Disagreement has always been part of human experience. From debates among ancient philosophers in the Agora of Athens to fiery discussions in modern-day parliaments, the ability to grapple with opposing views is foundational to progress. Yet today, many worry that our capacity to disagree civilly is eroding. People across societies increasingly avoid conversation with those who hold different viewpoints. They retreat into echo chambers, mistrust opposing voices, and often equate disagreement with personal attack or hostility. This article explores whether, in fact, we are losing the ability to disagree, what the data show, and how this trend might shape our collective future.
A World Increasingly Divided
One of the most telling signs of eroding civil disagreement lies in social relationships themselves. A recent study from Social Psychological and Personality Science found that in the United States, less than 10 % of friendships cross core political lines. In major cities such as New York and Boston, only about 3 % of friendships span the divide between liberals and conservatives. Even in more politically balanced online communities, the figure barely reaches 8 %. These rare cross-party friendships tend to have lower trust and understanding, a symptom of deeper social fragmentation.
Such divides are not merely academic. A separate finding from a 2023 Pew Research Center survey shows that roughly 61 % of Americans now say political conversations with those they disagree with are “stressful and frustrating,” compared to just a few years ago when many more found such discussions informative.
Civility Is Perceived as Declining
Public perception reflects a broader sense of a collapse in civility that accompanies disagreement. A 2025 Civility Survey of U.S. adults found that only 26 % believe society feels civil today, while 53 % see it as uncivil. Many respondents pointed to digital aggression and political polarization as primary causes of this decline. Nearly half of those surveyed said civility had worsened in the past year, and more than half said it had deteriorated over the past five years.
This perceived decline in civility matters because it affects how willing people are to even engage in disagreement, let alone do so constructively. When the default assumption about disagreement is that it will be uncivil, many people choose silence or avoidance instead. That avoidance reinforces division and reduces the opportunities for meaningful debate.
Deeper Currents Underlying Disagreement
Why have we reached this point? The data suggest several overlapping factors.
- Affective Polarization
Political conflict today often transcends disagreements about issues to become disagreements about people themselves. Research into polarization shows that individuals often experience emotional hostility toward those on the opposing side, a phenomenon called affective polarization. This is not just disagreement; it is dislike, distrust, and even dehumanization of the “other.” Such emotions make it harder to listen or speak openly without assuming malice on the other side.
- Misinformation and “Truth Decay”
When people do not share a common set of facts, argument becomes almost impossible. The concept of “truth decay” refers to the increasing influence of opinion over fact in public discourse and the diminishing role of objective information. When each side trusts different sources and rejects the legitimacy of the other’s facts, disagreement stops being a discussion of ideas and becomes a fight over reality itself.
- Hostile Media Perceptions and Filter Bubbles
People tend to see the same media coverage as biased against their own views, a cognitive bias known as the hostile media effect. This means that even neutral information can be interpreted through a lens of distrust, discouraging the willingness to hear alternative perspectives.
Meanwhile, social media systems often show users content they are likely to agree with, reinforcing existing viewpoints while filtering out opposing information. These “filter bubbles” amplify confirmation bias and reduce exposure to differing opinions, further weakening the practice of engaging with disagreement.
The Media’s Role in Reducing Debate
Even spaces designed for debate are affected. A new large-scale academic study of U.S. cable news programs shows that on many of the most-watched shows, actual disagreement has declined over time. Between 2017 and 2024, the proportion of televised interactions featuring genuine disagreement dropped by roughly one-third. Instead of challenging views, broadcasts increasingly serve as platforms for partisan reaffirmation, where hosts and guests validate the beliefs of their audience rather than question them.
This trend matters because broadcast media have traditionally been one of the most visible arenas for public argument. When that arena stops modeling constructive debate, it sends a powerful signal about how disagreement is “done.”
From Avoidance to Hostility
One significant consequence of these trends is avoidance. Many people simply choose not to discuss contentious topics. Research shows that people often avoid political conversation altogether, particularly when they perceive politics as a zero-sum battle where one side’s gain is another’s loss.
When people do engage, they increasingly resort to unfriending or blocking those who challenge their views on social platforms rather than engaging with them. This digital form of “social divorce” shrinks networks of disagreement and limits opportunities for understanding.
Is All Lost?
Despite these concerning trends, there is reason to believe that disagreement, if reframed, can still be meaningful and constructive. Research finds that people often overestimate how much others engage in hostile debates and underestimate how positive real discussions can be, especially with close contacts like friends and family.
Moreover, some studies show that when shared values and common ground are highlighted, people’s perceptions of polarization and division can soften. This suggests that conflict is not inevitable; how we frame disagreement matters.
A Practical Path Forward
Losing the ability to disagree does not mean it cannot be restored. The key lies in changing both how we communicate and the environment in which discussions take place. Concrete approaches include:
- Structured Dialogue Programs Organizations and communities can implement structured dialogue sessions where people discuss controversial topics with clear rules. Programs such as the National Issues Forums in the U.S. and Braver Angels workshops use guided conversation techniques to ensure every participant is heard without judgment. Recent evaluations show that participants report a 40 % increase in empathy for opposing views after such programs.
- Fact-Based Anchors in Discussions Platforms and institutions can provide fact-checking resources or shared datasets before debates. For instance, city councils in the Netherlands introduced pre-session briefings with verified statistics on contentious topics like housing policies. This reduces disputes based purely on perception and gives debates a common foundation.
- Micro-Communities of Mixed Perspectives Encouraging diverse participation in teams, clubs, and online groups creates natural exposure to differing views. A 2024 Harvard Business Review study found that work teams intentionally designed with ideological diversity performed 20 % better in problem-solving tasks, as long as discussion norms were moderated to prevent domination by a single perspective.
- Personalized Reflection Practices People can be encouraged to reflect on their own biases before entering discussions. Techniques such as writing down one’s assumptions and ranking certainty can prevent conversations from turning reactive. Some schools in Finland have adopted “pre-discussion reflection” exercises for students aged 15–18, which has led to a 35 % drop in conflict escalation during classroom debates.
- Incentives for Constructive Engagement Online Social media companies can experiment with rewarding thoughtful engagement rather than virality or outrage. Features that nudge users to read opposing viewpoints, highlight reasoned comments, or show common ground have been tested in small pilot programs and show promise in reducing extreme polarization
Conclusion
Yes, in many ways our ability to engage in civil disagreement is under strain. Friendships increasingly avoid cross-ideological ties, public discourse often collapses into hostility, and people find debate more stressful than enlightening. Public perception confirms that civility around disagreement is declining, and data show that mechanisms once meant to bridge differences may now isolate us. Yet disagreement itself is not disappearing in full. What is at stake is how we disagree.
If we want disagreement to be a source of insight rather than conflict, if we want societies that can bear the friction of diverse ideas without fracturing, then we must cultivate the habits, spaces, and norms that encourage genuine listening, empathy, and reasoning. The ability to disagree has never been static; it is active practice requiring care, courage, and, above all, respect for the humanity of those who think differently from us.
