D
Deleted member 59
Guest
Have you ever stopped to think about in the differences between the words Debate, Discussion and Dialogue? Frequently we usethose terms as synonyms, without realizing its nuances. By doing that we get stuck in tense polarized and oriented conversations by either a universal truth -usually our own- or for the restless search for it.
How to understand the specific characteristics of the different kinds of conversation? And from there improve the quality of our interections wth eah other and oursleves? Well, here's a suggestion.
Debate
The easiest exemple comes to mind when we think about about a debate, is usually the presidential debate. The candidates prepare before hand their artillery of arguments and deffenses and try to ask questions to attack the opponent The answers are evasive or robotic, or inlamed and full. There's convincement, there's persuasion, attempts to disqualify the other -includding personal matters-, and what's behind all of this it's a seperate conversation, with sides very well defined, isolated and antagonistic.
One of the origins of the word debate, a verb in latin battuere means exactly "to fight", and its root comes from the indo-european term bhau- ("strike”, “hurt”), the same that helped forming the words abate and abattoir.
Therefore it's clear of how warlike the debate is. The basic premise is: "my truth will eliminate yours and that's how I'll prove myself a winner". The end justify the means.
Discussion
What comes to your mind when you imagine the word discussion? To a great deal of people, it's not about a friendly conversation. When we discuss about any topic, what we generally want is to come to a conclusion about it. Even thoug we might not yet have very defined sides since the beginning like in the debate, there are divergencies on points of view that appear throughout the discussion.
Let's suppose that your wife/husband and your mother, who lives with you, decide to move in to a new house. It starts not only an investigative process to raise possible interesting places, but also a discussion between the family to choose what kind of house is the better option to all. Many factors will be analyzed, such as: location, number of parking spots on the garage, the state of conservation of the house, if it's furnished or not, how many bedrooms, how many square meters, what's the neighborhood like, if the house is safe or not etc.
Therefore a discussion is a conversation that allows us to analyze the minutia of something, in a way we can open the path to a conclusion. The prefi "cuss" also present in the words percussion and concussion, means break, seperate, discriminate. So when we discuss, we're breaking the topic down so we can look into every detail of each of them.
The big question is: many times we're discussing with someone, but in reality, we don't need to reach any conclusion. It's our ego that is discussing by the fear of accepting that the different exists. To reach one conclusion is frequently a totalitary posture.
Dialogue
What if there was a conversation that wasn't based on disqualifying the other nor reduce the topic to smaller parts to reach a conclusion? It's even a bit hard to believe thatsuch conversation exists, given that we hardly find interactions of this kind out there, That's fairly why the dialogue is even more necessary.
For instance, it's worth remember the storythat Arnaldo Bassoli, one of the founders of The School of Dialogue, always tells. Imagine that during a conversation a friend confesses to you that he/she doesn't like dogs. More than that, he realy wants to keep distance from the little pets. Your reaction after hearing this speech could be of contestation ("Say what? You don't like dogs? But they're so cool!") or of curiosity ("Why don't you like dogs? Did something happen?). When you react with curiosity, wanting to know the reasons and the experiences behind it, you're cultivating ground for the dialogue to happen.
And by doing that, he/she would tell you what's really happening: "you know what, do you see this scar on my face? Many years I was petting a dog on the street and it bit me. I got 12 stitches, a lot of pain and I still got this horrible scar.". You then understand your friend. That's dialogue.
Let's see what etymology brings us:
Dia = to cross something completely (diameter, for instance, is the line that crosses a circle)
Logos= meaning
So dialogue can be understood as a conversation where the meanings cross each other completely. That's what happened in the story of the friend who didn't like dogs. When we allow ourselves to have a reaction of curiosity and genuine interest for the other, the feelings and deepest beliefs may be shared without threats of judgments, disqualification or reduction.
Arnaldo Bassoli claims that there are 3 conditions for the dialogue to happen:
1. Equality: the absence of hierarchy or the no interference of power between who dialogues.
2. Empathetic listening: Empty myself from my world and temporarily travel to the world of the other, trying to see how he/she sees it.
3. Being able to explain the presupposition: investigate my own presuppositions, (my takes on world, beliefs, motivations and lifestories) and being able to ask what makes the other think,, feel and act in a certain way.
Besides those conditions, it doesn't hurt remembering that every time we try to onvince the other, wether it's unconcious or not, it's impossible to have a dialogue. Every time we need to put our ego ahead and agree/disagree with the other, the dialogue is harmed.
