Is Accepting something the same as Agreeing with it?
Can you accept an idea you don't agree with?
I have been having a few conversations with a friend recently where our opinions differ on politically charged topics. Don’t worry, this blog isn’t about dissecting the issue of the day; it’s about dissecting the difference between acceptance and agreement. I will be using the gender pay gap and emotional reactions to it as an example though.
Acceptance is to receive an idea. When you accept something, you listen to it and accept that it exists in the world (remember the difference between listening and hearing?). Accepting something as plausible or possible does not mean you have to agree with it, or with the person who has said it. It is the acknowledgement that you can see where the idea comes from, and can accept the evidence for the idea.
It is often very hard to accept something that we don’t agree with. Especially to accept evidence for ideas we don’t agree with.
Agreement with an idea or person is to “harmonise in opinion or feeling” (good on you, dictionary.com). Agreeing with something occurs when it aligns with your own values or beliefs. Not only can you accept evidence for the idea, you agree with the evidence and likely live in a way that embodies your agreement with the idea; it is evident in how you approach your relationships, political views, even TV choices...
As I hinted at before, accepting an idea is often conflated with meaning you agree with that idea. Separating the two is difficult, but that doesn’t mean they’re synonymous. We (myself included) believe that when we accept an idea we agree with it, or if we don’t agree with an idea we decide not to accept it on any level. When we think in this black-and-white way, we consider the world in absolutes like ‘wrong’ and ‘right’ or ‘good’ and ‘bad’. This means we block ourselves off from views we don’t agree with because we refuse to accept them, because we assume that accepting them means we have to agree with them.
Re-read that.
We assume that accepting an idea means we must agree with it.
On the surface level, this seems relatively innocuous. It becomes problematic in politically volatile issues, like the gender pay gap (for example). Rather than discussing the ins and outs of this issue, let’s use this to highlight the dilemma of acceptance vs. agreement...
...What if I said there are legitimate, logical reasons for the gender pay gap and there’s no need to do anything about it?
(Breathe. Stay with me. I am not a mysogynistic a**hole)
Can you accept this idea?
Can you accept that there are arguments and evidence that support this idea?
Can you acknowledge that this is possible?
Can you accept this idea without thinking of me as an a**hole?
What is happening in your body at the moment?
What are you thinking?
How are you reacting emotionally?
Do you have a burning desire to tell me all the reasons why I’m wrong?
If you feel angry, check whether you’ve conflated accepting this idea and agreeing with this idea. If we accept this idea as possible, the fear arises that this may mean you agree, which may conflict with your belief system and identity (ergo, anger rises). There is also a fear that giving this idea validity means there’s no validity in the opposing idea (i.e. your viewpoint is invalid). This is why conflating acceptance and agreement leads to black-and-white thinking.
This closes us off to useful discussion and debate that we can use to solve problems and create a more satisfied society. We polarise the issue into ‘right’ and ‘wrong’ and refuse to listen to (or accept) ideas on the so-called opposing side. People on every side of a debate do this; it’s not something reserved for the political “left” or the “right” or the “youth” or the “elderly” or the “insert group here”. It’s a human issue, because our brains cut corners when processing to minimise energy expenditure to help keep us alive.
Remember that we evolved to survive before we evolved to think (thankyou Jordan Peterson for that quote!). It is much more efficient for survival to categorise the world, so we can quickly get away from potential danger. There’s a lot of information and research out there on this phenomenon if you’re interested in a more in-depth explanation. Unfortunately, this tendency persists even though society has evolved into a more globalised, multicultural, and complex place where quick categorisations (and cognitive jumps from accept —> agree) are not always useful to us.
I’ll end this blog with a challenge, if you’re willing to get uncomfortable:
Choose a topic that is close to your heart and research the arguments or ideas in opposition to your views. Then try to accept them. Think about them; can you accept that some people have these beliefs? Can you accept that there is evidence for these ideas? Can you accept (or assimilate) this evidence into your understanding of the topic? Can you accept an idea you do not agree with?
If we are to become a cohesive society, we need to accept views that differ from our own without needing to change or agree with them. This is all about being open-minded. There’s more than one way to skin a cat, as 'they' say (whoever 'they' are), and everything in life has positive and negative consequences - what you see as an acceptable consequence may be unacceptable to someone else - but that doesn’t make one way of life better or worse than another. The judgement of mothers for their childrearing choices (breastfeeding, bottlefeeding, co-sleeping, sleep training…) is another example; we need to accept these ideas without necessarily needing to change or agree with them. I’m sure you can think of plenty more polarising issues that are also politically volatile.
I have been having a few conversations with a friend recently where our opinions differ on politically charged topics. Don’t worry, this blog isn’t about dissecting the issue of the day; it’s about dissecting the difference between acceptance and agreement. I will be using the gender pay gap and emotional reactions to it as an example though.
Acceptance is to receive an idea. When you accept something, you listen to it and accept that it exists in the world (remember the difference between listening and hearing?). Accepting something as plausible or possible does not mean you have to agree with it, or with the person who has said it. It is the acknowledgement that you can see where the idea comes from, and can accept the evidence for the idea.
It is often very hard to accept something that we don’t agree with. Especially to accept evidence for ideas we don’t agree with.
Agreement with an idea or person is to “harmonise in opinion or feeling” (good on you, dictionary.com). Agreeing with something occurs when it aligns with your own values or beliefs. Not only can you accept evidence for the idea, you agree with the evidence and likely live in a way that embodies your agreement with the idea; it is evident in how you approach your relationships, political views, even TV choices...
