While this is an important skill to have, I've also learned over time that there are certain types of people where it's easier to let them "be right" and accommodate the consequences. I didn't always think this way. In the past, I would say that people are reasonable, it's always possible to figure out what the truth is, especially if I acknowledge the possibility that I am often wrong. But now I realize that some people have a very skewed view of the world around them, either built up from a lifetime of emotional trauma, undesirable upbringing, or something else. edit: it is unfortunate when their own skewed perspective causes self-infliction of additional emotional trauma, it's a very negative and constant feedback loop. And that skewed perspective causes any and all disagreements to be perceived as personal attacks or worse. Every time I feel like I make progress with these people to earn their trust enough to get them to talk with me, it's back to square 1 when a new issue crops up, and then it's once again obviously because the world is out to get them, and there is no possible other explanation.
Eventually, I get to a crossroad: either I accept what these people are saying as right (even when it's wrong and would require some absurd actions on my part), or I navigate to exit that situation so I can minimize my future interactions with those people. If neither are possible, it's perhaps time to find new work. Of course, I'd love to get onto the same page as them. But I think we have to acknowledge that sometimes it's not possible. I say this as someone who believes that he has gotten pretty good at this skill after years of experience.
As would probably be expected, these types of people are lifers at organizations where they have used political means to entrench themselves, and would likely not survive on the open market if they ever needed to look for new employment.
> While this is an important skill to have, I've also learned over time that there are certain types of people where it's easier to let them "be right" and accommodate the consequences
Generally when that happens to me I've come across what I like to call a "fundamental argument." Where neither party is correct and neither party is wrong. A good example of this is "do you believe in religion" because nobody can prove or disprove the existence of a higher being or a religion. But some people will fundamentally be okay with believing in a higher power though. So whatever side of the debate I'm on, when the conversation comes down to a fundamental argument I let both parties be right.
The type of people I am discussing don't have these "fundamental arguments" as you describe them. They have diametric arguments like: "the reason you chose the system you did is because you hate me" or "you're trying to sell me this product because you want to see me suffer", etc. I am the center of the world, the world revolves around me, and anyone who disagrees with me about anything is out to get me, and every situation in the world is designed to be a detriment to my personal and professional well-being; therefore, I must always be in attack mode to prevent the world's population from hurting me. That type of skewed perspective. I did not used to think that these types of people existed. I do now.
I'm all for "fundamental arguments" as you call them, but they are probably the least interesting arguments imaginable. Their only claim to being interesting, from my point of view, is because they tend to arise as the last bastion of a belief system that has been whittled away by evidence.
Let's take your example a little further, starting with the perhaps more general: "Do you believe in a higher power?".
I agree that it is impossible to disprove the existence of a higher power, however I do think it is possible to prove (not that I think it will be proved, ever). Things that were previously taken as evidence of such a proof are now generally accepted as natural phenomena (lightning as a crude example).
The nature of what would prove the existence makes for a much more interesting argument than the mere possibility of existence.
"Do you believe that the higher power interacts with this universe?"
"Do you believe that we can measure that interaction?"
"What would that measurement look like?"
"Why haven't we actually measured that?" (perhaps a loaded question!)
If someone chooses to believe in a higher power that is unable to interact with us, and has no impact on anything we do, good for them! Potential issues arise when people believe that the higher powers does interact with the world, and so I find that discussion much more interesting than merely if such a thing could exist or not.
> nobody can prove or disprove the existence of a higher being or a religion.
You don't believe in something just because you cannot disprove it. You must have some evidence to believe it in the first place. Otherwise, you would believe in all kinds of celestial teapots.
Eventually, I get to a crossroad: either I accept what these people are saying as right (even when it's wrong and would require some absurd actions on my part), or I navigate to exit that situation so I can minimize my future interactions with those people. If neither are possible, it's perhaps time to find new work. Of course, I'd love to get onto the same page as them. But I think we have to acknowledge that sometimes it's not possible. I say this as someone who believes that he has gotten pretty good at this skill after years of experience.
As would probably be expected, these types of people are lifers at organizations where they have used political means to entrench themselves, and would likely not survive on the open market if they ever needed to look for new employment.