Practicing Dialogue

From Wikiversity
Jump to navigation Jump to search

—Thinking Together

Introduction[edit | edit source]

Two people practicing dialogue

We have suddenly gone beyond ordinary conversation and are now beginning to listen, truly understand, learn from each other, and create together as we communicate candidly. We are thinking together, meaning now flows freely, and we are learning from the transformation that is dialogue.


The objectives of this course are to:

  • Recognize various forms of communication.
  • Understand the benefits of using dialogue to communicate.
  • Learn to use dialogue as your preferred method of communication.
  • Experience a synthesis and interweaving of ideas.
  • Gain insight as you dialogue with others.
Completion status: this resource is considered to be complete.
Attribution: User lbeaumont created this resource and is actively using it. Please coordinate future development with this user if possible.

The course contains many hyperlinks to further information. Use your judgment and these link following guidelines to decide when to follow a link, and when to skip over it.

This course is part of the Applied Wisdom curriculum. This material has been adapted from the page on dialogue, with permission of the author.

If you wish to contact the instructor, please click here to send me an email or leave a comment or question on the discussion page.

Dialogue is Distinct[edit | edit source]

Dialogue is the creative thinking together that can emerge when genuine empathetic listening, respect for all participants, safety, peer relationships, suspending judgment, sincere inquiry, courageous speech, and discovering and disclosing assumptions work together to guide our conversations. It is an activity of curiosity, cooperation, creativity, discovery, and learning rather than persuasion, competition, fear, and conflict. Dialogue is the only symmetrical form of communication. Dialogue emerges from trusting relationships.

Dialogue is a form of conversation that is distinct from discussion, debate, distraction, dismissal, delegation, disingenuous, diatribe, and dogma because dialogue is the only form of communication where the participants act as authentic peers. All other forms of communication emphasize a power relationship that interferes with the synthesis, analysis, and interweaving of ideas that characterize dialogue. Dialogue is driven by genuine curiosity and respect rather than by power. Deliberation describes a period of thought and reflection that can take place during any conversation. Rapport is a close synonym to dialogue.

Assignment[edit | edit source]

  • Listen to conversations and various other communications such as advertisement, advocacy, opinions, debates, etc.
  • As you are listening, identify the form of communication according to the power relationships being displayed. Name the form of communications as being: dialogue, discussion, debate, defense, distraction, dismissal, delegation, disingenuous, dialectic, decree, diatribe, or dogma.
  • View the video The solution is in the dialogue, by Peter Nixon presented April 2014 at TEDxHKUST
  • How often do you witness skillful dialogue?

Toward Dialogue[edit | edit source]

The goal of dialogue is insight, the goal of argumentation is often winning at the expense of insight. Specific attitudes, beliefs, and behaviors can move us toward dialogue or away from it, toward dichotomy and fragmentation. The following table characterizes the distinctions:

Toward Dialogue Toward Dichotomy
Authentic curiosity, discovery, and disclosure. Revealing information, assumptions, and doubts. Done with others. I, thou. Disingenuous manipulation, secrecy, and persuasion. Disguising and defending assumptions and doubts. Maintaining distance through a polite façade or direct confrontation. Done to others. I, it.
Cooperation and genuine respect. Peer relationships; equality. Trust and safety. Candor. Willing collaborators. Competition, criticism, and dismissal. Displaying power; coercion. Distrust and danger.
Insight. Insult.
Assume Positive Intent. Combative, competitive, malicious intent, seeking revenge, getting even, retaliation.
Principle of charity. Attack, gotcha, strawman.
Listening to understand. Empathy. Listening to respond and rebut; reloading. Apathy.
Intellectual honesty. Motivated reasoning.
Exploring, examining, innovating, insight. Inquiry. Making and scoring points. I win, you lose. Advocacy.
Choosing to explore; inventing new ideas, creating, learning, thinking. Choosing to ignore; defending old postures, thoughts, and assumptions.
Scout mindset—Reasoning is like mapmaking. Decide what to believe by asking “Is this true?” Seek out evidence that will make your map more accurate.[1] Soldier mindset—Reasoning is like defensive combat. Decide what to believe by asking either “Can I believe this?” or “Must I believe this?” depending on your motives. Seek out evidence to fortify and defend your beliefs.
Reality is our common ground. Let's seek it together. Reality is what I say it is. Listen to me.
Abandoning reason is an act of violence. Win at all costs.
Synthesis, combination, alternative viewpoints, integration, coherence, new possibilities. Collective intelligence. Building up, feeling constructive. Polarized, dichotomous thinking. Fragmentation and incoherence. Focusing on fears. Anxiety. Arrogance. Tearing down, feeling destructive.
Appreciative inquiry. Shared inquiry. Seeking the strengths and possibilities in the other's ideas. Discernment. Criticism. Searching for flaws and weakness in the other's ideas. Judgment.
Deferring closure to allow complete understanding, agreement, and enduring support. Closing quickly to solidify your position.
Identifying faulty reasoning, information, inconsistencies, or assumptions. Willing to give up ground. Attacking the person. Taking ground.
Seeking an inclusive viewpoint; valuing and accommodating diversity. Revealing assumptions and discrepancies. Advocating a one-sided point of view; valuing conformance. Defending a point of view and the assumptions it encompasses.
I can learn from you. Inclusiveness. Our doubts help to cleanse our truths. I am right, just listen to me. Be reasonable, do it my way. Resistance is futile.
Courageous speech. Candor. Serial monologue, harangue, attacks, bloviation, obfuscation, equivocation, posturing, rehashing, gossip, small talk, party line, and idle chatter.
Balance of advocacy and inquiry. Advocacy displaces inquiry.
Comfortable with complexity and subtlety while seeking elegance. Simplistic.
Together we can seek the truth. Let's journey together to find it. I know the truth. It's my way or the highway.
Essence; a journey to the center of the being. Curiosity and flow. Image. Fear, anxiety, and anger.
Initial doubts leading to enduring certainty. Initial certainty leading to enduring doubts.

Dialogue is more subtle and cooperative than discussion or debate. However, as a minimum, participants in dialogue must adhere to the rules for a critical discussion.

Another minimum standard for dialogue are Rapoport's Rules, as restated here by Daniel Dennett:[2]

  1. You should attempt to re-express your target’s position so clearly, vividly, and fairly that your target says, “Thanks, I wish I’d thought of putting it that way." This is called steelmanning the argument.
  2. You should list any points of agreement (especially if they are not matters of general or widespread agreement).
  3. You should mention anything you have learned from your target.
  4. Only then are you permitted to say so much as a word of rebuttal or criticism.

Yet another technique for discovering common ground is for each participant to answer these questions:

  1. What about your dialogue partner's position appeals to you?
  2. What about your own position troubles you?

Please keep in mind that in dialogue the only target is insight.

Balance Inquiry and Advocacy[edit | edit source]

The four essential skills of dialogue.
The four essential skills of dialogue.

Dialogue requires the skillful use of four distinct practices to balance inquiry—seeking to understand—and advocacy—being understood. These can achieve the rhythm of respiration, first inhaling the ideas of others and later exhaling expression of your new ideas. These four skills: listen, suspend, respect, and voice appear in the diagram on the right and are described more fully below.

Listening to understand: Hear their words; learn their meaning. What is the person saying? What ideas do they want to get across? What are they feeling now? What is important to them? What does this mean for them? What is not being heard? Why? What is their truth? How can I connect with them? What can I learn from them? What have I been missing? What are we all missing? How can this new information change my point of view? Who is not being heard? What are the inconsistencies, dilemmas, and paradoxes? What new frame of reference can provide coherence? Concentrate on direct observation, stick to the facts, dismiss your old thoughts and assumptions, stay in their moment, hear their story, and defer interpretation. Listen without resistance as you notice your own resistance. Notice how you are reacting. Be still; stay silent inwardly and outwardly.

