When I'm with people who are new to me I usually try to interact over things we have in common versus focus on things we don't have in common, because I tend to enjoy the experience more. IRL, the more I know someone the more likely I am to say "I disagree with you there." For people who are new to me, they have to say something that I think poses harm to themselves or others (e.g., hate speech) for me to say "you're wrong and here's why". Otherwise, I prefer to steer conversation to something I think we'll both enjoy. In my experience picking disagreements hasn't been fruitful avenue of socialization. I'm not sure most people are reasonable or even like others believing they should be. It's a good question though. I used to think I should strive for 100% honesty and candor, but now I think honesty and to a lesser degree candor are good things to aspire to, but other factors like respect can easily trump them in some situations
Vancouver
Community for the city of Vancouver, BC
I do agree that depending on the topic, if someone doesn't know the perspective you are coming from, then it's better to stay silent about it. I only share full honesty of my views with people who come specific cultures, so they would know the references and background when I say my full uncensored opinion.
I don't believe a disagreement even has to be explained. If while someone is talking, you say "I disagree" and the person can continue their point, you've expressed your disagreement, and they don't need to inquire further, simply leave it tht you disagree and that's that.
By original question is why it seems if tere is a simple expression of disagreement, people either end the conversation there and shut it down, or make up a reason to run away from the conversation as if they were harmed by someone saying "I don't think so, I can't go along with that."
Because when people have a conversation they try to share common experiences. There are ways to say "I disagree" that won't shut down the conversation. Just saying that leaves the other person no options to continue the conversation because you are shutting down their topic. A few folks here already gave great answers so I won't repeat the advice.
There are ways to say "I disagree" that won't shut down the conversation.
True for the majority of topics.
Unfortunately, less so for things like politics and religion.
And especially when both are combined and have become a core part of that person's personal identity.
Ironically, folks who broach the topic on politics and religion are typically also having those things as a core part of their personality.
I think typically polite company dictates no religion, no politics no money talk. Been that way forever.
typically polite company dictates no religion, no politics no money talk. Been that way forever.
Absolutely agree.
But unfortunately increasing numbers of people seem to feel the need to inject those topics (and their strong opinions on those topics) into otherwise normal conversation.
There's a lot of variables here. I'm an engineer. At work I can say "I disagree. The reasons are..." and the reason my boss doesn't fire me? Because honesty matters in this context. Same for my marriage. If my wife says she wants to give the kids donuts for dinner, I can directly disagree because again honesty matters (to my wife, to the kids, to the marriage).
Since you didn't get too far into the specifics of who, where and why you might express disagreement in a lower stakes conversation I can only surmise.
You are at a bar and an acquaintance says "I thought Anyone But You was the best movie of 2023". What does that person hear if you simply respond "I disagree." Maybe that your opinions as a movie critics are more important than hearing their feelings? Why don't you instead just say "I didn't see it"? That would tell the person you generally don't watch rom coms and therefore probably wouldn't agree on what the best movie was anyway. Is honesty really critical here? Or is holding a conversation that doesn't turn people off the priority?
You are at work and your direct report turns in utter shit to you on a project that has some degree of importance. Do you says "This is unacceptable"? Or do you instead thank them for completing the task and then ask questions about the work, the product and them to see if they understood the assignment, or whatever else is going on with them or their work load?
Honesty is important in a lot of contexts. Bluntness is not the only way to express something. There are passive and indirect ways to be honest. And there are ways to honor other priorities while not being untruthful.
No one wants to be your friend, spouse or direct report if your knee jerk reaction appears to be a negative response to everything that's uttered.
Part of resolving this is tact. Just simply not uttering the first thing that comes to mind. Part of this is a reframe and simply prioritizing someone else's feelings over your own need to be honest or correct about something unsubstantial.
You're suggesting to be delicate with everybody and never believe someone is a confident adult until they've shown that they don't get irrationally emotional over unpleasant words.
