Why Are We Yelling?: The Art of Productive Disagreement

by Buster Benson

redefining these boundaries, but this fact also reveals that the boundaries are drawn by consensus and not according to any absolute sense of universal morality. There is not a single objective authority that all voices of reason can speak to. You can’t use courtroom norms to resolve a disagreement in a relationship any more than you can use scientific studies to resolve a disagreement about your life’s purpose. When we try to apply reason across the boundaries of groups with clashing norms, we set ourselves up for a whole lot of yelling and frustration, often leaving us with feelings of futility. The takeaway here is that the voice of reason relies on having the voice of power to fall back on during escalations, and is best suited to disagreements with people who share respect for the higher authority, and are members of the same groups and institutions, that your reasons draw from. If the voice of reason isn’t working, check which groups you both identify with to confirm that the cognitive dissonance you’re addressing is a concern for at least one group that you both belong to. This brings us to the third voice, the voice of avoidance, to which we are increasingly drawn in these polarized times. When power and reason don’t work, sometimes the only recourse is to avoid the conversation altogether. THE VOICE OF AVOIDANCE “The only winning move is not to play.” “I would prefer not to.” “Leave me out of it.” When I share my fascination with arguments and disagreement with pe...