Disagreement should enrich a relationship, not impoverish it
There is this saying that ‘birds alike tend to fly in the same flock’, and for good reasons, since many people are having difficulties accepting or tolerating the differences in personalities and cultures around the globe, hence the reason why the globalization movement has such a consensus. It is comfortable to be around ‘like-minded’ people who continue to agree on all your conclusions and opinions and hold your psychological framework safely together. As soon as someone disagrees strongly to an opinion or believe we hold, our defences can shoot up so high that we want to kill and destroy the outlaw or intruder. Because of this aggression we basically seem to be unable to co-exist unless there is uniformity, and, therefore, we have to destroy the minorities such as the few indigenous cultures left on the globe. The misfortune is that we limit the full expression of personal and cultural authenticity, and, therefore, stagnate on an uniform level as a collective until those trickster and rebel spirits disrupt the fabric of this uniformity with their disruptive imagination as Lewis Hyde explains in this book; Trickster makes this world: mischief, myth and art. It are often the few creative spirits who know how to break through all the limitations imposed by their societies who change the world we live in.
There are many great resources to learn about psychological differences of which a very famous one is that of Carl Jung and his MBTI archetypes. However, this is still on the intellectual level, and does not address the full range of emotional perception we can use to learn how to see the otherness of others and accept them as they are. The Michael teaching chart is another resource to learn how to understand psychological differences and experience grace and acceptance in your relationships with people from all walks of life and cultures. I share this because I can validate out of personal experience the ease, grace and value that comes by making a conscious effort to deeply understand psychological differences.
Disagreement should therefore enrich a relationship if we are willing enough to understand each others differences and ‘see the otherness of others’, not impoverish it.