to try out a learning orientation, the easiest way to do it is simply to ask a genuine question. Below we’ve listed three kinds of questions that are helpful in difficult conversations:

• Ask a clarifying question. 

• Paraphrase the other person’s argument, then ask them if you got it right. 

• Describe the disagreement as you see it, then ask if you described it correctly. 

Clarifying Questions

Clarifying questions can include:

• What someone means by a specific word or phrase 

• Whether someone’s argument holds true in all cases, or if there are exceptions

• What types of evidence others have seen that support their claim

• What assumptions underlie another’s argument

Asking a clarifying question invites others to share more about their thinking and helps you understand the nuances of what they are saying. Here are some examples:

• Tell me more about what you mean when you use the word “inappropriate”?

• Could you say more about why that bothers you?

• I think I understand your main point, but I’m not sure I get how you got there.

• Could you say a little more about what led you to form this opinion?

Paraphrasing

Paraphrasing is when you play back to another person what you heard them say. It is not simply repeating their last sentence, or repeating their position word-for-word. It means offering your best summary of their main point or points to see if you understand correctly. When you paraphrase, it’s important to check that you got it right. Without that check, you might miss their point and they could feel like you didn’t hear what they were saying. Here are some examples:

• So your main point is that the school day should be shorter to allow students more time for extra-curricular interests. Is that right?

• If I hear you right, you’re upset because I didn’t agree with your point in class. Is that true?

Describe the Disagreement as You See It

When you describe the disagreement as you see it, you pull back from the conversation a bit to explain what you think is happening between you and the other person. This can help when the conversation really seems to be going off the rails. It can slow down the conversation and offer a chance to come to a shared agreement about where you are, even if you can’t agree on anything else. Here are some examples:

• Can we stop for a minute? It seems to me that I haven’t been willing to consider that your experience is different from mine and maybe that’s making it hard for you to talk. Am I right about that?

• I think maybe our issue is that I’m primarily focusing on the impact of this policy on women and you’re mainly focusing on the impact on the economy. So maybe we’re bringing different values into this conversation?

• Remember: these questions require some genuine curiosity on your part. Without this, the other person will likely feel interrogated or that you are trying to lure them into a trap by asking a question. If you’re having a hard time summoning curiosity, it can be helpful to ask yourself: “What would have to be true for this person’s position to make sense?”

Learn about your dominant style

Debaters

Debaters are fascinated by arguments and do not shy away from uncomfortable conversations. They enjoy engaging with others to discuss a variety of political, social, and economic issues even—maybe especially—when those issues are controversial. Debaters can be persuasive (even insistent) when they think they’re right, but they also have an ability to ask great questions. 

When debaters are in a learning mode

Thoughts: 

• They’re likely to get curious about the other person’s evidence, logic, and assumptions, and they will think about how to clearly explain their own. 

Behaviors: 

• They’re likely to have a long conversation, emphasize their position, but also ask the other person genuine, open questions.

Sounds like: 

• “It sounds like your argument is …. Do I have that right?” 
• “That’s interesting. How did you come to that conclusion?” 
• “Is there any particular evidence that shaped your position on this issue?” 

When debaters are in a convincing mode

Thoughts:

• They’re likely to think about problems with the other person’s argument or spend time building the case for their own argument in their head. 

Behaviors:

• They may not ask the other person any questions. Debaters might even interrupt them when they have a really important point to make that they feel the other person hasn’t considered. 

Sounds like:

• “Let me tell you what I think….” 
• “I think you’re missing the main point.” 
• “I don’t think you’ve considered….” 

Common logic traps to watch out for

1. Straw Man: Oversimplifying the other’s viewpoint and then attacking that hollow argument.
   • Example: “People who don’t support the proposed state minimum wage increase hate the poor.”
   • Solution: Steel man the other person’s position by attempting to lay out the strongest version of their argument. 
2. Ad populum/Bandwagon Appeal: Presenting what “most people,” or a group of people think, in order to persuade someone to think the same way. 
   • Example: “90% of our campus supports the pro-choice movement.” 
   • Solution: Avoid discussing what “most people” think. Just because an idea is popular doesn’t make it correct.
3. Genetic Fallacy: Suggesting that the origins of a person, idea, institute, or theory determines its character, nature, or worth. 
   • Example: “Planned Parenthood is an evil idea because Margaret Sanger founded it and she was a eugenicist.”
   • Solution: When you discuss ideas, don’t focus on where they came from but on the substance of what those ideas say. A good idea will stand on its own, regardless of where it came from. Likewise, a bad idea will have negative consequences, irrespective of its origins.

