In order to resolve conflicting interests or motivations, is agreement required?

Question

Some say, that in order to begin the process, mutual validation is usually enough.

http://concurrentconcepts.com

Answer 1

i think it depends on what the subject is. in some cases i think agreement is required. in other cases disagreement, is not only not required, but in my opinion it's even better that way.

basically for me, agreement is necessary for everything science can figure out and explain, that's what makes science science. everything else that is subjective doesn't need to be.

Answer 2

Every one is entitled to their own beliefs but not every one is entitled to their own facts.

It seems that most conflicts occur when there is confusion about the term belief and fact.

In essence this amounts to the same idea because no two rational people will have a disagreement about the facts indefinitely.

How ever the world is full of uneducated, delusional people that have no interest in the facts where it conflicts with their beliefs.

Answer 3

I was once part of a consensus group with 35 members. We spent a long 3 day weekend hanging up over one person's disagreeability and finally it was decided by consensus that some decisions would be made by majority decision IF the minority agreed to that. From then on the power bloc took over (about 5 people, with the attached 10 or twelve ignorant sheep.) The lone complainer and the 5 or six die hard consensus lovers quit the group and it quickly became a rubber stamp for a few individuals. Within a year, the group stood for the very thing it was created to be against.

Agreement is the death of freedom, long live conflict!

Answer 4

Whatever happened to compromising?

Answer 5

If we are always looking for agreement, we are selfish and that does not solve anything in the long run.

Acceptance is the answer.

Ingrid

Answer 6

no  just to accept another mans viewpoint   or whoever gets tired first of arguing