Why Are We Yelling?

We need weeds, and we need disagreements too. Famous marriage researcher Dr. John Gottman says that a relationship without conflict is a relationship without communication and is bound to fail. Conflict is inevitable whenever two or more people are talking about things from their own unique perspectives. Disagreements are a sign that the relationship’s soil is healthy. (Gottman recommends a 5:1 ratio of positive encounters to negative encounters, because this ensures that the flow of disagreements is kept open—and can therefore be resolved without being overwhelmingly negative.)

I’ve become much more concerned when I see people being too polite and conflict avoidant than when conflict is surfacing and being heard. Hidden disagreements are much worse than surfaced disagreements. Kim Scott, the author of Radical Candor, calls this impulse toward kindness “ruinous empathy” because it actually causes more problems than it solves. It’s a real thing that has begun to take hold in our companies, at our dinner tables, and even in our own heads. It happens when people care a lot about things, but for cultural or personality-based reasons, they feel it is best not to challenge them directly.

Surprising truth: people are happier, and groups are higher-functioning, when the flow of necessary disagreements is open and they have an honest chance to be heard.

The key word in our definition of a disagreement (an unacceptable difference between two perspectives), isn’t “difference.” It’s “unacceptable.” Once the clash between perspectives becomes unacceptable, our motivation shifts from understanding minds to changing them, and from that shift springs a world of trouble. We can change our own beliefs and our own behaviors, but when it comes to changing other people, our options are more limited and the results can vary wildly. Sometimes our attempts to change minds can actually have the opposite effect, making people dig in their heels even deeper in their current belief. It’s called the backfire effect.

When we try to “win” arguments by whatever means are at our disposal, including persuasion, bribery, threats, and other tools of force, we don’t end up getting the results we hope for. At best, Aphrodite got the meaningless apple, Eris got revenge, and excess resentment poured below the surface to feed the roots and bulbs of tomorrow’s, next month’s, and next year’s future disagreements. Changing minds is really hard. There’s really only one mind in the universe that you can change, with some luck, and that’s yours. Think about the last time you changed your own mind about something: did you do a complete 180, or was it more of a gradual shift?

A mind is more like a pile of millions of little rocks than a single big boulder. To change a mind, we need to carry thousands of little rocks from one pile to another, one at a time. This is because our brains don’t know how to rewire a full belief in one big haul. New neuron paths aren’t created that quickly. You might be able to get a tiny percent of someone’s mind to rewire to a new belief in a given conversation, but minds change slowly and in unpredictable ways. You might be changing it in the wrong direction.

THE REALMS OF THE HEAD, HEART, AND HANDS The easiest thing you can do to have more productive disagreements immediately is to remember to ask the other person: “Is this about what’s true, what’s meaningful, or what’s useful?” Is this about the head, the heart, or the hands? If you can agree on the answer, then you’re on your way. — When we’re having a disagreement with someone, it’s really useful to pay attention to which of the three realms we’re experiencing. The three realms are: anxiety about what is true (the head realm of information and science), anxiety about what is meaningful (the heart realm of preferences and values), and anxiety about what is useful (the hands realm of practicality and planning). Each of them represents a part of reality that has its own rules for validation and different implications in a conversation. What works to resolve a disagreement in one realm will not work in the other two.

Head realm: what is true? When a disagreement can be settled with information, we will call it a conflict of head, because it’s about data and evidence that can be objectively verified as true or false out in the world. It is often concerned with the “what” of a situation. Example: Two people have an argument about who gets to spend more time watching shows that they like versus shows that the other person likes. The resolution to this disagreement is measured in hours, with some bias toward recent days. Heart realm: what is meaningful? When a disagreement can be settled only as a matter of personal taste, we’ll call it a conflict of heart, because it’s about preferences and values and judgment calls that can be determined only within oneself. It is often concerned with the “why” of a situation. Example: Two people have an argument about whether a particular show is worth watching. The resolution to this disagreement is measured by personal taste, ability to relate, appreciation for different kinds of narratives. Hands realm: what is useful? When a disagreement can only be settled with some form of test, or by waiting to see how things play out in the future, we’ll call that a conflict of hands. It is often concerned with the “how” of a situation. Example: Two people have an argument about the best way to balance TV time that takes into consideration differences in preferences, differences in show schedules, and differences in personal schedules to be agreeable to both parties. The resolution to this disagreement is measured by its utility in the relationship over time.

THE GIFT OF DISAGREEMENT Truth 1: Arguments aren’t bad. They’re signposts to issues that need our attention. Truth 2: Arguments aren’t about changing minds. They are about bringing minds together. Truth 3: Arguments don’t end. They have deep roots and will pop back up again and again, asking us to engage with them.

It’s easy to understand why we think of arguments as nuisances, like weeds. We don’t have time to deal with this crap! Having a disagreement-free week, or even day, seems like the ultimate joy. Why should we wish for more disagreements? Done right, arguments are opportunities. A productive disagreement is something you’ll look forward to rather than dread. It’s one that leads to a mutually beneficial outcome. A productive disagreement yields fruit: the fruit of security, by removing a threat, reducing a risk, resulting in a deal, or concluding with a decision; the fruit of growth, by revealing new information about the world or each other that makes us see and understand reality more deeply; the fruit of connection, by bringing us together and giving us opportunities to forge trust with one another; and the fruit of enjoyment, by teaching us to operate with a collaborative mind-set that emphasizes playfulness, adventure, fun, and sometimes even awe.

Metaskills are super important to invest in, because if you get marginally better at having more productive disagreements—say, even 5 to 10 percent better—your life could get 50 to 100 percent better! That’s because every role you play in your life requires communication and the ability to work through disagreements that pop up. When you learn to disagree productively in different roles, the effects combine and are magnified, making you a better friend, a more competent coworker, a more loving spouse, a more active family member, and a more effective citizen of the world. It’s a superpower, because it’s probably one of the most high-leverage skills you can work on. Very few people have been given the right tools, rules, and environment to develop and refine their practice of productive disagreement, so we have a lot of room to grow into it.