Don't Agree To Things Too Easily
Having more conviction at house parties
I’m wearing my brown Carhartt canvas jacket. The water proofing works for the light drizzle. It’s eight pm, and the weather hints that my journey on public transport will be long. After agonising about which route is most efficient, and spending an hour and a half on the bus, I step to the front door.
The door to the house party.
Before a social event, my imagination somehow resizes my clothes. My fit becomes less optimal than when I left. So before opening the door, I fidget with my shirt.
Different films play in my mind. Meeting people feels like playing rock-paper-scissors with a meaningful wager. The volatility excites me. I might meet a new friend with something in common. Maybe something funny will happen. Maybe something weird. Above all, I fear being bored.
In the dim light, I see a new face. This person is a challenge and I am keen to try to engage.
‘Hey, I’m Casual Physics Enjoyer, what’s up?’.
We end up sitting at the table. Other people are talking amongst themselves.
Like playing poker with an adversary upping the bet, anything can happen in the impending conversation with this person. Infinite possibilities, like an electron wave-function about to collapse.
But I know that this state of uncertainty won’t last long. I know what’s coming up.
Me: ‘So what have you been reading in the news lately?’.
Them: ‘So this thing about [insert issue here], I really think that [insert opinion about issue here]’
And then… wait for it…
Me: ‘Yeah man, totally! I can totally see that. Like, [insert some vague statement supporting them here].’
My default response is always to agree to things, and I’ve done it again!
Just like how I end up brushing my teeth every day, the template repeats for each new person I meet. I end up saying ‘yeah for sure bro’, without thinking too much about it.
Statements are usually on innocuous topics like the weather. Things people generally agree on. House parties usually have people with common backgrounds, so that’s totally expected.
In those cases, agreeing without much thought isn’t so bad. More often than not, I find myself agreeing to something that I don’t really have a strong view on.
But then, sometimes it gets into dangerous territory.
I might disagree internally with someone, but then say ‘sure’ anyways. This happens when the topic is nuanced and so there is space for small differences. It’s usually something like how math should taught be at schools. Or, I might have practical differences in opinion on how we could make healthcare more efficient. In these cases, I find myself having differences in opinion, but still end up nodding my head.
And then it gets really edgy, like when someone talks about interpretations of religous beliefs, culture wars, or actual wars. This is when I say nothing, or resort to a non-commital ‘I guess…’. But still, not that much pushback.
In these cases, I feel weird afterwards. I have made a peon out of myself, like a frontier farmer in New England answering to the puritan lord of the farm.
There are two knee-jerk reasons why I do this. And after I tell you them, I’ll explain why I think they aren’t very good reasons at all.
Firstly, from my perspective, it’s nice when people validate my ideas. It makes me feel like my thinking process is solid. The temporary mood boost makes me want to carry on the conversation. I assume it’s the same for other people, and so my knee-jerk reaction is to agree with what people say.
I think the lubricant argument is bad because agreeableness isn’t actually socially helpful. It betrays authenticity. I can sense when someone is trying to win my favour by being agreeable with me, and it makes me feel weird. It feels inauthentic, even if that person ultimately has a neutral view.
Also, agreement isn’t actually that great in carrying on conversations. When you agree with someone too quickly, it shuts down the possibility to continue the conversation at all in any interesting direction.
When I make a statement, I’ve found it better to hit back with something more probing. Points of clarification are quick, easy and effective at learning more about their stance, especially if you disagree
‘What makes you believe that?’ or
‘I’m really not sure that’s true, care to convince me?’
And when I respond with these, the conversation continues one way or another. You are taking a risk of it souring, but I find that most people are open to criticism. I have found that people aren’t as sensitive as journalism portrays.
The second knee jerk reason is that I believe I am neutral about the topic. So it does no harm to my personal integrity to agree to something. After all, if I don’t have a strong view, I only have upside to gain by agreeing with someone.
But, this is also the wrong reaction to have.
It’s very unlikely that anyone’s ambivalent about anything. After all, what are the chances that you are bang-on neutral about a topic after weighing out all of the information? Other than hard science, it’s rare that there isn’t an element of personal judgement involved on issues. Being exactly neutral on a subjective question needs a lot of evidence to prove that different reasons cancel out. So for the most part, you only think you’re neutral. You are probably tilted one way or the other, no matter how small the tilt.
And so if you’re not actually neutral at heart, you just need to dig deeper in your brain to find some arguments and make a judgement from there. Surely I must feel something, even if it’s some minor personal experience, or some subtlety, or just feeling?
Like using a muscle, doing this trying to build definitive views on things in a social setting makes me a sharper thinker, and forces me to think critically about a statement, and to weigh out a judgement. Who knows, maybe an essay might come out of it.
I got to have some conviction guys!