Researcher

Sometimes researchers might not feel comfortable saying much during conversations about controversial social, political, and economic issues. But this isn’t because they’re not interested; they just prefer to think things through and they like to be prepared. They’re curious about many topics and love to do research to seek out information and arguments on different subjects. 

When researchers are in a learning mode

Thoughts: 

• They’re likely to think about where the other person found the evidence they’re citing and how they might find it online. 

Behaviors: 

• After the conversation is over, they are likely to go research the topic they’ve discussed to learn more. 

Sounds like: 

• “Where can I find the statistics you cited?” 
• “I’d like to find some books that will give me a different perspective on this issue. Can you recommend any?” 
• “I wrote down my position and compared it and contrasted it to yours. Do I have it right?”

When researchers are in a convincing mode

Thoughts:

• They may tune out or think that they want to stop the conversation so they can do more research, then pick up the discussion again—this time with more research to support their argument. 

Behaviors:

• During the conversation, they might take out their phone to Google a few articles that support their position and show them to the other person. 

Sounds like:

• “You really need to take a look at this research I found.” 
• “I’ve studied this issue a lot, and that’s not what the statistics say.” 
• “Sure, whatever you say,” while internally disagreeing.

Common logic traps to watch out for

1. Correlation does not imply causation: Correlation means there is a relationship between the values of two variables. Causation means that one event causes another event to occur. Even if there is a correlation between two variables, we cannot assume that one variable causes a change in the other. This relationship could be random, or a third factor may be causing both variables to change.
   • Example: A soccer coach wore a blue shirt and his team won (correlation). The team won because the soccer coach wore a blue shirt (causation). 
   • Solution: Never assume that there is a relationship between two variables, unless you have evidence from a methodologically sound experiment that tested for causation by controlling for other variables and measuring the difference. 
2. False dilemma: This is a conclusion that oversimplifies the argument by reducing it to only two sides or choices. 
   • Example: We can either stop using fossil fuels or destroy the earth.
   • Solution: Identify as many possible options or choices as you can. In this example, this could include: developing cleaner technology, carpooling, or better community planning to discourage daily driving, and many more.
3. Post hoc ergo propter hoc: This is a conclusion that assumes that if ‘A’ occurred after ‘B’ then ‘B’ must have caused ‘A.’ 
   • Example: I ate a banana and now I am sick, so the banana must have made me sick.
   • Solution: Just because one event (B) chronologically follows another (A), do not assume that the first event (A) must have caused the second (B). Think about all the possible factors (C, D, E, F, and so forth) that could have caused B. It is likely that there are multiple causes.

Responder

Responders are fascinated by how people’s experiences have shaped their beliefs. Responders enjoy conversations in which they ask people about their lives and encourage them to reflect on how their experiences might have impacted their perspectives on social, political, and economic issues. In a conversation about a controversial topic, responders might focus primarily on identity. 

When responders are in a learning mode

Thoughts: 

• They’re likely to think about people’s life experiences and how those experiences may have impacted their viewpoints.  

Behaviors: 

• They’re likely to have conversations that become personal. Responders will probably ask about the other person’s experiences to try to understand where their beliefs came from. 

Sounds like: 

• “What are some experiences you’ve had that have most shaped you?” 
• “How do you think how you grew up may have affected your beliefs?” 
• “Do you think if you’d had different experiences that your positions on issues might be different?”  

When responders are in a convincing mode

Thoughts:

• If they disagree with the other person, they might think about how the other person’s experiences may have given them an incomplete perspective. 

Behaviors:

• They might say or imply that the other person only holds their position because of their identity or experiences, rather than because of research they’ve done on the issue. 

Sounds like:

• “It seems like you think this way because of how you grew up.” 
• “If you’d had different life experiences you’d see this issue differently.” 
• “A lot of people with your background make that mistake too.” 

