That doesn’t mean rolling over or compromising your principles—quite the opposite. Agreeing to disagree is about acknowledging that some differences will never be bridged, and that’s okay. I have no illusions that Matt and I will agree on very much, at least not when it comes to politics or policy, but our exchanges are often illuminating and insightful.

Intellectual Confidence, Not Fragility

Standing firm while allowing space for others to stand in opposition is a sign of confidence and maturity, not weakness. It’s also a way to gain insight from experiences that differ from your own. Save your energy for interactions that can shape your world and contribute to the greater good. As one of my favorite singer-songwriters, Steve Earle, has said:

Unless we can have a conversation with someone we know we will disagree with at the outset, we are screwed. Cause that’s how democracy works: it’s a conversation.

The big tech companies that own all the social media platforms have tricked us into thinking that every post is an attack on the frontlines of battle—all so they can monetize your opinions. I don’t know about you, but I am not willing to hand my views over to the likes of Elon Musk, Peter Thiel, and Mark Zuckerberg so they can profit off them. If someone insists pineapple on pizza is a culinary sin—I think it is—let them have their delusions.

Learn from Diversity

Professionally, I’m a product designer who designs the interfaces of large information applications. In product design—and especially in user testing—agreeing to disagree is essential. When testing a product, you’ll quickly realize that no single design solution will please everyone. Users will have conflicting opinions. A designer’s job is to observe, synthesize, and make informed design decisions. The best designers know when to take feedback seriously and when to let it go, recognizing that disagreement is part of the process, not a flaw. Like in any good debate, the goal isn’t to “win”—it’s to learn, refine, and create something that works in the real world.

I’m not interested in a world where everyone agrees; that sounds boring. The liberal Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg and the conservative Justice Anton Scalia never agreed on their judicial opinions, yet they were the best of friends off the bench. Similarly, Ronald Reagan and Tip O’Neil were political adversaries, yet they had a legendary friendship.

A More Interesting, Less Exhausting Life

What’s more boring than a room full of people who all think the same way? Disagreement, when handled correctly, keeps life dynamic. It forces you to sharpen your thinking, examine your views, and occasionally admit when you’re wrong. Letting a disagreement rest, without forcing an outcome, often plants the seed for someone to rethink their stance later. Sure, some differences are deal-breakers, but most are just noise.

Knowing when to let go before an interesting debate turns into a pointless, energy-draining slog is key. In a world addicted to outrage, agreeing to disagree is a survival skill.