Suspending judgment: Defer your certainty while you explore doubt and new possibilities. Stop, step back, adopt a new point of view, and reflect from this new vantage point. Frame up—adopt a broader reference frame. Allow inquiry to displace certainty. Embrace your ignorance. Be willing to disclose your own doubts. Acknowledge what you don't know and don't understand. What am I missing? What am I protecting? Reject polarized thinking. Hold your tongue and defer forming opinions, jumping to conclusions, quick fixes, and assigning blame. Become aware of your inner reaction, but don't react outwardly. Have the discipline to hold the tension within yourself while you silently examine and reflect on it. Remain curious. Identify and examine your assumptions and theirs. Work to understand how this problem works, how has it arisen? Cope constructively with your fears and anger. Do not attribute motive or intent. Don't yet agree or disagree while you remain curious and reflect. Defer and dismiss conclusions, explore alternative meanings and motives, integrate these new ideas with the whole, and seek congruence.

Respecting all: Attribute positive motives and constructive intent to each participant. Appreciate all that is good about them, all that you share in common with them, and all they can contribute. Acknowledge the dignity, legitimacy, worth, and humanity of the person speaking. Allow for differing viewpoints and learn all you can from them. Examine the origins within your self of any tendency you have to disrespect participants. Resist your temptation to blame. Remain humble and accept that they can teach us and we can learn from them. Attain and appreciate their viewpoint; do not attack, intrude, deny, dismiss, dispute, or discount their comments. Banish violence.

Speaking your voice: Contribute your insight to advance the dialogue. Be patient and gather your own clear thoughts before you speak with candor; clearly, directly, and authentically. What is most important to express now? Offer your insights. Share how you feel, what you don't know, and your own doubts and concerns. Speak courageously from your own authentic voice. Avoid sarcasm, barbs, attacks, insults, reification, and condescension. Inquire and ask only genuine questions arising out of curiosity and not belligerence. Test assumptions. Speak in the first person from your actual experiences. Speak your truth.

Dialogue is a dynamic process that requires a delicate balance. Inquiry—seeking new understanding—combines the skills of listening while suspending judgment to gain a deeper and newer understanding. This is balanced by advocacy—seeking to be understood. Advocacy combines respect for all participants with the courage to speak your voice, share your insights, and advance the dialogue toward a new understanding of the whole. Dialogue requires a balance between the analysis of inquiry and the action of advocacy. Inquiry and analysis alternate in balance with advocacy and action. The diagram illustrates a spiral path that encourages dialogue to emerge. Beginning with listening, we then suspend and reflect, respect others, and then speak our voice before resuming our listening. The dialogue advances the group toward the whole at the center as the participants think together.

Dynamic Roles[edit | edit source]

Family therapist David Kantor describes four distinct roles that dialogue participants adopt dynamically as the dialogue proceeds:

Dynamic roles during dialogue.
Dynamic roles during dialogue.

Move: Initiate action to move the dialogue in a particular direction. Set a direction and provide clarity.

Follow: Support, amplify, or derive a similar direction suggested by the preceding move.

Oppose: Raise an objection to highlight possible problems or point out what may not be quite right with the current direction.

Bystand: Propose a new way of thinking, a new viewpoint, a new reference frame, or a new direction that bypasses, transcends, or overcomes the temporary deadlock, expands the thinking of the group, and shows the way toward further progress. Provide perspective and encourage reflection.

All four roles are required to move the dialogue along. People fill one of the roles temporarily as the conversation needs each particular type of contribution to move forward. Each role takes into account the variety of viewpoints already expressed, incorporating much of the information that has been suspended during the dialogue. The roles are dynamic, the person who opposed in one instance may move in another or bystand later on. All four roles are necessary. Without a move, there is no direction. Without the follow there is no momentum. Without the opposition, there is no critical thinking and correction, and without the bystanders, deadlocks persist and there is no breakthrough to new understanding.

Conversation groups that do not achieve dialogue often get stuck in a move-oppose cycle that repeats without making progress.

The maze shown at the right illustrates how the four roles work together to move the group toward the shared central understanding; the whole at the center. The move gets thing started and the follow helps keep things going. However progress seems stalled when it encounters opposition. After considering all viewpoints, the bystander suggests a novel path for the group to continue along.

