How to disagree

This Research Brief was written as part of ANZSOG’s The Bridge research translation project and summarises a piece of academic research relevant to the public sector.

How should you respond to an argument that you believe to be wrong? Answering this question is the basis of a Harvard Law Working Paper by Cass Sunstein. One answer lies in engaging generously with disagreement - by clearly and fairly representing the other person’s argument, acknowledging what you agree with, and reflecting on what you’ve learned from it. This approach can lower the volume and take the heat out of disagreement, making productive discussion more likely. 

While some might be persuaded by arguments that slash and burn, there’s a case for favouring restraint and kindness over anger. 

Using the Rapoport Rules 

The article centres on the use of the Rapoport Rules - a four-step framework for constructive disagreement and critical commentary. The rules are designed to foster understanding and reduce tension. The rules are: 

1. You should attempt to express your own position so clearly and fairly that the other person says “Thanks, I wish I’d thought of putting it that way.” 

2. You should list any points you agree with, especially if they are not matters of general or widespread agreement. 

3. You should mention anything you have learnt from the other person. 

4. Only then can you say so much as a word of rebuttal or criticism. 

The most important of the Rapoport Rules is the first, especially if the goal of discussion is to arrive at the truth. Much debate involves describing positions in ways their original proponents would reject or not even recognise. When that happens, meaningful discussion becomes almost impossible. The immediate reaction is often a sharp sense of hurt followed by anger, which is exhausting and only fuels more of the same. 

Violations of the first rule make debate unproductive. They also tend to produce tit-for-tat by way of rebuttal and response, raising the volume. 

Adversarial collaboration  

The second rule with the phrase “especially if they are not matters of general or widespread agreement” is the most subtle of the Rapoport Rules. The idea is that it is to single out an agreement with a critical opponent, especially if the agreement is about something that is not obvious. By doing this, you are essentially making an alliance with the person with whom you disagree.  

An advantage of the Rapoport Rules is that rules (1), (2) and (3) can be taken to be fair and generous to both the argument and the person who is making it - creating informal adversarial collaboration.  

If you follow the rules, you will be working with and not entirely against the person you are in debate with. 

The foundations of the Rapoport Rules 

The rules have five foundations: 

1. Respect: The rules show respect for people. They recognise that an argument deserves a response not only on its merits, but because the person behind it is not deserving of contempt. 

2. Kindness and warmth:  The rules do not ridicule people. They seek to avoid hurting people’s feelings and have a degree of warmth. 

3. A norm that solves a collective problem: A commitment to the Rapoport Rules might help establish a norm that reduces or eliminates toxicity. 

4. Strategy and utility: The rules can improve the quality of discussion by reducing misunderstanding, focusing debate on real points of difference, and increasing the chances of finding common ground or reaching better decisions. 

5. Truth: The rules might be helpful if the goal is to figure out what is true. Truth-seeking is the motivation for the first rule. A sustained argument against position A does no good if no one holds position A. A sustained argument against position A does no good if the actual arguments in favour of position A are never addressed. 

The bottom line 

In an environment where disagreement often generates more heat than understanding, the value of the Rapoport Rules lies in their discipline. They ask us to slow down, to understand before we respond, and to treat those we disagree with as partners in inquiry rather than opponents to defeat. It is a practical approach for improving the quality of thinking, strengthening arguments and creating the conditions for insight. If the aim of debate is to get closer to the truth, then the Rapoport Rules offer a clear standard: represent well, find common ground, learn something—and only then disagree. 

Want to read more? 

How to disagree - Cass Sunstein. Harvard Public Law Working Paper, September 2025.