Common logic traps to watch out for

1. Ad hominem: An attack on a person’s character rather than their arguments.
   • Example: The Young Socialists of America’s ideas won’t work because their leadership is ideologically motivated and obsessed with punishing conservatives for wrong-think.  
   • Solution: Rather than criticizing an individual or group’s character, focus on their ideas.   
2. Argument from authority: Using the viewpoint of an authority as evidence to support an argument.
   • Example: Louis Pasteur, often called the “father of microbiology,” developed the germ theory of disease. Therefore, the germ theory of disease is true. 
   • Solution: Do not assume that a proposition is correct because an authority figure said the proposition is correct. Authority figures must make arguments for their positions, just like everyone else. Evaluate arguments on the evidence they provide and the quality of their logic. 
3. Appeal to emotion: An attempt to persuade someone by manipulating their emotions, both. This is a trap because emotions are not necessarily relevant to the truth or falsity of the argument. Moreover, appealing to emotions can distract people from evaluating the quality of the argument. 
   • Example: The vast majority of migrants are fleeing war, famine, political persecution, and extreme poverty. In light of this, any argument for restricting their human rights to seek freedom is profoundly unjust. 
   • Solution: Our emotions about difficult issues are important to consider. Yet when we make arguments, the emotions we feel (or want our interlocutor to feel) should not be the entire basis for our position. We need to ensure that our arguments are logically consistent and based on evidence too. 

Reflector

Reflectors are cautious about entering into a conversation about a controversial topic. Their interactions with others inspire them to reflect—often privately, after the conversation—about how the other person’s experiences have influenced their beliefs on important social, political, and economic issues. Likewise, reflectors might think about the beliefs they hold and where they may have come from, based on their background.

When reflectors are in a learning mode

Thoughts: 

• They’re likely to think about their experiences and the experiences of others and how those experiences may have shaped their respective worldviews. 

Behaviors: 

• They might not ask directly how others’ experiences have shaped their beliefs, but this is something that fascinates reflectors and they’re likely to spend some time thinking about this privately, when they are alone. 

Sounds like: 

• “I wonder how my worldview has been shaped by my experiences.” 
• “If I was born differently—with another gender, ethnicity, or social class—how would those identity factors have impacted my worldview differently?” 
• “How do my friends’ experiences impact their beliefs?”  

When reflectors are in a convincing mode

Thoughts:

• If they disagree with the other person, they might think about how the other person’s experiences may have given them a limited perspective. 

Behaviors:

• They might withdraw from the conversation and change the subject. 

Sounds like:

• “Can we talk about something else, please?” 
• “I’ve been thinking and I’ve come to the conclusion that, if you’d had different experiences you’d see this issue differently.” 
• “I’ve thought about this a lot, and I think a lot of people with your background make that mistake too.” 

Common logical traps to watch out for

1. Red herring: Avoiding the key issue(s), often by mentioning information that distracts from the main topic. 
   • Example: While there is extreme income inequality in America, teaching Critical Race Theory in K-12 schools isn’t going to help poor children improve their economic prospects. 
   • Solution: Focus your argument on the key topic and make sure that any other topics you bring in are related to the main topic. Explain how those other topics relate to your main point. 
2. Fallacy of Composition: Arguing that what is true of the parts must be true of the whole. 
   • Example: The best athletes at our school are Darryl Jones, Javon Harris, and Daniel Thompson. They all play for our school’s football team. Therefore, our school’s football team is a highly-ranked team. 
   • Solution: Don’t assume that what is true of the parts must be true of the whole. Make sure you investigate the constituent elements before making any assumptions. 
3. Fallacy of Division: Arguing that what is true of the whole must be true of the parts. 
   • Example: Men, on average, are taller than women. Therefore, Robert is taller than Alyssa. 
   • Solution: Don’t assume that what is true of the whole must be true of its parts. Investigate your topic carefully before making any assumptions.

In this course, you learned that people are able to achieve different outcomes in conversations when they are open to learning, rather than simply trying to convince others they are right. You explored your own tendencies when you face difficult conversations. Based on your particular style, you learned a bit about productive and less productive ways of engaging with others, as well as some logical fallacies you might want to watch out for.

More than anything, though, we hope you have learned one core insight: the more we can engage other people with curiosity and some measure of openness, the more likely we are to both learn something new and develop better relationships. The old adage that people “contain multitudes” is true, and we won’t understand another person’s experiences and thinking until we ask. No matter how certain you are about a topic, there is always more to learn. What you don’t know might surprise you.