from "THE TOASTMASTER" November, 1955

agreeable DISAGREEMENT

'O THE ITEMS on your chart for personal development, add this one question; Can you disagree with another person without being disagreeable?

Can you discuss politics or religion or personal tastes with one who holds different views without losing your temper, and writing him down as a perverse idiot? Can you argue without getting mad and welling at your opponent? Can you gracefully admit your error when it appears that you are in the wrong?

Your honest replies to these questions may serve as a dependable measure of your progress to maturity of mind. The ability to disagree without being disagreable is a chcaracteristic of the well balanced personality. It is all too uncommon among men today.

Too many of us are inclined to call a man a fool when his opinions do not harmonize with our own. Calling names is much easier than meeting arguments, or restudying our own opinions and prejudices to discover any weaknesses in them. Flying into a rage is one way to terminate an argument; but it is not the best way to clarify the situation nor to arrive at the truth. I knew a man, a good many years ago, who was

really an intelligent person, usually right in his opinions. That is, he usually agreed with me. But when he was opposed on some favorite aversion, such as socialism, or civic corruption, or traffic violations, reasoned argument ceased and invective took over. His neck would grow red and his eyes would snap, and his voice would rise until you'could have heard him at considerable distance if you had been there to listen. Having a powerful voice, he could win most of the arguments by shouting down the opposition. I knew another man who was just the opposite. He could listen quietly to the most unreasonable arguments, taking in everything with an air of close attention. Then, when the disputant ran out of breath or out of words, this friend could puncture the whole structure of error with one or two searching questions, quietly propounded. Argument with him was a lesson in polemics. Discussion, free, frank and friendly, is an essential in free speech. It is a means for learning and improving. In the exchange of ideas we learn from each other. Argument with an open mind leads to new understanding of facts, and to clearer thinking. But much of our discussion is anything but friendly. Note some of the words

mattachine REVIEW

given as synonyms for discussion: controversy, contention, wrangling, disputing. Almost invariably we read into the idea of argument the connotation of mental or verbal enmity. We argue to win rather than to arrive at the truth. And yet, the right! to argue a matter in a constructive way is one of the bulwarks of democracy. Through years of observation and experience, I have been brought to certain conclusions as to discussions and controversies. First, it appears that no one person has all the truth on all subjects. In case of disagreement, there is always a possibility a 50-50 chance that each debater may be partly right or partly wrong.

Second, many disagreements result from a misunderstanding of words, or from a lack of clearness in stating a proposition. It is always important to define the issue, and to use words mutually understood.

Third, it is not sinful to disagree with another. On the contrary, differences of opinion point the way to progress. By comparing our different ideas, we develop better ones.

Fourth, no argument is worth the price of friendship. Personal animosity is far worse than disagreement. Fifth, the person who becomes angry in discussion thereby confesses the weakness of his position.

Any person of reasonaby mature mind ought to be able to discuss any worthy subject without unpleasantness, seeking to generate light rather than heat. Any such person should be able to disagree agreeably; fo learn from opposing opinions; to listen to all sides of the question; to form convictions based on facts rather than on prejudices.

We need to learn to argue without becoming angry; and we must always keep in mind that the one who disagrees with us is human, and worthy of a measure of respectful attention.

In a word, a person whose mind has matured must have learned lessons of tolerance and self-control by which he can disagree without losing his temper. He must know how to listen before he answers an -opponent's argument. He must be able to take as well as to give.

No question is too controversial to be discussed by intelligent, truthseeking men or women, who can explore together the issues at stake, and jointly reach reasonable conclusions.

It is time for all free men to master the art of disagreeing without being disagreeable. In the wise words of Dr. George Campbell, "Free and fair discussion will ever be found the firmest friend of truth."

"More and more the courts have become aware of the irreparable damage wrought by the faceless tale bearer whose identity and testimony remain locked in confidential files.".

FEDERAL JUDGE LUTHER W. YOUNGDAHL