How to navigate disagreement

By Pamela Gorsuch on September 6, 2024

From debating the best approach to a project to discussing opposing viewpoints on the news, disagreements are a part of life. That’s even more true during an election year. But while it’s natural to shy away from hard topics, studies show that productive disagreements can lead to deeper understanding and connection. The trick is to set guardrails and avoid common pitfalls. Below, TU debate director Michael Harrington and associate professor of psychology Michael Ent share five best practices for successfully navigating disagreement.

Set goals.

Before beginning a challenging conversation, think about how you want to conduct yourself. If you struggle to say what you think (versus what others want to hear) you might aim to speak honestly, while if you have a quick temper, you might set a goal of keeping an even tone. Ent—whose research focuses on self-control—says committing to certain standards in advance leads to more effective self-control in the moment.

The same strategy can be applied to avoiding triggers within a conversation. Consider issues that might come up and decide how you’ll respond. For example, if someone says something offensive, you might decide to ask why they feel that way or calmly explain why it’s offensive to you.

“Anticipate the stressful moments and think ahead about how to respond effectively, so there’s something to lean back on in the moment,” says Ent.

Prepare reasoning. 

Preparing key points ahead of time sets the stage for a focused exchange of ideas. Harrington, a former top national debater, recommends establishing five elements of an argument based on the Toulmin model for debate. They include the statement you want others to believe (known as the claim); support for the claim, like a statistic or personal story; reasoning that connects the two; additional support for this reasoning; and any exceptions to your claim, which you’ll want to acknowledge up front. Once you’ve developed these key points, go through potential counterarguments and adapt your reasoning accordingly.

“You don’t need someone to argue against to ensure your reasoning is strong,” Harrington says. “Start thinking through the process on your own.”

Look for common ground.

Once the conversation begins, listen carefully to what the other person says and ask for clarification when needed. Avoid the instinct to immediately counter the other person’s argument. Instead, Ent suggests following Rapoport’s Rules for constructive conflict. First, attempt to summarize the other person’s position so clearly and fairly that they must agree with you. Then point out any areas where you both agree—especially those the other person might find surprising. Next mention anything you learned from the other person as a signal of goodwill. Only after completing these steps should you offer a counterargument.

“At that point whatever rebuttal you give is more likely to be honest and more likely to be well received,” Ent says.

Practicing these steps during normal conversation helps them become habitual, and thus easier to implement during more difficult disagreements.

Avoid pitfalls. 

Be alert for pitfalls that can derail the conversation. Common ones include ad hominem attacks where a person resorts to attacking the arguer instead of the argument and slippery slopes that purport an exaggerated chain reaction (for example, saying “If John Doe is elected, our country will collapse and I’ll have to move away!”) Other pitfalls include arguments based on feelings instead of ideas or arguments not rooted in fact.

When a pitfall happens, point it out and redirect the conversation back to the main topic.

“It’s natural to have emotions during a debate, but you still need to remain logical and back up your argument,” Harrington says. “Don’t allow pathos, or emotion, to overshadow logos, or reason. Keep your thoughts organized, stay composed and you’ll be fine.”

End with appreciation.

Redefining our standards for success can help us bring a disagreement to an amicable conclusion. Instead of expecting the conversation to end with consensus, consider aiming to come away with a greater understanding of the other person or with both parties having presented clear and fair points. Wrap things up by offering to think about the points they made, expressing appreciation for their willingness to have the conversation and sharing any positive sentiments you have about them. A positive ending to the conversation can strengthen your connection with the other person and open the door for them to consider your points after the fact.

“Think about the deep conversations you’ve experienced and how you had to process them, reflect on them and sit with them,” Harrington says. “That takes time.”

Democracy in action

Engage in civic discourse through community conversations, resource shares and collective reflections hosted by the Office of Civic Engagement and Social Responsibility. 

Join the College of Liberal Arts (CLA) for its annual Democracy Today Book Event, in which author Dannagal Goldthwaite Young discusses how media, politics and identity drive our appetite for misinformation. It is one of several programs within CLA's Democracy Today initiative.

 

About the Experts

Michael Ent is an associate professor of psychology in Towson University’s College of Liberal Arts. His work has been published in peer-reviewed journals and featured in the Scientific American and The Wall Street Journal.

Michael Harrington is a lecturer and director of debate in Towson University’s College of Fine Arts and Communications. His teaching focuses on helping students find their voice to cultivate new ideas, performances, theories, and/or political embodiment.