Agree to Disagree

[Guest guest]

Agree to Disagree There are times when, for whatever reason, we're just not going to successfully move a person to our side of an issue. Sometimes that's just temporary and a matter of present conditions. For example, McElroy, author of "The Reasonable Woman: A Guide to Intellectual Survival" (http://www.amazon.com) suggests that logistically speaking, it's difficult to persuade anyone in a ten-minute timeframe while in an extremely crowded room with music blasting. She suggests that about all we can do is plant a seed for the future. I believe that's a great idea. What about those situations, however, where you just know it's *never* going to happen? I mean, you and the other

person are both so deeply rooted in an ideology or philosophy that for either of you to change would be a renunciation of a long- standing and deeply entrenched belief system? (I know, it's just the *other* person). :-) For example, it's often been said that two topics you shouldn't discuss in public are religion and politics. I disagree (see, it happened already!). :-) Actually, I believe they are both fascinating topics. From open discussion about religion (mine and others) I tend to learn much about life and people. Regarding politics, it's been said that if we never *choose* to talk about it we might one day lose the *right* to talk about it. I, like most people, have certain views on each of these topics with which some people would agree and others would not. Maybe the question, then, is not "*should* we talk about them?" but "when should we *stop* talking about them?" I believe the answer is when you and the other person have reached

a crossroad; a point where any further discussion can't possibly help your relationship, but might just hurt it. At that point it is best to simply "agree to disagree." This is a method of honoring the person's *right* to believe a certain way without agreeing with that way. It should be done kindly, respectfully and with no hard feelings. I recently read an excellent book by ph J. Ellis entitled, "Founding Brothers" (http://www.aaknopf.com). One chapter describes the long relationship between and Jefferson, two of America's founders, then second and third presidents, respectively. At a certain point, their vision of American and the role of the federal government became radically opposed and a once wonderful friendship turned into a bitter feud. Eventually, however, through the intervention of mutual friend Rush and a series of now very famous, long-distance letters, they were able to mend

their feud and resume their friendship. Although many of the letters were an attempt to explain themselves and the correctness of their views to the other, there were certain issues upon which they realized they simply had to "agree to disagree." This ability between the two was illustrated beautifully in a letter from Jefferson to . In part, it read... "I have thus stated my opinion on a point on which we differ, not with a view to controversy, for we are too old to change opinions which are the result of a long life in inquiry and reflection; but on the suggestion of a former letter of yours, that we ought not to die before we have explained ourselves to others." That's an example of dignity and graciousness in communication. And we can all do the same in our own unique circumstances. The opposing views you have with another might not be quite as dramatic as that of Jefferson and (or they might be more so), but if we can

remember that there is a time to stop the debate and continue the relationship, then the relationship will be maintained and available for still another debate. :-) Remember, sometimes you just have to agree to disagree. Bob Burg http://health.groups.yahoo.com/group/AffirmationstoDe-Stress A positive thinking, positive affirmations support group, that discusses ways to cope with the stresses of daily life. Come aboard! PJ and Gang