This article was translated from Portuguese and found online on this website: Source
How to understand the specific characteristics of the different kinds of conversation? And from there improve the quality of our interections wth eah other and oursleves? Well, here's a suggestion.
Debate
The easiest exemple comes to mind when we think about about a debate, is usually the presidential debate. The candidates prepare before hand their artillery of arguments and deffenses and try to ask questions to attack the opponent The answers are evasive or robotic, or inlamed and full. There's convincement, there's persuasion, attempts to disqualify the other -includding personal matters-, and what's behind all of this it's a seperate conversation, with sides very well defined, isolated and antagonistic.
One of the origins of the word debate, a verb in latin battuere means exactly "to fight", and its root comes from the indo-european term bhau- ("strike”, “hurt”), the same that helped forming the words abate and abattoir.
Therefore it's clear of how warlike the debate is. The basic premise is: "my truth will eliminate yours and that's how I'll prove myself a winner". The end justify the means.
Discussion
What comes to your mind when you imagine the word discussion? To a great deal of people, it's not about a friendly conversation. When we discuss about any topic, what we generally want is to come to a conclusion about it. Even thoug we might not yet have very defined sides since the beginning like in the debate, there are divergencies on points of view that appear throughout the discussion.
Let's suppose that your wife/husband and your mother, who lives with you, decide to move in to a new house. It starts not only an investigative process to raise possible interesting places, but also a discussion between the family to choose what kind of house is the better option to all. Many factors will be analyzed, such as: location, number of parking spots on the garage, the state of conservation of the house, if it's furnished or not, how many bedrooms, how many square meters, what's the neighborhood like, if the house is safe or not etc.
Therefore a discussion is a conversation that allows us to analyze the minutia of something, in a way we can open the path to a conclusion. The prefi "cuss" also present in the words percussion and concussion, means break, seperate, discriminate. So when we discuss, we're breaking the topic down so we can look into every detail of each of them.
The big question is: many times we're discussing with someone, but in reality, we don't need to reach any conclusion. It's our ego that is discussing by the fear of accepting that the different exists. To reach one conclusion is frequently a totalitary posture.
Dialogue
What if there was a conversation that wasn't based on disqualifying the other nor reduce the topic to smaller parts to reach a conclusion? It's even a bit hard to believe thatsuch conversation exists, given that we hardly find interactions of this kind out there, That's fairly why the dialogue is even more necessary.
For instance, it's worth remember the storythat Arnaldo Bassoli, one of the founders of The School of Dialogue, always tells. Imagine that during a conversation a friend confesses to you that he/she doesn't like dogs. More than that, he realy wants to keep distance from the little pets. Your reaction after hearing this speech could be of contestation ("Say what? You don't like dogs? But they're so cool!") or of curiosity ("Why don't you like dogs? Did something happen?). When you react with curiosity, wanting to know the reasons and the experiences behind it, you're cultivating ground for the dialogue to happen.
And by doing that, he/she would tell you what's really happening: "you know what, do you see this scar on my face? Many years I was petting a dog on the street and it bit me. I got 12 stitches, a lot of pain and I still got this horrible scar.". You then understand your friend. That's dialogue.
Let's see what etymology brings us:
Dia = to cross something completely (diameter, for instance, is the line that crosses a circle)
Logos= meaning
So dialogue can be understood as a conversation where the meanings cross each other completely. That's what happened in the story of the friend who didn't like dogs. When we allow ourselves to have a reaction of curiosity and genuine interest for the other, the feelings and deepest beliefs may be shared without threats of judgments, disqualification or reduction.
Arnaldo Bassoli claims that there are 3 conditions for the dialogue to happen:
1. Equality: the absence of hierarchy or the no interference of power between who dialogues.
2. Empathetic listening: Empty myself from my world and temporarily travel to the world of the other, trying to see how he/she sees it.
3. Being able to explain the presupposition: investigate my own presuppositions, (my takes on world, beliefs, motivations and lifestories) and being able to ask what makes the other think,, feel and act in a certain way.
Besides those conditions, it doesn't hurt remembering that every time we try to onvince the other, wether it's unconcious or not, it's impossible to have a dialogue. Every time we need to put our ego ahead and agree/disagree with the other, the dialogue is harmed.
This article was translated from Portuguese and found online on this website: Source