Don't just disagree, ask why
When disagreeing with someone about a decision or a fact, it's useful to ask someone why rather than just presenting your own view. It reorients the discussion as the team vs the problem, and gives everyone space to acknowledge why they might be wrong.
Curiosity
Ted Lasso is back for a 4th season, which made me think of this moment in the first1. One of my favorite scenes is when Ted plays darts with Rupert. Here's a transcript for the video-weary:
You know Rupert, guys have underestimated my entire life. And for years I never understood why. It used to really bother me. But then one day I was driving my little boy to school and I saw this quote by Walt Whitman and it was painted on the wall there that said "Be curious. Not judgmental."2 I like that. thwack.
So I get back in my car and I'm driving to work and all of sudden it hits me. All them fellas that used to belittle me, not a single one of 'em was curious. You know they thought they had everything figured out, so they judged everything, and they judged everyone. And I realized that their underestimating me, who I was had nothing to do with it. Because if they were curious, they would ask questions.
You know. Questions like, have you played a lot of darts, Ted? thwack. To which I would have answered: Yes sir. Every Sunday afternoon at a sports bar with my father from age 10 til I was 16 when he passed away. Barbecue sauce. thwack.
The scene has a lot of emotional appeal; everyone likes when the main character is secretly more skilled than they're letting on. There's a TV Trope for it: I Am Not Left-Handed, which Ted Lasso even calls out directly:
Ted: Oh, wait a second. I forgot I'm left handed.
Outside of avoiding judgement, being curious is the start of good listening3. Repeating back what someone is saying in your own words is both communicating that you're actively listening and something that you naturally do when you're curious.
One way to disagree
I think there's one further version of this idea, which is helpful when navigating conflict. It's pretty straightforward: don't just disagree, ask why.
There are a lot of places where basic disagreements come up. For example, at trivia, you might think: "I know for sure that Jane Addams was born in 1860" and your friend might be equally confident that she was born in the 1880s.
The least useful way to communicate is to just be confident that the other person is wrong (e.g. "No, she was born in 1860."). Even if you've just finished reading a book on her life, you can do a better job of communicating than just shutting down their idea with a "that's wrong". A lot of people will change their mind if you ask a question like: "Why do you think so? Where did you read that?". If their memory is vague ("e.g. I remember reading about her after the Civil War section") and yours is precise ("I was reading a book last week that mentioned that she was born just before the Civil War in Illinois to a family with 8 children"), in the vast majority of cases they will acknowledge that you're probably right4.
This method is helpful in contexts where the stakes are low (who wants to have a fight about a trivia question?), but also applies to high stakes decisions, as well. By asking for the source of their decision or knowledge, you're communicating that you are a team trying to find the right solution. This isn't a passive, inassertive, or conflict-avoidant way to communicate - it's just acknowledging that they could have a self-consistent explanation that comes to a different conclusion.
Of course, it also helps you avoid looking silly by being dead-certain about something you're wrong about.
Another reason to communicate this way (again, if it's useful to your particular context) is that it gives some people who have different unspoken assumptions a way to communicate. For example, let's say you're hanging out in a left-leaning circle, and someone says something like "unions are bad". You might at first just think that they are more conservative-leaning or at least in favor of business deregulation. But people make mistakes in communicating, especially around unspoken assumptions. If you ask them why they think that instead of moving on with your day, you could learn that they're talking about public sector unions, like police unions, because private unions being good are, for them, a given. You can learn a lot from asking people about things that seem obviously wrong.
You can apply this approach to miniscule pointless conflicts as well. For example, if there's a disagreement about who lost the TV remote, by asking "why" you might be able to piece together a chain of observations which could lead to the remote. You might also discover that your partner is frustrated with your lack of organization, or inability to work with their organization scheme.
Finally, a decision
This isn't a foolproof way to communicate, and eventually someone (you, the group, etc.) will have to make a decision on which way to go. Or, you can agree to disagree. Both are actually much easier when you both understand the merits of each other's arguments. It is a lot easier to agree to "50-50" two reasonable-looking options than to feel like your opinion isn't being considered or you're being dismissed out of turn.
It never quite lived up to that standard again, but it is still a very enjoyable watch through S3.
According to Snopes, the quote isn't by Walt Whitman, but it's an easier story to tell that way.
Ben's blog has some useful examples oriented around being a better listener. The core idea is helpful, but the takeaway is the one you always hear as a chronically solution-oriented person: just listen instead of offering solutions.
And I should just say - this is just one way of communicating. In certain friend groups and certain cultures, it's more accepted to just reject someone's opinion you disagree with - it's expected, even. It can just be really abrasive to encounter that in a group where the norm is different. If someone is arguing in bad faith (i.e. is not really searching for the truth), this obviously doesn't work. But it can work in most peer-to-peer and close manager-to-worker relationships.