Find the source of dissent

Context

You are arguing a point with someone, and find yourselves disagreeing on what conclusion to draw or what action to take.

Problem statement

You want to understand the point of view of your partner, and have them understand yours.

Intent

• Identify what you agree on, and what you disagree on.
• Avoid damage to your relationship with your conversational partner.
• Open up a stalled conversation, allowing both parties to alter their opinion.

Solution

Consider your conversation as a series of distinct steps, where each party chains together arguments to come to a conclusion. The hope is that by forming a sensible story, you can convince the other party.
To simplify our reasoning, we will group most of the arguments that people make while discussing as either being:

• premises, submitting evidence: You refer to something you consider a fact. This can be an article, a scientific journal, a series of events that took place, a measurement, a statistic, or any other verifiable piece of information.
• identifying consequences: Based on the facts, you state what is likely to happen. These can either be logical consequences, or intuitive ones.

When disagreeing with someone, retrace your conversation step by step. You and your partner(s) check whether you are on the same page. Make sure you understand each other’s meaning and intent fully, avoiding jargon if you can¹. At some point, you will discover a factoid or consequence that you do not both consider factual or relevant to the discussion. You have now discovered the root of your dissent.

Rather than furthering your disagreement on your final conclusion, stick to discussing your opinions of the point where your reasoning diverges.
If you can not come to an agreement here, there is no sense in discussing things further down the conversational chain. You might still end up in disagreement, but at least you have an understanding of why you disagree. This proves to be invaluable in identifying alternatives or compromises.

Contextual forces

Enablers

The following factors support effective application of the practice:

• You respect the person(s) you are speaking with.
• You are able to stay calm in the heat of an argument.
• You are willing to understand your partner(s) point of view.
• Your conversational partner(s) are willing to understand your point of view.
• Factual evidence is readily available and easy to consult.
• You are willing to accept that you might be wrong.

Deterrents

The following factors prevent effective application of the practice:

• Factual evidence is not available.
• The argument has escalated to the point of communication breakdown.
• Your partner(s) are not willing to understand your point of view.
• You are not willing to understand the point of view of your partner(s).

Rationale

• When in a discussion, it is more constructive to leave tempers outside.
• Calmly going through your arguments step-by-step helps avoid personal biases or egos come into play.

Application

Consequences

Applying this pattern can significantly improve the quality of discussions and reduce the likelihood of conflict escalation. By focusing on the root cause of a disagreement rather than debating the conclusions, participants can better understand each other’s perspectives. This often leads to more constructive conversations and a higher likelihood of finding common ground or reaching a compromise. However, there are some potential downsides:

• Time-Consuming: Breaking down arguments step by step can be time-consuming, especially in complex discussions. This might frustrate individuals who prefer quick resolutions or have limited patience for in-depth analysis.
• Overemphasis on Logic: The approach relies heavily on logical reasoning and factual evidence. In situations where emotions, values, or subjective experiences are the primary drivers of disagreement, this method may not fully address the underlying issues.
• Potential for Stalemate: If both parties are deeply entrenched in their views and unwilling to budge on the identified point of divergence, the conversation could reach a stalemate, leading to frustration without resolution.
• Perceived Rigidity: Some people might perceive the step-by-step analysis as overly rigid or pedantic, particularly if they are not accustomed to structured argumentation. This could lead to resistance or disengagement from the conversation.

Mitigation strategies

To mitigate the potential negative consequences of this approach, consider the following strategies:

• Balance Structure with Flexibility: While it’s important to follow the steps to identify the root of disagreement, be mindful of the conversation’s flow. If one party feels overwhelmed or frustrated by the process, allow for more flexibility and encourage them to express their concerns openly.
• Acknowledge Emotional Factors: Recognize that not all disagreements are purely logical. If emotions, values, or personal experiences are at play, make space for these factors in the discussion. Acknowledging and validating these aspects can help maintain a balanced conversation.
• Set Expectations: Before diving into the step-by-step analysis, set expectations with your conversational partner(s) about the process. Explain the benefits of this method and ensure they are on board with the approach. This can help prevent resistance or misunderstandings.
• Know When to Pause: If the conversation reaches a stalemate or becomes too heated, it might be best to pause and revisit the discussion later. This allows all parties to reflect on the conversation and return with a clearer mind.

By applying these mitigation strategies, you can maximize the benefits of this pattern while minimizing potential drawbacks, leading to more productive and meaningful discussions.