Someone could also disagree with me because they are correct and I am in error. They may have knowledge or perspective that I lack.
My first step is to try and find something they know that I don't before crafting persuasive arguments. Maximize for total knowledge not winning arguments.
If you are interacting with the right people, a review of events will reveal that they gently led you to discover this.
I'm kind of pissed that I guy I disagreed with seems to have been banned here, for example. I was curious where he was coming from and whether my foundation was as shaky as his appeared to me. (I think it was a guy, but I'll never know)
The best teachers I've ever had simply laid out all the evidence they deemed relevant and had us make up our own minds. The conclusion was never really in doubt by the teachers, but the process of arriving at it independently was more important than the destination.
Unfortunately laying out the evidence is pretty powerful too. You have so many choices, from omission/overplaying of evidence to mislead the availability heuristic, to picking and choosing what sources are good and bad.
this is also why critical thinking is more important than specific technical skills. The former allows you to generalize the latter, making them more powerful.
I started out as a chemist (undergrad), became a statistician (grad), and finally realized that I had to design, run, analyze and fund my own experiments if I wanted something resembling "the truth", 9 times out of 10.
But my undergrad English teacher made me realize that it's more powerful to plant the seed of an idea and water it with evidence (selectively presented or not) than to try and outright convince people, when you have the luxury of time. I hope that my students are smarter for it; I let them sink or swim by their own wits and I expect them to ask for help if they find they're out of their depth. It's how the real world tends to work anyways.
"So my current understanding (or perception) is..." Is one way that I like to open disagreements. It isn't ambiguous about the fact that we disagree, but it indicates that I am the open to changing my understanding based on new information.
The problem is that many people arguing think they are doing just that, going for total knowledge and not seeking to win arguments. It just happens that they believe they have better understood the point being discussed, and it is their duty to convince the other party, for the sake of knowledge.
That's an unexpected sentiment for the username John Galt. I was all set to write a rebuttal, but now I'm not sure what to say beyond expressing my surprise.
My first step is to try and find something they know that I don't before crafting persuasive arguments. Maximize for total knowledge not winning arguments.