Agreement & disagreement

[MorkandMindy]

Agreement on what needs to be done and how it should be done is crucial to teamwork.


So what I am attempting to get clear on has a two-fold aim, firstly to find out how to resolve Disagreement and secondly to make good use of Agreement once it has been achieved.


It appears to me right now that disagreement must be due to either:

A discrepancy between what are being used facts to reach a conclusion,

or a difference in the way mutually agreed upon 'facts' are interpreted and related to other facts leading to a disagreement despite all facts being the same.



If these two could be resolved we would be on our way!

(All contributions gratefully received.)

 

[memoriesbymichelle]

Well, as they say (whoever "they" is lol) communication IS the key.

So if there is a disagreement, it needs to be discussed. In the discussion, usually some assumptions are found to be incorrect and after that is discovered, it changes the dynamic. It needs to be discussed without throwing insults at the other side. No name calling or belittling. Usually after discussion some resolution can be met. Sometimes if both sides feel equally as strongly they have to, in the end, agree to disagree. But even in that one is compromising to a lesser degree.

After the discussion everyone should understand their role in what needs to be done. Also is something is given to someone to do, the person not doing the task cannot dictate how the task is to be completed, unless the timeframe is in jepardy at which time further discussion is necessary to figure out how to accomplish what was previously agreed upon, or to make adjustments so that all will still be accomplished.

IMO, flexibility and communication are key factors. One must be able to clearly define their argument and the reasoning behind it, and then must be flexible to other ideas that would equally satisy the requirement that needs to be met.

 

[dayhiker]

I agree that one has to agree upon the facts and then agree on the interpretation of those facts.

But not everyone will live life from the perspective. Quite a few will live out of their emotions. Now I view those emotions come from judgements. So I thought for years that if a gave people facts that showed their emotions were rational, that they would change their emotions. Some do, most don't. They have judged the situation so they have an emotion that they are comfortable with and their judgement isn't going to change for some new fact. Maybe a lot of facts over a long period of time. So a lot of patients.

So maybe 25%, probably less will change when presented with the facts and a reasonable interpretation of those facts. But that doesn't work for the majority in my mind.

 

[MorkandMindy]

Yes, many thanks, I can see that.

My understanding is one reason is that some conclusions are used as a basis for other decisions, so once made have many things dependent on them, and they are not therefore things that can simply be changed.


This applies both in the practical sense that a church minister has spent years training and eventually gained his own church to minister to, if he then decides Christianity is not true, he is then faced with a very difficult decision. Most I suspect spot that potential problem a mile off and so never consider anything that might challenge their own faith.

My own minister at my last church I think avoided the problem by never learning anything about science and evidently a fair few other things too.


As well as this practical sense this also applies in a logical way in that too much of a person's thoughts would have to change to allow many opinions to be rethought.

 

[MorkandMindy]

Thinking about this a bit more, my question is why people generally get so quickly ruffled about their political views being challenged even though none of them as a rule do anything much on the basis of the political views.


I guess that is down to loss of face, basically the response is: 'are you calling me stupid?'

So the perception is that all people have access to the same information about political events / parties / candidates, and therefore the decisions are reached based on each person's intelligence alone, and therefore the person who reached the opposite conclusion must be stupid.

 

[MorkandMindy]

Political feelings run high very quickly. One question I have is whether that is the plan.

Basically a lot of people agree pretty much on a lot of things. The benefits of government provided medical care are clear, most 'advanced' countries in the World have it in some form, and the old are more than happy to take it from age 65 while letting the young 'uns pay a fortune to get the care privately. Most Americans agree we shouldn't be in Iraq and it had zero to do with 911, but we are still in there.

Divide and conquer is to split the public into two equal groups, the reds led by an elephant and the blues led by a donkey, and get them hating each other, and then the very wealthy can do as they choose without any effective opposition.

Just a guess.

 

[memoriesbymichelle]

Well I think it's not just political views but any view anyone has is important.......to them. Some people believe certain things because that is what they have been taught and they just run with it. Others have researched it like a dead dog and formed their opinion based on all their research. And then there are others that believe everything they read/hear whether it be on the internet or the TV because there used to be morality and you used to not be able to say things that weren't true. But now days anything goes so we need to be more diligent in how we form our opinions, but some people are just stuck to their old ways because they have worked for them.

