In a world of growing divisions, how can we learn to disagree well?

In a world of growing divisions, how can we learn to disagree well?

The ability to prevent disagreement from becoming division is an essential, teachable skill. Still, it is becoming more and more elusive. Among all facets of society, misinformation and disinformation can escalate even minor disagreements and create further polarization.

The World Economic Forum’s Global Risks Report 2025 identifies misinformation and disinformation as the greatest short-term risk the world faces, over extreme weather events and even state-based armed conflict.

These forces feed polarization, which reduces trust in institutions from all quarters. Yet for “good” disagreement to take place, there must be a level of trust from each participant in the shared forums and institutions in which that disagreement is held.

Imbalance on this point can unsettle the shared understanding of the principles, experiences and even events under discussion.

At a personal level, individualized understanding can create arguments and fractured relationships; at the institutional level, it disrupts communications and divides purpose; and on a societal plane, we are yet to feel the depth of the potential chasm that could emerge when divisions go unaddressed.

That raises the urgent question of how we can encourage people across society to disagree well, by teaching relevant skills and establishing mutual trust through the rebuilding of public confidence in civic institutions.

The question I see most frequently raised is what “disagreeing well” might require of the individual participants in a conversation. The first thing to affirm is what it cannot mean. It cannot exclude difficult emotions and passionate convictions.

As University College London (UCL) philosopher Emily McTernan has argued in her book, On Taking Offence, emotions such as taking offence perform important social and psychological functions. Conversations across differences must involve the entire experience of human beings and not avatars constructed for the debate at hand.

Yet, debate must also begin with a particular mindset. This is a mindset of epistemic humility – being open to the possibility of being wrong, even about your deepest beliefs and when they stem from your own experience.

The difficulty felt here is down to how one perceives the relative power of the other participants in a dialogue. If your passionate conviction flows from experience regarded as identity-forming, particularly when involving oppression or powerlessness, then entertaining the possibility of being wrong may itself seem a form of oppression.

This is where institutions have some work to do. UCL has a proud history of producing “useful knowledge” – since our founding, we have taught skills with tangible and immediate impact.

Almost half of UCL undergraduates study programmes accredited or endorsed by professional bodies, helping create the next generation of doctors, teachers and lawyers. In that spirit, the “Disagreeing Well” campaign arose.

The initiative started in 2022, converging insights from students, researchers and university staff to develop a practical approach to the sometimes-abstract problems of polarization, misinformation and disinformation.

These are the first steps of a longer campaign; by bringing people together and showcasing informed and constructive disagreement on societal issues, we can drive tangible change.

The range of activities has been inspiring. They include a public event series showcasing good faith disagreement in fields ranging from geopolitics to technology, to online resources enabling constructive debate on campus and beyond.

The initiative is informed by the research of the UCL Policy Lab, headed by Professor Marc Stears, alongside work by Professor Tali Sharot, Director of the Affective Brain Lab and a professor of cognitive neuroscience, as well as other UCL academics.

It shows that we must re-establish common understanding and respect in a society of socially atomized individuals. It cannot all be on stoic individuals to decide the common rules of discussion and trust.

Yet, some skills can be taught and learned, which are important to the practice of disagreeing well.

While context is important, this initiative has surfaced principles anyone can apply to help turn a dispute into a constructive disagreement.

First, we need to show a willingness to listen carefully and be open to others’ opinions. Too often, dialogue involves waiting for a turn to speak, unwilling to allow the conversation to develop organically.

Genuine listening and habitually clarifying what’s been said are important aspects of respecting the autonomy of participants in the conversation, letting them control their narrative.

Second, it is important to recognize the other party’s expertise, experience or responsibility within a disagreement – all of which have weight that deserves acknowledgement and respect. This applies in two distinct senses: first, concerning the issues being discussed and second, regarding their “lived experience” and personal beliefs.

A doctor knows more about their field than a patient but only a patient can adequately describe their experience of the illness – an effective diagnosis requires both.

Third, it is important to identify precisely where differences lie, finding common ground wherever possible. This is not an attempt to homogenize all differences but to focus attention on those that matter, minimizing the distraction of what can easily be resolved.

Fourth, choosing appropriate language is key to increasing understanding – avoiding unhelpful hyperbole and a cheap shot. If you “win” your debate by humiliating or degrading the other person, it is a hollow victory, even when criticism is deserved.

Seeking to work with the other person to see their perspective requires more trust but will, generally, lead to a more constructive conversation.

By teaching these skills and establishing trust, the next generation is a partner in the work, not just the subject of it. Our Students’ Union is leading the way at UCL through its Impartial Chairs programme.

The chairs have benefited from training and expertise, gained from conversations with mediators for peace out of the Troubles in Ireland. They bring these skills back to campus debates.

The initiative and students have shown that there are other ways to create stable environments for education and debate.

Naturally, more work is needed. As our Policy Lab’s Respect Agenda report makes clear, the public feels they deserve more respect from people in power.

As I advocate for a world where we teach and practice effective disagreement, I don’t imagine some perfect harmony; quite the opposite. No one can shape a better future alone. My perspective comes from experience, especially in universities: spaces where generations meet to tackle social, political, scientific and theoretical challenges.

With diversity comes disagreement – and that’s a strength. When we learn to disagree well, we unlock innovation, strengthen communities and support thriving societies.