Should people post why they disagree

[PhotonGuy]

When responding to posts, responders have the option of disagreeing. However, many people who disagree will not say why. I know the site doesn't require people to say why they disagree but isn't it proper for somebody to explain why? If somebody disagrees with me I would like to know why. I would like to see their point of view which might alter mine and I can learn from it. So I think its proper that people say why they disagree.

 

[Kenposcholar]

I disagree....
...
...
...
Just kidding!
If someone doesn't mention why they disagree, then it's not a critical response worth considering. If they expect to give you a new perspective it's imperative to provide a logical argument and explanation.

 

[Gerry Seymour]

When responding to posts, responders have the option of disagreeing. However, many people who disagree will not say why. I know the site doesn't require people to say why they disagree but isn't it proper for somebody to explain why? If somebody disagrees with me I would like to know why. I would like to see their point of view which might alter mine and I can learn from it. So I think its proper that people say why they disagree.

Sometimes. Sometimes the point of disagreement is already known. Sometimes it's just a general disagreement with everything in the post, and doesn't really feel worth the explanation. I don't think there's any "proper" to the question. If I disagree, I usually give some response to indicate why. If I don't, it's usually something I think the poster (and most regular MT readers) will understand without explanation. If someone asks, I'll clarify my disagreement.

 

[hoshin1600]

i think this subject has been talked about before. simple answer, just ask. i do not think there is anyone here who would ignore the question on what they didnt like or agree with about a post.

 

[Steve]

Should people,post why they agree? It is funny to me that I’ve never seen anyone ask for clarification when someone just clicks “agree.”

Anyway, whatever your standard is for the “agree” button, I think it should be the same for the “disagree” button. That is, if you don’t routinely ask for clarification on every agreement, you probably don’t need to ask for clarification on every disagreement,

 

[CB Jones]

When responding to posts, responders have the option of disagreeing. However, many people who disagree will not say why. I know the site doesn't require people to say why they disagree but isn't it proper for somebody to explain why? If somebody disagrees with me I would like to know why. I would like to see their point of view which might alter mine and I can learn from it. So I think its proper that people say why they disagree.

I disagree. The site will show you who disagreed with you. If you are interested in why they disagreed you can ask them why.

If you don't care then ignore it.

 

[Blindside]

Hitting a icon is the least invested way a person can interact on a forum. Quite frankly if that is all they are going to do then I wouldn't worry too much about it. If they can't take the time to formulate a decent response I am not going to sweat it too much.

 

[Gerry Seymour]

Should people,post why they agree? It is funny to me that I’ve never seen anyone ask for clarification when someone just clicks “agree.”

Anyway, whatever your standard is for the “agree” button, I think it should be the same for the “disagree” button. That is, if you don’t routinely ask for clarification on every agreement, you probably don’t need to ask for clarification on every disagreement,

It would seem so, but I'm more interested in the disagrees. I'm not likely to learn something new from someone's agreement with my statement. I might, however, learn something from the nature of their disagreement.

 

[Steve]

It would seem so, but I'm more interested in the disagrees. I'm not likely to learn something new from someone's agreement with my statement. I might, however, learn something from the nature of their disagreement.

I hear you, but I disagree with your presumption that you are unlikely to learn something from agreement. I think you are just as likely to learn from agreement as from disagreement, but most people just aren't as inclined to ask the question. Just to clarify one thing, I'm talking about thoughtful agreement and disagreement. "Me too" responses are not all that helpful, just as, "Nuh uh" are not helpful.

I think it's a just human nature. If someone says, "I like you," we don't generally ask questions. Hey, you like me. Awesome. When someone says, "I don't like you," a common response is, "What about me don't you like?" Surely, you wouldn't just dislike EVERYTHING about me. It has to be something specific... my (lack of) hair? My sense of humor? Something... but surely not everything.

Some advice I was given over 15 years ago when I first moved into management is to analyze my successes as vigorously as I analyze my failures. In general, most successful people do a good job of debriefing when things don't go well. We tend to analyze the situation, diagnose any failures and develop plans to address the areas where things went awry. When something succeeds, however, we tend to celebrate without analysis. It's human nature. We often just presume that everything went well because we're just that awesome. I came up with a plan. I implemented the plan and BLAMMO! Success!

My point is not to suggest that everyone needle everyone else whenever there is a click on a button. My point is that if you do it for disagreement, why not for agreement? My belief is that one is as valuable as the other. No more; no less.

 

[Gerry Seymour]

I hear you, but I disagree with your presumption that you are unlikely to learn something from agreement. I think you are just as likely to learn from agreement as from disagreement, but most people just aren't as inclined to ask the question. Just to clarify one thing, I'm talking about thoughtful agreement and disagreement. "Me too" responses are not all that helpful, just as, "Nuh uh" are not helpful.

I think it's a just human nature. If someone says, "I like you," we don't generally ask questions. Hey, you like me. Awesome. When someone says, "I don't like you," a common response is, "What about me don't you like?" Surely, you wouldn't just dislike EVERYTHING about me. It has to be something specific... my (lack of) hair? My sense of humor? Something... but surely not everything.

