The obvious solution to disagreements about facts is to exchange information with information with which you disagree. It works well if, on the other side of the debate, people trust your sources as much as you do, and if they are willing to allow the facts to change their minds. In practice, these two assumptions are often violated. People generally ignore information that goes against their own beliefs and cling to information that supports what they already think. If you meet someone who does, you can try to ask the other person, “What information do you want to change your mind on this subject if this information is true?” This has at least a chance to push the person to commit to change their mind if the relevant information can be found. Robin Hanson explained in this article a disagreement on the well-known theory at the construction level: www.overcomingbias.com/2009/01/disagreement-is-nearfar-bias.html Way to go, Carlos! We are so happy that you have told us how you and your brother disagree from time to time, but at the end of the day you will resolve your disagreement! That`s the most important thing! The siblings are WONDERful and we are glad you both understand! Thank you for sharing your SUPER connection with our Wonder, Carlos! 🙂 Later, there was a disagreement between Lulu`s son and Dhahir. According to police, Frias had an argument with a passer-by at the scene of the crime. 1. Conflict is a normal part of organizational life. Disputes are not (usually) caused by “bad” people trying to be “difficult.” On the contrary, they are the result of people with good intentions, different conceptions of how to achieve common goals, differences of opinion on the objectives worth achieving, and threats to the viability, productivity, resources, power and dignity resulting from those differences. 7.
Information processing methods. If people use different methods of information processing, they may end up disagreeing, even if the methods on which each person relies are reasonable enough. Brains do not perfectly update the strength of beliefs when they come up against new information. Faced with limited computational resources and the limitation that our brain has developed through natural selection, we can expect approximations as an imperfect update of credibility. If two brains both have good but imperfect enough methods to update beliefs on the basis of evidence, they may end up disagreeing, even if they are about as reliable as each other. If we explicitly generate information about the processing of information, there may be differences of opinion. For example, if we want to estimate the likelihood that a friend will cancel us for dinner, it is not clear that we have to take into account our knowledge of the number of times friends usually cancel us out in relation to our knowledge of the number of times that particular friend has canceled us. We have more data on all our friends, which makes this estimate more reliable, but the data on this particular friend is more relevant for each case. Ideally, all known information should be combined in one way or another, but one can reasonably disagree on how best to do so. Although the parties hope to find a quick solution to their dispute, psychological and interpersonal factors can thwart their attempts to control the conflict and, in this case, conflict escalates.
The calation of conflicts “can be interpreted as an escalation of a conflict in relation to the scale observed and the means implemented.”  A number of factors, including increased commitment to one`s own position, the use of tougher influence tactics and the formation of coalitions, are driving the escalation of the conflict.  And there are a few who are divided on this, but they can`t do anything.