The Blog

Most disagreements don’t fail because the people involved have irreconcilable differences. They fail because at least one person stops being interested in the other person’s thinking and becomes interested only in the outcome. Once that happens, the conversation is effectively over, even if the words keep coming.

The Stoics noticed this, and Epictetus in particular had a lot to say about it. Not because he thought disagreement was something to be avoided, quite the opposite. He thought genuine disagreement, handled well, was one of the more useful things two people could do together. The key phrase being handled well.

What Epictetus Distinguished

Epictetus drew a line between two kinds of people in a disagreement, and the line was not between those who were right and those who were wrong. It was between those who wanted to understand and those who wanted to win.

The man who wants to understand comes to a disagreement with his thinking genuinely open. He has a position, and he holds it, but he holds it provisionally, as the best view available to him given what he currently knows. New information, a better argument, a perspective he hadn’t considered, any of these can move him. He’s not attached to arriving at the end of the conversation in the same place he started.

The man who wants to win comes with his conclusion already fixed. Everything that follows is in service of that conclusion. He listens for weaknesses to counter rather than points to consider. He concedes nothing because conceding feels like losing, and losing is the thing he came to avoid.

From the outside, these two men can look very similar. They’re both engaged, both willing to argue their corner. The difference only becomes apparent when something genuinely challenges their position, and one of them changes and the other doesn’t.

What Gets Lost When Winning Becomes the Point

There’s something specific that disappears from a conversation the moment it becomes a contest, and it’s worth naming because it doesn’t always get noticed in the moment.

Curiosity goes first. The genuine interest in how someone else arrived at their view, what they’ve seen or experienced that you haven’t, what the situation looks like from where they’re standing. Curiosity is incompatible with needing to win because it requires real openness to being moved, and being moved feels too much like losing ground.

Then listening changes quality. The man who needs to win listens differently from the man who wants to understand. He’s processing what’s being said, but he’s processing it for ammunition rather than for meaning. The words go in but they get sorted immediately into useful and not useful rather than being genuinely heard. The other person feels this, usually without being able to name it exactly, and tends to respond by becoming more defensive, which makes the whole thing worse.

Marcus Aurelius wrote about the value of genuine attention to other people’s thinking. He seemed to find it genuinely interesting rather than threatening, which is a considerable achievement for a man whose decisions affected millions of people and who had no shortage of people telling him he was wrong.

The Role of Ego in a Disagreement

It’s worth being honest about what’s usually driving the need to win, because it tends to be smaller and more personal than the subject being argued about.

Epictetus traced most of it back to the same concern that ran through much of his teaching: an excessive investment in how you appear to others. Being wrong in front of someone feels, at some level, like a public diminishment. Conceding a point feels like handing something over that you needed to keep. The argument becomes less about the question at hand and more about the story being told about the person having it.

This is understandable. Nobody particularly enjoys being wrong, and some disagreements happen in contexts where being wrong has real consequences beyond the conversation itself. But most of them don’t. Most disagreements are between people who both have partial views of something genuinely complicated, and the conversation has a real chance of producing something neither person had at the start, if both of them are willing to let it.

That willingness is what ego tends to foreclose.

What Good Disagreement Actually Produces

The Stoics were interested in this because they were interested in truth, and truth, they understood, is rarely the sole possession of any one person in a conversation. It tends to be distributed, partial understanding sitting with one person, another partial understanding sitting with the other, the fuller picture only available when both are genuinely shared.

A disagreement handled well, where both people are actually thinking rather than performing, tends to produce something that neither person arrived with. A more complete view. A better understanding of where the genuine uncertainty lies. Sometimes a change of mind, in one direction or the other, or both. Occasionally the discovery that the disagreement was less fundamental than it appeared, that the two positions were operating from different assumptions rather than genuinely contradicting each other.

None of this is available when the conversation has become a contest. Contests produce winners and losers, not better thinking.

A Practical Shift

There’s one small thing worth trying in a disagreement that tends to change the quality of it fairly quickly. Before responding to what someone has said, take a moment to make sure you’ve actually understood it. Not the weakest version of it, the version easiest to argue against. The strongest version. The version the other person would recognise as a fair representation of what they meant.

Epictetus would have recognised this as a form of honest engagement, of treating the other person’s thinking as genuinely worth understanding rather than simply worth defeating. It’s a harder discipline than it sounds, because the mind moves quickly to response and tends to grab the nearest handle rather than the most accurate one.

But it changes the conversation. The other person feels heard, which makes them less defensive. You’ve engaged with what they actually think rather than a simplified version of it, which makes your response more useful. And occasionally you find, in the process of trying to understand it properly, that it’s better than you initially gave it credit for.

The Rarer Skill

Epictetus admired the man who could leave a disagreement having genuinely learned something, even if that something was simply a clearer understanding of where his own position was weak. He thought this rarer than it should be, and more valuable than the alternative.

Winning an argument is available to anyone willing to be sufficiently aggressive about it. Understanding something better than you did before requires something quieter, and considerably more honest.

That quieter thing is, in the end, the point of the conversation.