People often think it’s acceptable to either remain silent or, even worse, pretend to agree with someone, only to later openly disagree and admit their dishonesty. This behaviour, driven by the need to maintain social harmony and the fear of causing offense, is problematic. It is unwise to be silent or pretend to agree with something that has been said. Shying away from disagreement, even among friends, demonstrates social and intellectual cowardice. Trust is eroded and authentic strong relationships are diminished. There is nothing to fear in disagreeing on matters that are subjective or on policy or on abstract philosophical questions.
Disagreement, open and upfront, done in a way that is respectful and nonconfrontational, fosters dialogue, openness to the sharing of ideas and an intellectually diverse social group. But it seems that any form of disagreement can get under the skin of people who believe that the world should think on subjective mattes the same way that which they do. Then we have objective matters. It is unwise to disagree with an objective truth, and if one has the wrong side of the fence, then it is encouraged to admit that one is wrong and to then accept the factual, objective truth. Many in social groups are afraid of this, rather than welcoming of it. They either do not want to accept the uncomfortable truth that goes against their ideal worldview that which they so hold dear, or they are deeply insecure and afraid of showing some intellectual vulnerability. I must reiterate and important point: on subjective matters, it is okay to agree to disagree, but on objective truths, disagreement is nonsensical.
