Most of us have been taught from a young age to stand up for what is right and to speak for ourselves. We practice self-advocacy, expressing our opinions, and disagreeing when things don’t go right. This is good in all, I’ve discovered lately, until we try to start having conversations.
There is a 40-page book that explains how to develop better people skills. Written by Les Giblin, a former member of the military, one of the first techniques Skill with People suggests is to adopt an agreeable nature. When I first read that, it made total sense to me. After all, we like when people agree with what we say. But then I thought about it for a minute and suddenly things weren’t so clear. What if someone says something racially charged? What if they spill out the wrong facts? What if they keep repeating something that is factually incorrect? I struggled to find instances where disagreeing was appropriate.
Some things hinder agreement. I’ve noticed that passion often gets in the way of being agreeable at least for myself. Sometimes it feels as if I’ve simply done too much research on X to comfortably allow another person to drop the wrong facts.
I’ve been observing my friends, particularly the ones who I get along with the most. There’s one friend of mine whom I met this summer and being agreeable is his strength in social interactions. He’ll never say “you’re wrong” and he’ll rarely correct you. I’m sure we’ve all spoken wrong facts but he’ll never cherry-pick or point out the small stats we mess up, focusing instead on the bigger picture of the conversation. Every criticism and suggestion is given lightly, inviting the recipient to judge whether to accept, decline, or just keep moving on in the conversation. His suggestions stick for receptive people and slips for those who are more interested in telling their story out. But his agreeability is subtle. You wouldn’t even notice him being agreeable unless you analyzed his word choice.
Other times, when I’m walking in the city with friends, it’s difficult for all of us to agree on where to dine.
Person 1: “I think eating here would be great!”.
Person 2: “Yeah I think so too. Maybe we should keep walking around to see if there’s anywhere else”.
Even a conversation simple as that could indicate that a Person 2 didn’t want to eat at the restaurant. Instead, they avoided offending Person 1 by suggesting another plan. The people around me are some of the best role models I know. They’re eloquent in disagreement and they’re sensitive not to offend. They’ll avoid saying flat out, I disagree, sounding dubious about a suggestion instead.
When I thought about Les Giblin’s point about being agreeable, I can see how wise that piece of advice is. My confusion perhaps lay when/where it is appropriate to disagree. We’re taught to stand up for ourselves against mistreatment and cruelty. We should disagree–in fact, fight–for morally disgraced actions. Disagreements against large scale cruelty drive society forward and change our morale for the better. Rosa Parks, Martin Luther King, and the civilians during the Russian Revolution righteously expressed their disagreement with the way things were in society. And that makes sense.
I’ve learned that petty disagreements are what tear relationships apart the most. After all, who likes to be corrected or have an argument about which shelf Whole Foods stocks the chocolate bars? I suppose being agreeable is being less picky about others. It’s about holding oneself to high standards without imposing excessive control over others. Agreeability is almost like skimming over the details so that conversations move forward, directing focus towards the bigger picture of the conversation.
“As long as you live, never forget that any fool can disagree with people. It takes a wise person, a shrewd person, a big person, to agree – particularly when the other person is wrong”.
No comments:
Post a Comment