Some advice I was given over 15 years ago when I first moved into management is to analyze my successes as vigorously as I analyze my failures. In general, most successful people do a good job of debriefing when things don't go well. We tend to analyze the situation, diagnose any failures and develop plans to address the areas where things went awry. When something succeeds, however, we tend to celebrate without analysis. It's human nature. We often just presume that everything went well because we're just that awesome. I came up with a plan. I implemented the plan and BLAMMO! Success!

My point is not to suggest that everyone needle everyone else whenever there is a click on a button. My point is that if you do it for disagreement, why not for agreement? My belief is that one is as valuable as the other. No more; no less.

I can't think of a situation where I'm as likely to learn from thoughtful agreement as from disagreement. For instance, if you had agreed with this, and I asked why, I can't think of many answers that would be likely to provide as much new food for thought as this disagreement does. Disagreements mostly either come from a misunderstanding, or from having an entirely different view of the question. If it's the former, there's confusion to be cleared (and something to learn about communication). If it's the latter, I find it instructive to try to understand their reasoning and viewpoint. If their viewpoint is pretty close to my own, there's less likely to be something in the agreement (since it was an agreement with my viewpoint) that is eye-opening.

(And now I'm disagreeing right back. So nyah!)

 

[Steve]

I can't think of a situation where I'm as likely to learn from thoughtful agreement as from disagreement. For instance, if you had agreed with this, and I asked why, I can't think of many answers that would be likely to provide as much new food for thought as this disagreement does. Disagreements mostly either come from a misunderstanding, or from having an entirely different view of the question. If it's the former, there's confusion to be cleared (and something to learn about communication). If it's the latter, I find it instructive to try to understand their reasoning and viewpoint. If their viewpoint is pretty close to my own, there's less likely to be something in the agreement (since it was an agreement with my viewpoint) that is eye-opening.

(And now I'm disagreeing right back. So nyah!)

LOL. I couldn't bring myself to keep the disagree button on your post. But, I honestly believe you are limiting yourself.

I think you're missing the entire spectrum between complete agreement and complete disagreement. Seldom does one completely, unequivocally agree or disagree with anything. It happens, and typically the simpler or more extreme a position is, the easier it is to simply agree or disagree. But the more nuanced or complex a position or situation is, the more unlikely simple agreement or disagreement exists. It's a spectrum. Where someone agrees mostly, there is still room to learn.

And just a quick question. If disagreements come from misunderstanding, why couldn't agreements also come from misunderstanding? Logical fallacies are generally used to sway an opinion based on misunderstanding. Politics or whatever else... complex topics where we have limited capacity (whether that's time or whatever else) also generally mean some people are better informed than others. Human nature is to trust positions based on credibility where we have no reason to believe otherwise. So, if you are an expert on ninja and I am not, I am generally going to agree with you, even if I have no real way to know one way or the other.

 

[Tony Dismukes]

Should people,post why they agree? It is funny to me that I’ve never seen anyone ask for clarification when someone just clicks “agree.”

Anyway, whatever your standard is for the “agree” button, I think it should be the same for the “disagree” button. That is, if you don’t routinely ask for clarification on every agreement, you probably don’t need to ask for clarification on every disagreement,

My standard is different, at least for how I use the reaction buttons. (I don't much care how other people choose to use them.)

If I click "agree" and don't add a comment of my own, it generally means I concur with the other persons comment as written and don't have anything important to add. I don't see much point in typing up a post which just repeats what someone else says or just says "Me too!"

On the other hand, if I disagree, that means I do have something to say which is different from the original post I'm reacting to. In that case, I might as well write it out, since that will be much more informative than just clicking "Disagree."

Actually, for that reason I almost never use the "disagree" button. If I have a disagreement that's worth making public, I figure I should go ahead and explain my position. Once I've done that, clicking "disagree" would just be superfluous.

 

[Gerry Seymour]

LOL. I couldn't bring myself to keep the disagree button on your post. But, I honestly believe you are limiting yourself.

I think you're missing the entire spectrum between complete agreement and complete disagreement. Seldom does one completely, unequivocally agree or disagree with anything. It happens, and typically the simpler or more extreme a position is, the easier it is to simply agree or disagree. But the more nuanced or complex a position or situation is, the more unlikely simple agreement or disagreement exists. It's a spectrum. Where someone agrees mostly, there is still room to learn.

And just a quick question. If disagreements come from misunderstanding, why couldn't agreements also come from misunderstanding? Logical fallacies are generally used to sway an opinion based on misunderstanding. Politics or whatever else... complex topics where we have limited capacity (whether that's time or whatever else) also generally mean some people are better informed than others. Human nature is to trust positions based on credibility where we have no reason to believe otherwise. So, if you are an expert on ninja and I am not, I am generally going to agree with you, even if I have no real way to know one way or the other.

