You disagree, but then you have to think what you really want to happen. If you want that person to change her point of view, it's probable that even if you are completely right with facts backing your possition you will not achieve it just by telling them that they are right. But you don't have to give them the reason either, while usually people rise defenses as a way to protect their self from an "agression", you are able to modify and change their ideas with indirect methods. One way is not talking directly about it but showing the correct way. That way the other person will see what you do and maybe will change voluntarily one she realizes that your method is superior. Another way is telling a story where the topic is touched indirectly, talking about another person and the results of her actions, but not as an example but as if trying to explain another topic. Z

This kind of roundabout indirect communication never works with me because I'm the kind of person that won't read between the lines. However, if someone says something along the lines of "Matt, you're wrong and here's why..." I'm quite likely to listen, evaluate what they're saying, and make changes as necessary so long as they're not a cunt about it.

I'm really quite open to the prospect of being wrong and absolutely love direct communication. If people try to do the same thing in some ambiguous and tortuous way they're likely going to spend a lot longer and will fail. If I do figure out that's what they're doing rather than just saying what they need to say, my opinion of them is likely to fall it comes across as cowardly; they could have just said what they wanted to say rather than tapdancing around the topic and hoping for the best.

That kind of attitude is awesome. But you will agree with me that it's not the normal behaviour on most people. Most people will understand a well intended correction as a personal attack.for example that's what happening with active atheism. When religious people are told that all their believes are wrong they take it as if you were attacking all the parts of their personality and not as an accurate description of the situation. In that moment they close their possition and react having even a stronger faith than before. I think that active atheist should begin to use the scientific method to check their approach on the matter (they are currently using the same evangelization method they critizice). If it's not working the actual method new ones should be used. But this methods takes more time, as you must gain the trust of the person that you are trying to teach, and make them learn bit by bit without cuestioning their actual believes, only adding small gems of new knowleadge till they replace the old ones over time. The person doing this will probably will have to go to church with the rest of his community and take part on all the events with them religious or not.

Criticize people who are doing a good job, so they keep up the good work out of spite.

criticizing : you fucking retard can never do this job correctly.

disagreeing : there are other ways in which this job can be done and I strongly suggest you should explore those.

criticizing: You are not performing very well at your job.

disagreeing: You're wrong, you fucking retard.

There can be various contexts of disagreement as well as criticism. (http://www.paulgraham.com/disagree.html) Our both arguments are on extremities of each.

Kindergarten report card: D can't take constructive criticism.