Resolvers and Disengagers
by Dan Heisman

Return to Dan's Articles Page
Return to Dan's Home Page

Everyone has to deal with disagreements with others, but how we deal with these disagreements and their resolution varies greatly. Some escalate into loud arguments or even violence; others end quickly and peacably, so much so that observers might never know any disagreement had taken place.

I was once in a situation which led me to investigate how some of this interaction is played out, and from this investigation the following theory was created.

With regard to disagreements, the population may be divided into two types:

Resolvers are those who want to find the cause of (and possible search out additional information about) a disagreement. I would estimate that at most 25% of the US population are resolvers.

Disengagers don't wish to find out more; they usually just want to withdraw. Disengagers are in the majority; I would estimate that the remaining 75%+ of the population are disengagers of one degree or another.

Resolvers may be further subdivided into two very different sub-genres:

BRs would like to find out whether the disagreement is baded upon differeing facts, opinions, and/or definitions and assumptions. BRs, more than most Disengagers, dislike disagreements. They usually feel that to walk away from a disagreement without resolution leaves the problem unresolved, and therefore likely to reoccur, and they wish to prevent uncomfortable, avoidable, possibly continual reoccurrence.
This preventative desire becomes more compelling when BRs deal with others with whom they frequently associate, because the likelihood of reoccurrence is greater.  Therefore, BRs will attempt not only to resolve the problem, but also to understand it (and, if possible, lead the other party to understand the problem) and to take actions to prevent reoccurence, if at all possible.

A BR is likely to quickly admit he was wrong if shown facts that indicate it is so; he may even "enjoy" the fact that he was factually wrong because he learned something.

However, when the disagreement is not resolved and reoccurs (to what appears to the BR as) needlessly because a Disengager had previously prevented the BR from solving the problem, the BR often becomes frustrated and is likely to seem uncharacteristically  short-tempered.  Multiple reoccurrences, such as may occur in a family or close work environment, may even drive the BR crazy because he knows that the participants are repeatedly subjected to a possibly correctable problem that others won't allow to be resolved.

ERs are almost the opposite of BRs.  ERs want to prove that they are "right" and won't let the other person escape from the disagreement, if at all possible.  ERs are less interested in whether facts or opinions are involved, and are almost always less reasonable than BRs.  ERs mostly want to "prove" they are right and hope to use this "fact" for current or future psychological satisfaction or advantage.

An extremely easy way to tell a BR from an ER is to match them with another of the same (but known) type. Two BRs will get along very well together and will have occasional disagreements, but these disagreements will never escalate and each will appreciate the others' reasonableness.  In contrast, two ERs is a destructive situation with the stronger (willed?) one likely to emerge victorious in a potentially escalating conflict.

Moreover, Disengagers, being in the majority, will always perceive a Resolver as confrontational (which they may or may not be) and feel uncomfortable trying to disengage.  Based upon this and possibly a prior bad experience with an ER, Disengagers tend to think that all Resolvers are ERs.  Their discomfort is partly due to the fact that Disengagers, being in the majority, are used to dealing with Disengagers, when mutual disengagement is often easily and politely achieved (Note: See the "Must get in the 'last word'" discussion below).  A disengager is therefore likely to find that most of the others in our culture readily agree with their handling of disagreements.

A small percentage of receptive and/or curious Disengagers may sometimes willingly cooperate with Resolvers, especially if they have had a past pleasant experience with BRs, and/or may give the other person the benefit of the doubt that they are not an ER.

There is another, possibly more well known, way to break down the population with regard to disagreements:

It seems that about half the population are Musts and half are Don'ts; if either has a majority it is probably Don'ts. It is also clear that almost all ERs are Musts. However, most BRs are probably Don'ts.  The reason is that when dealing with Disengagers, BRs, in their attempt to avoid future confrontation, are perceived by the Disengagers as exhibiting almost identical behavior to an ER because the Disengager wants to pull away and is met with resistance. Therefore, all BRs, whether Don'ts or Musts, are misperceived as Musts by everyone except ERs, who not only think of the BRs as Don'ts, but also as "wimps"! To disassociate themselves from ERs, middle-of-the-road BRs will probably become Don'ts, even if they are continued to be perceived as Musts.

Puzzle: How can you tell the difference between a disagreement between two Must ERs and a disagreement between two Must Disengagers?

Answer: The Must Disengagers will attempt to get in the last word as they retreat further and further apart to prevent the other from responding. The Must ERs will get closer and closer until they have to be separated!