In relationships of all kinds, people often disagree. Disagreement is often interlaced with ego, in which case a disagreement can become conflict, which I contend is needless in relationships of consequence.
In the field of conversational science, a number of thinking / interpretative / intentional errors have been discovered that cloud or distort the topic and prevent a productive outcome in these instances of misalignment. Then there are the adaptations that spawn other forms of protectionism, offense, dynamiting the foundation, generalization, intermixing, and other unproductive contributions.
These unproductive replies will frustrate any productive outcome, and it is helpful to label them when they take place. When two individuals are truly seeking resolve a misalignment while remaining on the same team, these would be offside and disallowed when identified. Alternatively, the following approaches could be taken.
Misalignment does not need to evolve into conflict and opposition. Two people on the same team will often have differing perspectives, and this tends to be a source of strength when the tension is appreciated and nurtured. When one side elects to use unproductive and likely adaptive approaches to meet that misalignment, the predictable end result is enlargement, clouding, subsumation, and other undesirable outcomes that transform a strength into a defeat.