Agreements can, in fact, come from misunderstanding. I considered adding that to my post, but then I'd have nothing left for this one! Seriously, it would be more than tedious to check every time someone agrees, to make sure they got the right message. There's enough discussion and follow-up in the threads to help spot that issue. If the discussion weren't there, there'd be more need to ask about "agree". Just as I can reasonably safely assume the reasons for some disagreements because of existing or previous discussions, I can make similar assumptions about agreements. I'll be wrong sometimes, but likely rarely. If someone I typically disagree with on a topic agrees with me, I'll want to know what it was (and will usually be able to tell from the discussion). If someone who I usually am aligned with on a topic disagrees with me, I'll want to know more (and will usually be able to tell from the discussion).

Back to my prior point. An agreement can't really challenge my conclusions or viewpoint, but a disagreement can. That's why there's likely more to learn from a disagreement. It's not an absolute, but it's the nature of learning.

 

[drop bear]

When responding to posts, responders have the option of disagreeing. However, many people who disagree will not say why. I know the site doesn't require people to say why they disagree but isn't it proper for somebody to explain why? If somebody disagrees with me I would like to know why. I would like to see their point of view which might alter mine and I can learn from it. So I think its proper that people say why they disagree.

I am not fussed either way. If they don't want to they dont have to.

 

[Steve]

Agreements can, in fact, come from misunderstanding. I considered adding that to my post, but then I'd have nothing left for this one! Seriously, it would be more than tedious to check every time someone agrees, to make sure they got the right message. There's enough discussion and follow-up in the threads to help spot that issue. If the discussion weren't there, there'd be more need to ask about "agree". Just as I can reasonably safely assume the reasons for some disagreements because of existing or previous discussions, I can make similar assumptions about agreements. I'll be wrong sometimes, but likely rarely. If someone I typically disagree with on a topic agrees with me, I'll want to know what it was (and will usually be able to tell from the discussion). If someone who I usually am aligned with on a topic disagrees with me, I'll want to know more (and will usually be able to tell from the discussion).

Back to my prior point. An agreement can't really challenge my conclusions or viewpoint, but a disagreement can. That's why there's likely more to learn from a disagreement. It's not an absolute, but it's the nature of learning.

Okay. You're right. After reading your detailed explanation of why you disagreed with me, I've changed my mind...

...

...

...

Said no one, ever.

 

[Gerry Seymour]

Okay. You're right. After reading your detailed explanation of why you disagreed with me, I've changed my mind...

...

...

...

Said no one, ever.

I doubt I've ever said it, either. But I have adjusted my own view, upon seeing it as too radically different from what I consider an opposing rational view. As long as the opposing view is rational, it gives me something to look at to make sure I'm not just being dogmatic. If I can find rational reasons to prefer my view by a large margin, maybe no need to change. If I can't, then it's time for some adjustment.

 

[Monkey Turned Wolf]

Personally, I will click the disagree button and not explain if someone else has already explained my viewpoint..no reason to repeat it and clog the thread. You can generally figure out who explained it, by seeing who I 'agreed' with if you want...or just ask me directly. I'll tell you why if it's an issue. If no one explained my viewpoint, then I'll generally explain why.

 

[Anarax]

When responding to posts, responders have the option of disagreeing. However, many people who disagree will not say why. I know the site doesn't require people to say why they disagree but isn't it proper for somebody to explain why? If somebody disagrees with me I would like to know why. I would like to see their point of view which might alter mine and I can learn from it. So I think its proper that people say why they disagree.

There are varying degrees of disagreements. If I use to think the same way or can at the very least see where the other person is coming from, then I will take the time to explain why I disagree. However; if they are either saying something ignorant, pushing a political agenda or being insulting, I hit disagree. Most of the time their comments aren't even directed at me when I disagree, it's just a little feedback to say "I disagree".

There are however some that just like clicking disagree. I've seen some click disagree on simple questions, MA related questions. Some people are just odd and everyone has different criteria when they click on any of the options(disagree, agree, like, etc).

Honestly, the votes really aren't that important. Just post what you know and see people's feedback. There are people on here that you can have productive conversations with.

 

[Dirty Dog]

When responding to posts, responders have the option of disagreeing. However, many people who disagree will not say why. I know the site doesn't require people to say why they disagree but isn't it proper for somebody to explain why? If somebody disagrees with me I would like to know why. I would like to see their point of view which might alter mine and I can learn from it. So I think its proper that people say why they disagree.

Not necessarily. Personally, I won't bother to do more than click DISAGREE if the situation seems to be of the flogging a dead horse variety, or if the poster is one of those who are more interested in argument than discussion.

 

[Steve]

There are varying degrees of disagreements. If I use to think the same way or can at the very least see where the other person is coming from, then I will take the time to explain why I disagree. However; if they are either saying something ignorant, pushing a political agenda or being insulting, I hit disagree. Most of the time their comments aren't even directed at me when I disagree, it's just a little feedback to say "I disagree".

There are however some that just like clicking disagree. I've seen some click disagree on simple questions, MA related questions. Some people are just odd and everyone has different criteria when they click on any of the options(disagree, agree, like, etc).

Honestly, the votes really aren't that important. Just post what you know and see people's feedback. There are people on here that you can have productive conversations with.

Some odd people click the disagree button as retaliation. It’s childish. I’ve observed that they always keep it even. If you disagree with them, they disagree with you. Kind of funny when it happens.