09 Nov The Happiest Couples Argue
This week, millions of Americans woke up after the midterms feeling either relieved or heartbroken. In a few weeks, many of them will sit down at the Thanksgiving table across from someone who voted the other way. Some are already dreading it.
Most of us were raised to believe that disagreement means something has gone wrong. A good marriage doesn’t fight. A good team gets along. A healthy country finds consensus.
What if we have that exactly backwards?
I have spent much of my life on this question, going back to my doctoral research. I’ve come to a conclusion that surprises many audiences: disagreement isn’t the problem. Done well, it is one of the greatest advantages a couple, a company or a country can have.
In marriage
Psychologist John Gottman spent decades studying thousands of couples. He found that about two-thirds of the problems couples argue about never get fully resolved. The happy couples weren’t the ones who stopped disagreeing. They were the ones who disagreed without contempt, and contempt, not conflict, turned out to be the strongest predictor of divorce.
At work
Charlan Nemeth at UC Berkeley found that when even one person genuinely dissents, the whole group thinks more creatively, even when the dissenter turns out to be wrong. The late Katherine Phillips found that groups with a different perspective in the room solved problems more accurately, even though it felt less comfortable. Good disagreement often feels worse in the moment and works better in the end.
In a society
The architects of American democracy never tried to eliminate disagreement. James Madison designed a system in which “ambition must be made to counteract ambition.” When President Kennedy’s advisors held back their doubts, the result was the Bay of Pigs. A year later, in the Cuban Missile Crisis, he pushed them to challenge one another, and that argument helped avert nuclear war.
The difference that makes the difference
Communication scholar Dominic Infante directed my doctoral dissertation, and we published research together. He drew a distinction I have never forgotten. Argumentativeness means attacking a position. Verbal aggressiveness means attacking a person. The first tends to strengthen relationships and decisions. The second destroys them.
The trouble starts when our identity becomes fused with being right. Then every disagreement feels like an attack on who we are, and we stop engaging and start fighting.
As a former minister, I have always loved that the Talmud preserves the arguments of the losing side alongside the winning ones. The rabbis spoke of “argument for the sake of heaven”: disagreement in pursuit of truth rather than victory. Such arguments, they taught, endure.
Three questions for the Thanksgiving table (or the boardroom)
Whether you are passing the stuffing, sitting in a meeting or reading the news this week, try asking yourself:
Am I disagreeing with their idea, or attacking who they are?
Could I describe their view so well that they would say, “Yes, that’s it”?
Do I need to be right here, or do I need to understand?
The goal isn’t less disagreement. It is better disagreement. The couples, teams and nations that learn to argue well will outlast the ones that either fight dirty or fall silent. Because the opposite of disagreement isn’t harmony. It’s silence.
Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.