Not really. I'm suggesting people are social animals and will not enjoy you if you piss on small talk. Yeah small talk sort of sucks. Sorry.
Taking the idea at face value and presumed true, I think this would be very context specific. In a lot of social or public situations a major consideration that's going on in people's heads is, "what did I sign on for when I went out today?" If you just wanted to go out for some drinks and to relax or to catch up with a group of people at large (and not so much the individual with whom you disagree specifically), then there's probably some tactical decision making involved. To unambiguously express clear and firm disagreement is going to risk spiraling the conversation in to the wheelhouse of the person saying disagreeable things. If you really didn't sign up for a clash of titans public debate it's going to be a lot easier to pick from many options that just bypass the whole thing like saying nothing and letting their statements just sit there, or expressing indirect disagreement that can be clearly discerned but wasn't explicitly stated so the person you disagree with is going to have to really work and dig to drag that implicit disagreement into the explicit in a way that will cast them as antagonistic which should hopefully discourage them. Another tactic is just abruptly changing the subject which should send a signal that this isn't an area you want to go to.
The reality is, people will probably say they believe it's best to be direct and honest and express respectful disagreement where it exists but life is more complicated than that and just blustering through it on principle, leaning in to every pointless battle is not how we generally choose to live pur lives. Maybe the person in the conversation is saying things that are varying degrees of reprehensible, to an extent, depending on what they're saying, we have something of a moral duty to say something loud and clear so we don't inadvertantly normalise their statements but not everyone is the champion of justice and defender of decency all day long every single day and we pick our battles.
It sounds like you presume a confrontational nature to disagreeing or the nature of the disagreement has a extremist nature to what you are against. Married couples can have strong disagreements and be happily married, but on a single specific topic, they can't agree, but most other things in the marriage is working wsll. What I'm referencing is someone talking about something, another person says "I don't think so, I don't support that.", to which the reply can be something along the lines of "Oh you don't agree? I'm curious hear your take or why you dont.". After said explanation, the original person says "I get that, but we don't agree, all right, no sweat."
I had in mind a lot of other examples to illustrate my point that covered where people are quite likely to want to avoid being explicit in a disagreement besides what I alluded to in the original post but I have a bad enough habit as it is towards being verbose so I left it at a narrower set of circumstances that make the whole post more concise even if overall less comprehensive.
I hoped though that I might have covered myself by starting with the fact that it's heavily contextual which is really more my point. I think in circumstances like those I've suggested in the original post, it sounds like we roughly agree it's unsurprising that disagreement is often either avoided altogether or mooted only obliquely. But then as you point out, there's plenty of other circumstances where it could and really probably should be just fine, but then, as I'm trying to get across, it's very contextual. In the example of the married couple as you say, disagreements of the nature you describe usually are expressed, and it makes sense, the two people involved know each other well, and can adequately sense the stakes involved and comfortably express healthy disagreement. But then your question is more specific, why do people tend to avoid such clearly expressed disagreement when 'out'. I'm taking this to mean, 'in public' so if there's a question of interpretation here hinging on the meaning of 'out' in this context then we could be at cross purposes. I think once again, the complexity of life, what people want out of a given situation, context and tactics play a heavy role. For example the same conversation on the same topic from the same people, like your married couple, could quite understandably play out very differently in public. Again there's so many dynamics at play through which this could be discussed but I have to narrow it to keep my posts at least a little shorter. When this couple are 'out' maybe they've decided to go for coffee, or to visit friends, or they're shopping, or running errands in all of these examples they have purposes to being 'out' and want to get something out of it, they want a pleasant trip to enjoy coffee and company, they want to catch up with friends and hear how they're doing, they want the items they went shopping for or they want the errands completed and not hanging over them. In all such cases it may feel like a distraction from what they're trying to achieve right now to even bother addressing a disagreement, this is especially so if it's very low stakes and not really worth talking about, or if it's extremely high stakes and could lead to an actual confrontation scenario (even in a healthy marriage), so naturally this is something you'll likely try to disengage from if the option to do so is there. So there's this desire to avoid de-railing a situation that is serving a purpose outside of the topic of disagreement and there's also the specifics and dynamics of the relationship and the nature of the topic. Like it or not almost everybody cares what people think, and they care a lot, so while in private a disagreement could be over with "no sweat" people might be concerned that they'll embarrass the person they disagree with in public or give the wrong impression about their relationship, it's likely they needn't have been so concerned especially when the disagreement could be resolved so amicably, but if it's even easier to just stay away from it and discuss it in private then you can bet people would because even if in reality people around them mightn't care, it feels like others are keenly interested and will come away with the wrong impression.
