Part One
When people argue, they tend to deviate from arguing objective points of logic; and argue against the sophistic character of their opponent. To be fair, it’s unlikely anyone’s goal to repress the opposition. However, that tends to be the case. Many disagree in rather toxic ways when trying to seek agreement or mutual understanding. Besides the fact that this style of disagreeing is counterproductive to effective discussion, it entails negative assumptions, character assassinations, defensiveness, among others. Is it not concerning that we argue in ways that directly oppose our goals?
Disagreement is not about right or wrong. And when they do become about right and wrong, or a zero-sum game, then those dispute devolve into a lose-lose dynamic. In other words, even if you win the fight, you ultimately lose because the person in the fight who loses will remember the loss and then take it to the next argument. When ego or character is involved, then the disagreement is already a lose-lose proposition.
Unfortunately the above style of disagreement is typical, or normal. However, normal certainly does not mean healthy in any form or fashion. Undoubtedly much of this particular article reads rather dark or pessimistic, it does not have to be so. There are methods to productive discourse and discussion which leaves the couple stronger and connected. These methods will be explored in depth in subsequent articles. And the main point of this article is the bring light to the dynamic in how we in relationships or we in our larger culture create significant distance between ourselves and others. Distance cannot bring connection or closeness. You can be right or have a relationship, but not both.