IMO , I don't think it's an easy task to change someone else's opinion so I don't really try that hard unless it affects me directly. If you choose to believe the sky is red instead of blue, I will let you believe that and I will keep my belief that it is blue, no harm no fowl IMO.

In these times we live in our opinions are about all we have left that the government hasn't intruded on and I think that's why people are so passionate about their opinions, just my opinion on it.

Then there's that pesky reference in the bible where we are referred to as sheep. There's good reason for that if you study about sheep.

 

[CounselorForChrist]

If you choose to believe the sky is red instead of blue, I will let you believe that and I will keep my belief that it is blue, no harm no fowl IMO.

But the sky is red!!! Its actually more of a crimson red! Trust me, the meds I take tell me the sky is that color!

 

[MorkandMindy]

Firstly there is a need to agree on the objective, mine is clear cut, I have a goal, a way to get there, am collecting a useful set of morals and ways of thinking and ways to do things, and have friends who help me think through problems I can not solve on my own. Lots of obstacles to be sure but there is progress.

I don't hold opinions, I simply can't afford to. I have working assumptions I need to use but will change them as information arrives. I don't load my head with junk, so no TV, no newspapers, just the facts and the ideas.

I guess where I miss out is the sense of community, where there are opinions about guns and Iraq and religious beliefs and best football team, and in the US your political party seems to matter too, but I have time for a lot of the things I really need, I guess the cultural norms are things I should really have time for but just don't right now. We all get different lives to live.

 

[memoriesbymichelle]

Firstly there is a need to agree on the objective, mine is clear cut, I have a goal, a way to get there, am collecting a useful set of morals and ways of thinking and ways to do things, and have friends who help me think through problems I can not solve on my own. Lots of obstacles to be sure but there is progress.

I don't hold opinions, I simply can't afford to. I have working assumptions I need to use but will change them as information arrives. I don't load my head with junk, so no TV, no newspapers, just the facts and the ideas.

I guess where I miss out is the sense of community, where there are opinions about guns and Iraq and religious beliefs and best football team, and in the US your political party seems to matter too, but I have time for a lot of the things I really need, I guess the cultural norms are things I should really have time for but just don't right now. We all get different lives to live.

You say you don't hold opinions and then you state you don't load your head with junk so no TV, no newspapers, just the facts and the ideas. The second part of your statement proves you DO hold an opinion or two or a thousand. EVERYONE has opinions. We take in information (or facts) and we contemplate them and make decisions based on what we believe (which is our opinion).
I will agree with you that some things that are important to others (like which football team is the best) are not important to me and vise versa.
Understanding a culture or why a person is the way they are, to the extent that we CAN understand the why, is an important piece of information that helps us to deal with that person/people.
When I was a manager, I learned that some employees I could go up to and say "hey! get to work!" and others I would have to say "Hey could you do me a favor and to such and such?" And if I said "Hey! get to work!" to someone that was the kind of person that needed to be "asked" they would not work as well or as fast and would be angry because of how I spoke to them, while another employee would not take any offense at all and would get to work.

 

[MorkandMindy]

You say you don't hold opinions and then you state you don't load your head with junk so no TV, no newspapers, just the facts and the ideas. The second part of your statement proves you DO hold an opinion or two or a thousand. EVERYONE has opinions. ...

I have some working assumptions though only for things I need to make decisions on. I don't have an opinion on Republican or Democrat because I don't need to decide, or Labour v Conservative again because I don't need to decide.

But on things where I need to decide I may zero, one, two or more working assumptions which may be contradictory. Opinions aren't supposed to do that.

The working assumptions are used to formulate responses so having several contradicting ones allows me to follow different options, each in a coherent way. I may have to pursue two lines of inquiry or action together but eventually, hopefully, enough evidence comes in to shelve one assumption and follow just the other. I don't think assumptions generally get disproved or that it is necessary to do so, and later evidence may indicate a need to go back and take the other route.


You may prepare a response in case someone says one thing and you may consider a response in case he says the opposite, neither is an opinion, both are working assumptions.

