The term "agree to disagree" or "agreeing to disagree" is a phrase in English referring to the resolution of a conflict (usually a debate or quarrel) whereby all parties tolerate but do not accept the opposing position(s). It generally occurs when all sides recognise that further conflict would be unnecessary, ineffective or otherwise undesirable. They may also remain on amicable terms while continuing to disagree about the unresolved issues.
The phrase "agree to disagree" first appeared in print in 1770 when, at the death of George Whitefield, John Wesley wrote a memorial sermon which acknowledged, but downplayed, the two men's doctrinal differences:
Wesley was the first to put the phrase 'agree to disagree' in print.[2]
The phrase "agree to differ" appeared in 1785;[2] its advantage over "agree to disagree" is that it does not pose an apparent logical contradiction. Game theorist and mathematician Robert Aumann argues that two people with common prior probability cannot agree to disagree.[3] However, the issues of agreement and disagreement are about separate concerns. Hence, the phrase is not actually a contradiction, when the implied parts are inserted: "agree [in principle] to disagree [about other issues]". The wording can be considered as a form of elliptical phrase, where the omitted portions, as two separate concerns, will help to clarify the intended meaning of the short phrase. The agreement is a long-term strategy, as a shared viewpoint of the opposing sides, to leave the disagreement, about the other issues, as an unresolved matter.
Economist Frank J. Fabozzi argues that it is not rational for investors to agree to disagree; they must work toward consensus, even if they have different information. For financial investments, Fabozzi posits that an investor's overconfidence in his abilities (irrationality) can lead to "agreeing to disagree"—the investor thinks he is smarter than others.[4]
A related phrase, normally reserved for informal and temporary arrangements in political affairs, is the Latin phrase "modus vivendi" (literally, "way of living"), and it is used in the same manner as "agree to disagree". However, it can be viewed as a thought-terminating cliché in certain circumstances.