Use This Next Time A Conversation Breaks Down

This is a framework I learned recently that I want to share with you. I call it the “Conversation Matrix”.

Many conversations break down because the conversants aren’t clear on what type of conversation they’re having, or what goal of the conversation even is.

There are four types of conversation - Dialogue, Debate, Discourse, and Diatribe.

A discourse is a 1-way, cooperative conversation whose goal is to deliver information. So if you make a how-to video on how to make crème brûlée, or play a character in League of Legends,, that’s a discourse.

A diatribe is a 1-way, competitive conversation whose goal is to convince people of a view. Often it involves expressing strong emotions, critiquing a viewpoint, or rallying people to a cause. Think of a political campaign ad.

A dialogue is a 2-way, cooperative conversation whose goal is to exchange information. The priority building connection to allow the easy sending and receiving of information. Podcasts like Joe Rogan Experience, or On Purpose by Jay Shetty are good examples of this.

A debate is a 2-way, competitive conversation, the goal of which is for one side to win over the other. We all know what that looks like.

Breakdowns in communication happen quickly when the conversants aren’t on the same page about what kind of conversation it is.

Take politics for example. Have you ever seen a conversation that was supposed to be a dialogue devolve into a debate? Often it's because at least one person got triggered and closed off to receiving new information.

Media bias is often a media outlet presenting themselves as engaging in a discourse (sharing information) when in fact they’re subtly engaging in a diatribe: they're trying to convince you of an opinion.

The art of conversation and conflict resolution is more than the content of the conversation - it’s understanding the context.

When we become emotional, we tend to lose sight of the context.

Conversations about abortion shift from dialogue to debate without the participants even realizing it happened: Suddenly people are pissed off and they don’t see how they got there.

Dialogues about media bias get derailed into diatribes about whether Trump or Kamala was right, and the core issue remains unaddressed.

Having an awareness of this framework can help you understand when a conversation is getting derailed, and fix it in real time.

Simply asking someone: “Hey, would you like this to be a debate, or a dialogue?” Can wake them up from the conversational quagmire they’ve unconsciously stumbled int,, and redirect you both onto firm ground.

Credit to David Angel for introducing me to this framework.

3 comments