Disagreeing is stronger than any of us and causes discomfort. You, (in your greatest humility, once you are in conversation), try to give a simple and noble opinion.
There are times when in a meeting, ideas and impressions are exchanged. Completely normal. Automatically you give your opinion, like everyone else, from the perspective of discussion, reflection. Suddenly, someone attacks you with something that has nothing to do with it because you made a reflection repair and you're on top of it. You repair with a question and that other one responds with an attack: ah, but you ...
What to do in such a situation?
Whereas the group environment has become a bit warm and altered by an unusual behavior from someone and that person no longer wants to hear you, because instead of reflecting with you, she broke up a good empathic discussion and conversation moment:
- you choose to cut off the conversation altogether, because maybe it's not worth it;
- or you try to make another minor repair just to make it clear that you are just giving an opinion and have not made a statement or attacked anyone;
- or you agree with everything and let the person fill his chest with pride and think she is "the greatest." Sometimes it's better.
Which one is the worst? I really don't know. It depends of the person and the moment and you.
In both cases, the conflict was neither generated nor provoked, but it did exist. For several reasons. Because sometimes people just want to be heard and be the center of attention. Because sometimes they are angry and have to distill the poison on the first victim they encounter. Or because they are just vain and cannot stand a master and pertinent question that takes work, because it forces you to think.
It is not for everyone. And sometimes it can be like a kind of art. Yes, I'm being perhaps a bit cynical. Why not? I have the right to disagree also, don’t I?
Peace and Love!