Disagreement Resolution Quotes

What's really cool about our family is that we don't hold grudges, and I think that is what's been the key to the success. We get into our little disagreements, and whether we're right or wrong, we'll go and apologize. That's just the way we are.

When serious people of good faith disagree, they've got to go back into the narratives and come at it again. One of the problems in the church is that people are not willing to do that. People have arrived at a place where they think they have got the answer.

To have an idea meritocracy, one needs to do three things. First, they have to put their honest thoughts on the table, for everyone to look at and everyone to work through. Second, they need to have thoughtful disagreement, by which there are quality exchanges, in which there's open mindedness and the realization that no one has all the right answers. And you can work through that and get to better answers because good collective decision making is better than any individual decision making. And third, you have to have ways of getting past the disagreements if they remain.

Who shall decide when doctors disagree?

An angry player can't argue with the back of an umpire who is walking away.

If there are differences of views or divergence of ideas, they can be resolved through discussion and dialogue.

There's a tendency in politics to attribute bad motivation much too quickly, and the sooner you attribute bad motivation to someone you disagree with, the harder it is to find some common ground to make some progress that would give people confidence that you got it more right than wrong.

Nothin'," Alex says. "We'll talk later, chica. It's not a big deal." "Don't chica me, Alex," his bride snaps. "I think she's gonna deck him," Ben murmurs, amused.

Any time scientists disagree, it's because we have insufficient data. Then we can agree on what kind of data to get; we get the data; and the data solves the problem. Either I'm right, or you're right, or we're both wrong. And we move on. That kind of conflict resolution does not exist in politics or religion.

Even if we don't agree, we should agree to work together.

In order to get past disagreements, you just can't have one person with power decide. In other words, so just because I'm a boss, it would be terrible if I then said, "Okay, we're gonna go do this." That's why, after that thoughtful disagreement, there has to be a process of an idea meritocracy. That means okay, now you have to vote, not that the decision resides with power. And then you vote and move beyond it.

When we would show any one that he is mistaken, our best course is to observe on what side he considers the subject,--for his view of if is generally right on this side,--and admit to him that he is right so far. He will be satisfied with this acknowledgment, that he was not wrong in his judgment, but only inadvertent in not looking at the whole case.

Respectful communication under conflict or opposition is an essential and truly awe-inspiring ability.

The principle of majority does not work when differences on fundamentals are involved.

I know that it is a hopeless undertaking to debate about fundamental value judgements. For instance, if someone approves, as a goal, the extirpation of the human race from the earth, one cannot refute such a viewpoint on rational grounds. But if there is agreement on certain goals and values, one can argue rationally about the means by which these objectives may be obtained.

Harmony is a symphony, and symphony is an agreement; but an agreement of disagreements while they disagree there cannot be; you cannot harmonize that which disagrees.

Loyalty consists of many things, including being truthful with our friends. When you really disagree, you have to say so.

Skillful conversationalists can explore disagreements and make points in ways that feel constructive and positive rather than combative or corrective.

Conflict in free states is the law of life.

Politics is good; when it works properly, disagreements get solved without people beating each other up. But when a regime knows its days are numbered, there's always the chance it may use its position to change the rules and make the debate it is losing irrelevant.

At the end of the day, all the best negotiating techniques can't overcome the most substantive policy differences.

Writers should provoke disagreement.

Scientists disagree among themselves but they never fight over their disagreements. They argue about evidence or go out and seek new evidence. Much the same is true of philosophers, historians and literary critics.

I hate violence, yes I do. It's kind of a dilemma, huh?.

Disagreements will always occur between us, but we all approach them wanting the best for each and every one of us, for the whole people.