We've Forgotten How to Disagree

The Cultural Variations in Disagreement

I may disagree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it.

• Voltaire

I enter into discussion and argument with great freedom and ease, inasmuch as opinion meets opinion.

• Michel de Montaigne

Somewhere along the tech-billionaire-paved way, our arguments turned into battlegrounds, and the skill of disagreeing well—the Frenchy philosopher kind that strengthens relationships and sharpens ideas—has withered away. Disagreement today is instinctive and defensive, but unlike our tribal ancestors, it’s cowardly done behind screens.

When we feel attacked, we can scream from our phones or retreat to the safety of "our people." We double down on what we believe, close our ears, and raise our voices. It’s not just about winning the argument anymore; it’s about defending who we are, what we value, and the tribe we belong to. This primal retreat feels good in the moment, but it’s tearing us apart.

Why Is Disagreement So Painful Now?

The Tribal Trap

It all comes back to identity. When someone challenges us, we don’t hear a critique of our ideas—we hear an attack on our values and sense of self. This phenomenon is rooted in social identity theory, which posits that people derive self-esteem from group memberships. When these groups are threatened, individuals react defensively to protect their identity. Henri Tajfel and John Turner’s research explains the “in-group/out-group” dynamic, where loyalty to one’s group fosters stereotyping and hostility toward others and exacerbates this dynamic, amplifying polarization.

Nowadays, we have the added disadvantage of social media algorithms creating echo chambers by presenting information that aligns with users’ preexisting beliefs. A study in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences highlights how these digital bubbles foster tribalism, reinforcing the perception of opposing views as personal attacks.

Cultural Variation in Tribal Thinking

Interestingly, the intensity and expression of tribalism can vary across cultures. Individualistic societies, such as the U.S. and many Western countries, emphasize personal identity, leading people to align with ideological "tribes" (e.g., political parties or social movements). In contrast, collectivistic cultures, such as those in East Asia, prioritize group harmony. While tribalism still exists, it manifests as subtle resistance rather than overt confrontation. A study in Culture and Psychology found that Japanese individuals often avoid direct disagreement to preserve social cohesion, even when they internally disagree.

This doesn’t mean collectivistic cultures are immune to polarization. In China, for example, the government’s control over public discourse has created a different form of tribalism, where allegiance to the state or dissent defines group identity. The cultural context shapes the expression but not the existence of tribal tendencies. Plus, whether you’re from the West or East, chances are you suck at listening.

The Listening Gap

Most of us aren’t great listeners. Studies suggest people can handle about 10 seconds of opposing views before mentally drafting a rebuttal. This aligns with findings in Psychological Science that cognitive biases like confirmation bias make it difficult for people to process opposing views.

Active listening, otherwise known as actually giving a fuck, offers a way forward. Luckily, we don’t need to reinvent the wheel here. We’ve been giving fucks long before the French philosophers eloquently put the art of disagreement into quotes. For example, the Maori of New Zealand practice whakarongo, a cultural tradition of deep listening that values understanding over response. Similarly, African traditions such as Ubuntu encourage recognizing the humanity of others, fostering dialogue even in the face of disagreement. But no matter the culture, disagreement takes practice.

The Skill of Disagreeing

To Thomas Hobbes, conflict was silence, but silence often leads to resentment. In contrast, research by John Gottman suggests that expressing disagreement constructively strengthens bonds. Couples who argue productively are likelier to stay together than those who avoid conflict entirely.

Yet, how productive conflict or silence is depends on the culture. For example, in Finland, disagreement is often approached methodically. The Finns emphasize critical thinking and debate as tools for problem-solving, teaching students to engage with opposing views without emotional escalation. Contrast this with many Mediterranean cultures, where animated disagreement is seen as a sign of engagement rather than conflict. These cultural differences shape not only how people argue but also how they perceive the act of arguing itself.

The Dance of Relationships

Arguments are not just about what’s said. In communication, we often fall into the fundamental attribution error, attributing others' actions to character flaws while excusing our own as situational. This bias, well-documented in psychology, is universal, though its expression varies by culture.

For example, Americans are more likely to explain behaviour based on personality traits, while East Asians often emphasize situational factors. These differing perspectives, documented by social psychologist Richard Nisbett, influence how conflicts are navigated. In collectivist cultures, seeking common ground is prioritized, whereas individualistic societies may view compromise as a weakness. And no matter the culture, sometimes, the greatest weakness is certainty.

Beyond Certainty

Certainty is the enemy of connection. The more convinced we are of our opinions, the harder it is to hear someone out. Intellectual humility, the ability to admit one might be wrong, is a skill that enhances empathy and reduces interpersonal conflict. A 2020 study published in Nature Human Behaviour found that humility fosters openness to opposing views, improving dialogue.

Cultural Insights on Certainty

Some cultures embrace uncertainty better than others. In high-avoidance cultures like Japan and Thailand, disagreements are carefully structured, and respect for established norms prevail. In low uncertainty-avoidance cultures like Israel and France, open-ended debates are more common, though they may devolve into gridlock when certainty becomes entrenched.

By learning from these cultural variations, we can develop a more nuanced approach to disagreement. Whether it’s the emphasis on preparation, the Maori practice of deep listening, or the African philosophy of Ubuntu, these perspectives remind us that disagreement doesn’t have to divide us—it can connect us.

---

Final Thoughts

Disagreement isn’t a problem to solve; it’s a practice to cultivate. True connection isn’t found in sameness—it’s found in the meeting of two people, different but willing to listen, stretch, and grow.

So, the next time you find yourself in an argument, pause before you shout and ignore the caps lock key. Consider not only the content of the disagreement but also the cultural and psychological dynamics at play. Listen longer than you think you can. Look for common ground before jumping into the fight. Disagree well—not to win, but to connect. And once you’ve figured out how to do this with insurance companies and banks, please tell me how the hell you pulled it off.

---

Born Without Borders is a reader-supported guide to the craft of nonconformity, cultural psychology, travel writing and how to salir de las fronteras que impone tu mente. Both free and paid subscriptions are available. If you want to support my work and help me upgrade to more than one cabin bag, the best way is to take out a paid subscription or Buy Me a Coffee.

If you are interested in English lessons for global citizens (or know anyone who is), please send me a message or visit English for Global Citizens.

---

Further Reading and Resources:

1. Tajfel, H., & Turner, J. C. Social Identity Theory

2. Gottman, J. The Seven Principles for Making Marriage Work

3. Nisbett, R. The Geography of Thought

4. Adam Grant
   Think Again