Are we more critical of those who we mostly agree with?
Asked by
hominid (
7357
)
April 9th, 2015
It seems that some of the most vitriolic arguments online – and in person – occur between people who appear to largely agree. Is there a tendency for people to subconsciously resist general agreement in favor of choosing to magnify the remaining differences? If so, why? Is it a way to stand out and declare an identity, rather than be absorbed into something non-unique?
I honestly have no idea, and I suspect some people may take issue with my premise. I don’t have any data to present here, and that is part of my problem/question. In my experience, however, even the closest couples I know occasionally manufacture some disagreement on some point, and can take it too far. We are far more forgiving with strangers and people who rarely agree with us. But the level of effort put into attacking a (near) ideological twin appears to increase the smaller the content of the disagreement is.
Or I could just be tired :)
Observing members:
0
Composing members:
0
7 Answers
I’ve thought about this too. I think this happens because if you’re already so far apart ideologically, there isn’t much to discuss. It’s like shouting at someone on another island.
Also, it’s about understanding ourselves better. If someone seems to follow a similar line of logic, why didn’t we end up in the same place? It’s interesting to explore where the roads diverge.
If the difference is big enough, then making an effort to get along has a virtuous cast: one is tolerant.
If the difference is small, accommodation acquires a negative spin: one is compromising one’s principles.
Those who agree would like unity.
Those who disagree don’t give half a dessicated rat turd because there is zero chance of unity and therefore nothing worth debating.
I’m pretty neutral on most topics…neutral meaning I don’t give a fuck either way, I just really like to argue.
I think it can be shocking, and sometimes even hurtful, when someone you largely agree with differs in their opinion with you on a particular topic.
It depends on the people though. If neither care about being right, it won’t be a big deal most likely.
It also depends on their relationship. I think parent child relationships, when the two people are usually quite similar, can be the cause of a lot of strife, especially the teenage and young adult years.
I’m not sure either but I don’t think so. If I disagree with someone I don’t think I’m harder (or more gentle) on those I know than I am on those I don’t know. I’m focused on their argument and what I agree or don’t agree with. It’s not a personal attack on them as a person. Just a disagreement about some topic or issue. I do understand that at times people may feel they’re being personally attacked because they don’t want their ideas challenged and feel very attached to them.
I’m not really sure that I’ve had this experience.
However, I’m more likely to despair and give up arguing with someone who is an ideological opponent. This happens when it’s confirmed to me that my opponent really is an obtuse witless cretin.
My seeming politeness with someone with whom I disagree or I’m arguing with is also often a mask for what is really utter seething contempt. Privately, I’ll be rolling my eyes, face-palming, and muttering or thinking about what a fucking idiot he or she is.
Answer this question 
Composing members:
0
