Introduction

Humans spend a huge amount of time in conversation of one sort or another. During the period in which I grew up, conversations consisted of written letters or telephone calls (limited by time and distance). Today, you can text or call anyone anywhere in the world with a device you carry with you.

The manner in which people use these devices has not made conversations more cooperative; it has made conversations more competitive. Let’s discuss the basic forms of conversation and learn to utilize available technology to make conversations a more effective way to cooperate with others, rather than a means to compete.

The following image shows a matrix of the basic styles of conversation.

Diatribe

A diatribe consists of an angry speech or piece of writing that severely criticizes something or someone. Diatribes serve the purpose of expressing emotion, browbeating the receiver, or evoking emotion in the receiver. Diatribes consist of a competitive form of conversation that travels in one direction, giving the receiver no opportunity to reply.

People delivered diatribes in varying levels of intensity. Some speakers accompany their diatribes with podium pounding and fist pumping, while others deliver them in a soft-spoken and seemingly friendly manner. In all cases, the intent is the same: to tell other people what to think. What to believe. Or what action to take.

Political speeches provide the best examples of diatribes. The speaker expects the audience to cheer enthusiastically or remain quiet; yet, in all cases, the characteristic consists of a one-way, competitive conversation.

Discourse

Discourse also travels in one direction, but it has a cooperative nature with the purpose of delivering information to the receiver.

People who use discourse tend to employ a more refined approach. They don’t treat their message as if it were the final word. You realize that the listener might have a different opinion. If the listener were present, the speaker might even ask them for their opinions.

Educators and authors should provide the best examples of effective use of discourse. They should provide information to the listener or reader in a format that encourages them to receive a one-sided conversation necessitated by circumstance. Time or distance might separate sender and receiver, but the conversation should have the same purpose: to provide the receiver with something to think about on their own time.

Debate

Debate consists of a two-way form of competitive conversation that aims to win or convince the opposition to adopt the sender’s perspective.

We can view debate as a form of verbal wrestling. When the conversation has concluded, one party has won and the other has lost. Neither party changes its mind. They both think they need to sharpen their verbal weapons for the next contest.

Politicians spend a lot of time engaging in debates. They have little interest in convincing the competition of the validity of their argument. They want their audience (usually voters) to believe they made the stronger argument.

Dialogue

Dialogue consists of a cooperative, two-way form of conversation that has the express purpose of exchanging information and building relationships.

Dialogue represents the most constructive form of conversation. It allows two parties to share their points of view while simultaneously suspending their assumptions for examination and analysis. (I have borrowed the phrase “suspending their assumptions” from Peter Senge. The phrase means the presenter will hold up his assumptions in order that others may examine them.) Dialogue encourages all parties to the conversation to examine their own assumptions, either during the conversation or upon reflection.

Dialogue provides the most constructive form of conversation. It allows all parties to make affirmative statements while simultaneously encouraging everyone involved to examine the assumptions underlying those statements. Dialogue offers a forum for everyone engaged in the conversation to learn, even when that learning enhances the presenter’s current understanding.

Everyone (teachers, managers, salespeople, and others) who wants to influence the thinking of others should practice the art of dialogue. They will have more effectiveness than those engaged in diatribes and debates.

Conclusion

I believe that more people in this country engage in competitive forms of conversation than at any period during the long time I have tread this earth. I understand the natural inclination to believe you have the correct answers. Each of us, however, will gain and spread more knowledge by asking, “Why,” more often. Whatever the answer, both parties will learn.

In writing this publication, I work diligently to transform this one-way conversation into a discourse, rather than a diatribe. I have extensive education and experience, but I have learned that I know very little and I understand even less. If you think I have made an error in any of my newsletters, please let me know. I only ask that you tell me why you disagree.