As I hinted at before, accepting an idea is often conflated with meaning you agree with that idea. Separating the two is difficult, but that doesn’t mean they’re synonymous. We (myself included) believe that when we accept an idea we agree with it, or if we don’t agree with an idea we decide not to accept it on any level. When we think in this black-and-white way, we consider the world in absolutes like ‘wrong’ and ‘right’ or ‘good’ and ‘bad’. This means we block ourselves off from views we don’t agree with because we refuse to accept them, because we assume that accepting them means we have to agree with them.
Re-read that.
We assume that accepting an idea means we must agree with it.
On the surface level, this seems relatively innocuous. It becomes problematic in politically volatile issues, like the gender pay gap (for example). Rather than discussing the ins and outs of this issue, let’s use this to highlight the dilemma of acceptance vs. agreement...
...What if I said there are legitimate, logical reasons for the gender pay gap and there’s no need to do anything about it?
(Breathe. Stay with me. I am not a mysogynistic a**hole)
Can you accept this idea?
Can you accept that there are arguments and evidence that support this idea?
Can you acknowledge that this is possible?
Can you accept this idea without thinking of me as an a**hole?
What is happening in your body at the moment?
What are you thinking?
How are you reacting emotionally?
Do you have a burning desire to tell me all the reasons why I’m wrong?
If you feel angry, check whether you’ve conflated accepting this idea and agreeing with this idea. If we accept this idea as possible, the fear arises that this may mean you agree, which may conflict with your belief system and identity (ergo, anger rises). There is also a fear that giving this idea validity means there’s no validity in the opposing idea (i.e. your viewpoint is invalid). This is why conflating acceptance and agreement leads to black-and-white thinking.
This closes us off to useful discussion and debate that we can use to solve problems and create a more satisfied society. We polarise the issue into ‘right’ and ‘wrong’ and refuse to listen to (or accept) ideas on the so-called opposing side. People on every side of a debate do this; it’s not something reserved for the political “left” or the “right” or the “youth” or the “elderly” or the “insert group here”. It’s a human issue, because our brains cut corners when processing to minimise energy expenditure to help keep us alive.
Remember that we evolved to survive before we evolved to think (thankyou Jordan Peterson for that quote!). It is much more efficient for survival to categorise the world, so we can quickly get away from potential danger. There’s a lot of information and research out there on this phenomenon if you’re interested in a more in-depth explanation. Unfortunately, this tendency persists even though society has evolved into a more globalised, multicultural, and complex place where quick categorisations (and cognitive jumps from accept —> agree) are not always useful to us.
I’ll end this blog with a challenge, if you’re willing to get uncomfortable:
Choose a topic that is close to your heart and research the arguments or ideas in opposition to your views. Then try to accept them. Think about them; can you accept that some people have these beliefs? Can you accept that there is evidence for these ideas? Can you accept (or assimilate) this evidence into your understanding of the topic? Can you accept an idea you do not agree with?
If we are to become a cohesive society, we need to accept views that differ from our own without needing to change or agree with them. This is all about being open-minded. There’s more than one way to skin a cat, as 'they' say (whoever 'they' are), and everything in life has positive and negative consequences - what you see as an acceptable consequence may be unacceptable to someone else - but that doesn’t make one way of life better or worse than another. The judgement of mothers for their childrearing choices (breastfeeding, bottlefeeding, co-sleeping, sleep training…) is another example; we need to accept these ideas without necessarily needing to change or agree with them. I’m sure you can think of plenty more polarising issues that are also politically volatile.
How would the conversations around these topics change if people of every opinion accepted the others’ ideas (not always agreeing with them) rather than coming from a place of “that’s not my belief, that’s wrong, therefore I’m not listening to this”?
Divorcing ourselves from ideas like…
Divorcing ourselves from ideas like…
Acceptance = Agreement
Accepting something removes credibility from other beliefs
…Allows us to stop thinking about winning and losing an argument (and therefore proving ourselves ‘right’ and disavowing acceptance of ‘the other side’). It takes us forward with useful dialogue to find the best possible solution given that nothing is ever perfect. Doing that cannot be accomplished with one side alone.
It’s easy enough to remember: ACCEPTANCE is not spelt A-G-R-E-E-M-E-N-T
It’s harder to put into practice… but you can, if you want to be the kind of person who looks at the whole story.
Accepting something removes credibility from other beliefs
…Allows us to stop thinking about winning and losing an argument (and therefore proving ourselves ‘right’ and disavowing acceptance of ‘the other side’). It takes us forward with useful dialogue to find the best possible solution given that nothing is ever perfect. Doing that cannot be accomplished with one side alone.
It’s easy enough to remember: ACCEPTANCE is not spelt A-G-R-E-E-M-E-N-T
It’s harder to put into practice… but you can, if you want to be the kind of person who looks at the whole story.
Sophie Gray
Think Gray Psychotherapy
sophie.gray@thinkgray.com
www.thinkgray.com
Shameless Self Promotion: I run monthly workshops in Crows Nest, Sydney, called Dealing with your Sh*t.
Participants learn to understand themselves, their emotions, and other people, much more deeply and use this to build resilience against stress, difficulty, and challenges. Please contact me for expressions of interest.
Comments
Post a Comment