Difference between “Agree to Disagree” and “Agree even though you Disagree”

We all are quite aware of what “Agree to Disagree” means. According to me it is one of the most important aspects needed for healthy human relationships. But why doesn't “Agree to Disagree” often happen or even come in handy? I am going to write about 2 types of “Agree to Disagree” and 2 types of “Agree even though you Disagree”.

The 2 types of “Agree to Disagree” are

• Symmetrical “Agree to Disagree” - This generally is the best form of agree to disagree but also quite rare. Suppose X and Y go for a multiplex. X is a big fan of “SRK” and Y is a big fan of “Salman Khan”. They argue why one is better over the other for 10 min but reach no where. So they agree to disagree and X will go for SRK's movie and Y will go for Salman Khan's movie. Chapter closed. No sulking and no nothings.
• Asymmetrical “Agree to Disagree” - Suppose X and Y are a couple and X wants to have sex with Y because he/she is in the mood that day. But Y is bogged down by some office pressures and not in the mood. X tries to convince that sex might help the situation blah blah bah but Y is not in the mood at all. So they agree to disagree. Now the asymmetry comes in the picture. After agreeing to disagreeing, what follows? They DON'T have sex. Which means it is titled towards what Y wanted. It is different from symmetrical one where X and Y got to watch their favorite hero's movie. Here it is not like X will have sex and Y will not. At most, X can masturbate and be happy. So you can force yourself not to have sex but it is very difficult to force yourself to have sex. Even if Y succumbs and has sex, it is pretty certain that it will not be enjoyable for X. ( When I say sex, I imply the one which is filled with love and emotions and not just the mechanical intercourse).

The 2 types of “Agree even though you Disagree” are :

• The Nature of the Situation : Suppose 4 people (A,B,C and D) are on a very difficult and risky trek and they have lost their way. They reach a fork and in that place, A feels the left direction is the correct one and B,C and D feels the right one is correct. They argue for sometime and explain to each other why they think what they think is correct. But still not convincing for all the 4 to be on the same path. It is possible that A takes the left and B,C and takes the right but A will be taking a much higher risk by being alone on an already risky trek. In such a scenario, more often than not, A joins B,C and D and continues. Though A technically has not agreed to B,C and D, A 's action mimics agreeing even though disagreeing.
• The Nature of the Opposite Person : Suppose A and B are in relationship and they are arguing about a particular action of A's. From A's perspective, he/she has his/her reasons as to why things happened the way it happened. But B is simply not in a position to comprehend/accept that. “Agree to Disagree” and leaving the matter is definitely an option (Unless B is very certain that action is unjustifiable on any grounds. But this also means the relationship is strained). But what I have observed is, “Agree to Disagree” seldom happens in these kind of scenarios. Instead, the rationale behind the argument is compromised and it become very high on emotions. If A's emotions peak, then B will “Agree even though Disagree” and vice versa. My strong belief here is, emotions should have no space in an argument. I am not saying emotions have no space in a relationship. It obviously has. So if B(or even A) is angry/pissed/irritated, so be it. He/She can sulk/throwing tantrums or whatever. But one cannot have an objective unbiased argument in an emotional state. Arguments have to be purely rationale in nature. Arguments which are high on emotions don't even qualify to be called as arguments. The word “Fight” suits better probably. Or if the word argument has a very fight like connotation, I would choose to use the word discussion instead.