Patient monism

peace,
In recent days, I heard the Rabbi define “patient monism” as a debate in which both sides agree on the considerations but disagree on which are the decisive considerations. (Correct me if I’m not understanding correctly).
I’m trying to understand what exactly makes me be tolerant of the other’s assessment. If I’m sure that his assessment is wrong, then he’s a sinner and I have to try to convince him and maybe even force my opinion on him. If I think that both assessments are possible, then I’ve gone back to being a pluralist. Maybe the point is that I think my assessment is the right one but I’m not sure and therefore I give room to the other’s opinion out of doubt? If that’s the direction, is it because assessment is by definition a decision that has no justification, something intuitive?
Beyond that, what exactly is the difference between an argument about the set of considerations and an argument about weighing considerations? If there is a consideration that I think is relevant and my interlocutor thinks it is irrelevant, if I think it is worth eating the chocolate because it is brown and my interlocutor thinks it is nonsense, does that make it illegitimate because he uses a different set of considerations? Why?
 
thanks