Agree With Everyone

A dangerous antipattern which greatly aids the spread of bad ideas. -- DanielKnapp

A sure-fire way to make people like you.

I agree.

Not all people will like you for this trait. Count me among those that might not. -- WaldenMathews

I agree.

To AgreeWithEveryone is dangerous, you are near SetTheBozoBit.

Isn't this fundamentally flawed in that it is physically impossible to AgreeWithEveryone. Note the two I agrees above - they are incompatible.

For example, you cannot agree with UnixCulture and NotUnixCulture? (bad examples, if anyone has any better ones) without offending each party when they find out.

...impossible...

It is be possible to agree with A (while speaking with A) and to agree with B (while speaking with B). I even know a successful consultant who never disagrees with customers, even if they demand the silliest and impossible things. ("Shouldn't it be easy to just ..." - "Yes, of course!")

Yes, I agree it's possible to agree with everyone at different times. What if, however, you see two people you've just agreed with in the street? Both come to talk to you about a recent conversation... -- MatthewTheobalds

This can be an interesting situation, being amidst two people who have a seeming impasse, and you appear to be agreeing with each. It could be you are seeing something they are not. Or it could be you are just a spineless shmuck.

The latter (if indeed I know what a SpinelessShmuck? is) -- MatthewTheobalds

From Illuminatus! ISBN 0440539811 by Robert Shea and Robert Anton Wilson:

Greater Poop: Is Eris true? Malaclypse the Younger: Everything is true. GP: Even false things? Mal-2: Even false things are true. GP: How can that be? Mal-2: I don't know, man, I didn't do it.

Can't you agree with the UnixCulture that they don't agree with the NonUnixCulture? and with the NonUnixCulture? that they don't agree with the UnixCulture? -- ErikMeade

That is a very, very good point. The more I think about it the funnier I find it. I suppose, indeed, it would be possible to agree with everyone; find a point of common agreement, such as agreeing that they didn't agree with another party.

However, if we remember the point of all this, it is "A sure-fire way to make people like you." I'm sure if your conversations consisted solely of accepting that the other person didn't agree with (not you) but someone else. You would have quite dull conversations (read you'd have nothing to say), - and thus, no-one would like you anyway.

-- MatthewTheobalds

The idea of befriending by agreeing is a little thin and a lot underspecified. The befriending occurs when you support someone in an area where they feel vulnerable. Trivial agreement won't have the same effect, unless maybe it causes the person to anticipate deeper support. It's often possible to support both parties in a conflict without compromising your integrity. This is done by looking deeper than the presenting conflict, to where you find valid needs, desires and reactions on both parts. Conflict often arises and persists because people have overcommitted to solutions not mutually pleasing. When these can be rolled back, more pleasing solutions can sometimes be found. This pattern exhibits itself strongly in software requirements work when there are many customers from many groups, often with legacies of inter-group conflict. -- WaldenMathews

In a conversation "Agreement" is not necessarily saying yes I agree with you, I have the same opinion, you are right. Agreement can take the form of encouragement for the speaker to continue with what he is expressing. When you use the polite acknowledgements such as "right", "I see", "I hear you", a nod of the head, "I see your point of view", and other such encouragements you allow the speaker to continue. This is not your agreement of principles, but a HearingOut?. It also allows you to clarify first impressions, you may not fully understand just what the speaker means. His first statement may be incomplete or poorly worded. In agreeing or hearing out, you have more evidence to agree or disagree on the principles expressed. It allows you to get to know and understand the person you are talking to and not to alienate and polarize. After you have heard the person out, you then might want to express your disagreement or agreement and amplify as to why you agree or disagree.

Oh, I fell into the trap. You can agree with everyone. As long as you don't have to agree with them about everything.

You can agree with everyone, as long as they are not together.

TalesFromTheTrenches?

My father once worked for a politician for a very brief time. In the first meeting he went to, the politician promised "A" to a group of workers. In the second meeting, with people that opposed "A" since they were the owners of the kind of companies the first group worked at, the politician said exactly "not A". My father just quit after the second meeting. Couldn't do that.

The politician, by the way, lost that election by a few votes, but in the next election he found his ElectoralNiche and actually became a quite influential man.

Find the area of agreement that already exists

Perhaps there is a good insight waiting to be mined here. AgreeWithEveryone doesn't have to mean "agree with every proposition that everyone says, including mutually contrary propositions." There might actually be a way to AgreeWithEveryone without being a SpinelessSchmuck? or making promises that you can't keep. You might already genuinely AgreeWithEveryone because you have some sort of commonality with any given person. If you identify that area of agreement, then you have a starting point for negotiating your disagreement. (Of course, there are clearer ways of saying that than "AgreeWithEveryone".)

For example, if you disagree with someone about how to get the best performance out of a database, then you probably agree that getting good performance is valuable. If you disagree about how best to weight performance against other factors, then maybe you agree about pleasing the customer. Looking for that area of agreement can lead you to a plan that you both like for resolving your area of disagreement.

if you disagree with 90% of someones views but agree with 10%. starting out by stating that you agree on the 10% before launching into the attack on the 90% you get a lot less flak.

GetItInWriting!