 

[memoriesbymichelle]

well OK....but assumption comes from assume and I was always taught that if you assume something you make an a s s out of u and me and that is how you spell assume.

That will be the end of the lesson today class tomorrow we will discuss the meaning of antidisestablishmentarianism.

 

[dayhiker]

Thanks for the lesson!

 

[MorkandMindy]

...

That will be the end of the lesson today class tomorrow we will discuss the meaning of antidisestablishmentarianism.

Are you saying you want Ed Miliband to be the next Prime Minister of the United Kingdom?

As I presume you are aware from asking the question, the other home nation churches have been disestablished, so it only remains to do the same with the CofE to allow a non-Protestant to be Prime Minister.

 

[memoriesbymichelle]

Are you saying you want Ed Miliband to be the next Prime Minister of the United Kingdom?

As I presume you are aware from asking the question, the other home nation churches have been disestablished, so it only remains to do the same with the CofE to allow a non-Protestant to be Prime Minister.

LOL no....it (the word) is the longest word in the english language and I find it an interesting word. Nothing to do with politics or really the source of where the word came from. I was just trying to be funny....sorry....didn't mean to offend.

 

[MorkandMindy]

I'm back for an hour maybe, work has been 12 hour days and with travel time that keeps me out of CF rather effectively, also son's homework is a bit of a challenge, that wipes out weekends.

...
That will be the end of the lesson today class tomorrow we will discuss the meaning of antidisestablishmentarianism.

Are you saying you want Ed Miliband to be the next Prime Minister of the United Kingdom?

As I presume you are aware from asking the question, the other home nation churches have been disestablished, so it only remains to do the same with the CofE to allow a non-Protestant to be Prime Minister.

LOL no....it (the word) is the longest word in the english language and I find it an interesting word. Nothing to do with politics or really the source of where the word came from. I was just trying to be funny....sorry....didn't mean to offend.

Someone at work told me Ed M couldn't be Prime Minister because he isn't a Protestant Christian which all Prime Ministers have been. Tony Blair waited until he left office to become a Catholic.

It turns out it is a matter of not being opposed to the established church rather than needing to be in it, and that is because the Prime Minister appoints both the Arch bishop of Canterbury and the Arch bishop of York.


There are voices both in the government to be free of the church, and in the church to be free of the government, just as there were back in the late 1700s when there was a lot of disestablishment fervour and the Churches of Ireland, Scotland and Wales all disestablished but the C of E didn't.

As you know Mussolini gained popularity World-wide by achieving this in Italy; freeing Italy from the Papacy and the Papacy from Italy.

Sorry to steal your lesson on disestablishmentarianism and antidisestablishmentarianism.

 

[MorkandMindy]

On the topic of long words I read an article in the New Statesman (no, I don't buy it but it must be about the best news available in paper form).

The article is by David Nutt who is a professor of neuropsychopharmacology

So if he investigated the function of viagra he would be working in the field of genitoneuropsychopharmacology, which is one letter longer than antidisestablishmentarianism.


I'd better go, my sesquipedalophobia is calling...

 

[memoriesbymichelle]

On the topic of long words I read an article in the New Statesman (no, I don't buy it but it must be about the best news available in paper form).

The article is by David Nutt who is a professor of neuropsychopharmacology

So if he investigated the function of viagra he would be working in the field of genitoneuropsychopharmacology, which is one letter longer than antidisestablishmentarianism.


I'd better go, my sesquipedalophobia is calling...

ROFL thank you for contributing to my nonknowledge (is that a word lol?) of antidisestablishmentarianism and continuing the lesson (for me cuz I needed it) ....... and his name is Professor Nutt?

So you have a fear of long words, do you? (yeah I had to look up the meaning, but hey isn't that what google is for?

 

[blackribbon]

On the topic of long words I read an article in the New Statesman (no, I don't buy it but it must be about the best news available in paper form).

hmmm....I think I see an opinion in this statement.

 

[iambren]

Don't you know the rule that at a party it's considered impolite to discuss sex, politics, death etc? It's also why in a marriage roles become defined because shared turf invites conflicts and power struggles.