But not to stretch my point too much, all of what I discuss here can be counter exampled, I'm sure you can imagine if the disagreement is just phrased in this or that way nobody could reasonably take offence? Or what if it's not a confrontational discussion and they're people that know each other well, they couldn't ever disagree? I've disagreed with someone in such and such circumstance and it was fine, why can't everyone just do that? The main thing I'm wanting to illustrate is that it's all about complexity and nuance. If you want to know why people will avoid disagreeing in public the reasons are numerous and manifold, you're tired today, you're not interested in the conversation, you're very interested and passionate about the topic but don't want to talk to that person, you're afraid the group dynamics won't support you, you want to discuss it another time, you're clothes are feeling itchy and that's the main thing occupying your mind at this second, you're fairly sure this particular person will take offence whether it's reasonable that they should or not, you don't want to hurt someone's feelings. I guess what I'm saying is I don't think it's surprising or even bad per-se that people won't always reliably be direct and open in their disagreement because a person is aware of so many considerations any given scenario and the dynamics of the relationship with the people involved and will make smart and tactical decisions about when it's actually a good idea to voice explicit and direct disagreement (confrontationally or politely and amicably) this particular time. This is true for almost anything that goes on between humans, an ideology or personal code, like for example disagreement should be expressed openly and respectfully without fear or malice, is a good thing to have and live by but ideals have to contend with reality and to ignore the countless factors that affect how you interact with people and how they interact with you is simply going to end badly, it'd be like trying to have a conversation using some sort of formula or algorithm and it will ring hollow and uncomfortable and being around you will become uncomfortable and a chore. We're a social species that have developed through millions of years of evolution, millennia of culture and years and decades of personal experience many different adaptations to inform our decisions when talking to each other and can't pretend that that doesn't have an enormous impact on what we choose to say.
Overall I would say yes I could counter but I'll leave it, you've made it more complicated than what I was pursuing, but also seemingly sounding like a lot of locals or more empty than I thought and I have to understand that the people of Vancouver operate on a lower functional level and have lower standards so people can't recognize what is wrong with how they conduct themself.
Well if it makes you feel better, this popped up on my front page while I was scrolling and I didn't even notice it was specific to Vancouver so I probably did overcomplicate things a bit since I thought you were musing on life in general when asking this question, so sorry for wasting your time a little there.
That said, I think we may have stumbled on the answer to your question through this process anyway. I've never been to Vancouver but I suspect the locals may have been picking up on some signals you're putting out that we're seeing right here in your manner on Lemmy as well and that's probably why you're noticing this strange tendency to avoid expressing disagreement or more likely engaging much at all when you talk to people over there. Do you tend to find this only happens after they've spent more than a couple of minutes talking to you?
Anyway, sorry you have to live in a world with such a "low standard" of people, it must be difficult being the only person you know that operates on that higher level, but hey, I'll bet if you just politey let everyone you meet know that they're functioning at a low standard and don't even realise it they'll be ever so glad that you told them your reasoning, even if they might disagree, and eventually this strategy will help you really settle in to Vancouver. Maybe you'll even eventually be able to raise everyone else's standards a little just by being there to teach everyone.
Good luck Vancouver!