A conversation can be much, much more than a clash of opinions. Going into a conversation with the idea of "the other guy is wrong" is a sure way of never understanding how they arrived at that wrong opinion to begin with. Yet sometimes precisely this is the most valuable thing you could learn from them.
It can be, but sometimes it isn't. Those are the cases I was talking about where agreeing to disagree can be a good outcome.
Even more -- it is not mandatory to have an opinion on everything.
In many cases the person you talk to don't really disagree, but pretends to due to ideologic or some BS reason. Maybe they don't want to say the real reason they think X.
The "agree to disagree" is often used as an escape hatch for hypocrisy.
Sometimes. Other times it's a great way to point out that hypocrisy by pointing out you all have the same information, yet you come to different conclusions/opinions.
Sometimes it's a conscious decision to have all the facts and ignore them. It's not hypocritical in that case.
I have a feeling that a lot of people think this. Coming to an 'agree to disagree' is really had for some people. Sometimes there's no other option though, because both people seem to know the same facts, they just have differing opinions on how to deal with those facts.
> take note of how much of the time you spend formulating a response
I've been paying attention to this for years now after hearing or reading something similar. I haven't been able to change this, but sometimes it's helped me move back to listening and not missing important details because of it.