[JamesSwift]

Its unnecessary conflict. If everything is the same level of disagreement, what are you _actually_ arguing and what do you just _happen_ to be arguing? You give the other party no capacity to gauge your actual level of interest. It makes the entire process that much harder for everyone and wastes the "argument budget" on ultimately meaningless stuff. Its a very similar idea to being "penny wise, pound foolish".

[microsoftdoes]

People are a variety of ways. A healthy culture can accommodate that variety within reason. I reckon we’ve become a little too focused on agreeableness as a culture. Not that you should strive to be an asshole. But some people are just naturally blunt and abrasive. And that’s okay. A lot of the trouble is in people’s reactions to that, since thick skin seems to be on long-term decline too.

I’m not sure we’re disagreeing about anything. What you wrote is good advice to someone who’s too argumentative.

[JamesSwift]

Right, but its basically hoping that human nature fundamentally changes rather than just not making big deals about things which dont matter. The article is a great example. The anecdote is that he argued aggressively against "IF, THEN, ELSE" because its _grammatically incorrect_ even though every other language used it. He suggests "IF, THEN, OR", which is _just as bad but also different_! So now we are wasting time/energy debating this thing and the suggestion isnt even good! So how am I supposed to interpret this as the "non arguer" in this scenario? That you put the quality of the product first, or that you just want to "win" the argument in _every single scenario_? I'm likely to interpret it as the latter and now we are in a worse spot as a team because, again, I can't assume you are not just arguing for the sake of arguing in the future.