Matters of Fact[edit | edit source]

Facts deserve a seat at the table during any dialogue. Therefore, it is important to carefully distinguishing among: 1) matters of fact, 2) matters of preference, or 3) matters of controversy throughout each dialogue.

Statements can be classified as one of the following three types:[3]

  1. Matters of fact. These statements can be assessed and verified through the correct use of evidence gathering, and reasoning. A correct statement can be made with conviction. These statements declare “what is” and careful researchers agree on the answer. Examples include: The boiling point of water is 100° Centigrade, gold is denser than lead, and the movie Spotlight won Best Picture in 2016. Notice the use of “is” to convey certainty in these statements. Do not argue matters of fact, research them instead.
  2. Matters of taste, preference, or opinion. Any claim is acceptable here, because the statement depends only on the preferences of the person making it. Examples include: I feel that purple is the most beautiful color, I prefer chocolate ice-cream to vanilla ice-cream, and I believe that Rembrandt was a better artist than Picasso. Notice the use of “prefer”, “feel”, and “believe” to convey a personal preference. Do not argue matters of preference, enjoy them.
  3. Matters of controversy. Although these are not opinions, sincere experts often disagree on the best answer or the best course of action. These statements propose “what ought to be” or they ask about a topic that is not yet fully and carefully explored or researched. Examples include: I believe the most pressing problem facing the world today is the lack of clean safe drinking water for all people, I think the best approach to reducing gun violence is to require comprehensive background checks for all gun purchases, and I believe incarceration rates are too high in the US. Notice the use of “believe” and “think” to convey personal positions here. Learn more about matters of controversy by exploring them with dialogue and the Socratic Method.

Assignment[edit | edit source]

  1. Read this essay on the Height of the Eiffel Tower.
  2. Read over this list of questions to classify.
  3. Identify at least five of these questions in each of the following classifications: 1) matters of fact, 2) matters of preference, or 3) matters of controversy,
  4. During dialogue notice the verbs used by you and your partner to convey degrees of certainly and conviction. These include: “is”, “prefer”, “feel”, “believe”, “think”, and others. Ensure the verb chosen corresponds to the degree of certainty and conviction of the statement being made. Address, explore, and correct and mismatches.
  5. If the dialogue encounters disagreement on matters of fact, agree to research the fact and come to an agreement on the fact before continuing the dialogue. Expect you and your dialogue partner to converge on matters of fact as a result of consilience. If you are unable to converge on matters of fact, begin to explore the differences in your theories of knowledge that may be leading you toward differing conclusions.
  6. Complete the Wikiversity course on Finding Common Ground. Find common ground.
  7. Use agreements on matters of fact as a common basis for you and your dialogue partner to move the dialogue forward.
  8. If the dialogue encounters disagreement on matters of taste, note the differences and continue the dialogue without requiring resolution of this disagreement. There is no correct resolution of matters of taste.
  9. Only matters of controversy are within the useful realm of dialogue. Direct the dialogue toward these matters of controversy to move toward insights and learning together.
  10. Complete the course on Facing Facts.

Obstacles[edit | edit source]

Dialogue is easily spooked. There are many common obstacles that prevent dialogue from emerging. Removing sources of fear, suspending the exercise of power, eliminating external influences, removing distractions, and providing excellent communication conditions can all promote dialogue.

Fear[edit | edit source]

Fear prevents dialogue. People are often afraid to trust other participants, consider new ideas, and open up to the new possibilities that dialogue requires. People hold back and fail to participate fully and genuinely because of their fears. Suspending judgment is often an act of courage. Remaining open to new ideas; doubting, questioning, or abandoning beliefs you have held for many years, adopting a new viewpoint, releasing attachments, hearing someone for the first time, abandoning the status quo, thinking in a new way, allowing for change, acknowledging your old habits and beliefs, abandoning your stubbornness, admitting you don't know or don't understand, admitting you may have been wrong, exposing vulnerabilities, anticipating the ramifications and future consequences of new ideas and agreements, becoming authentic rather than merely polite; and confronting assumptions, issues, and people, can all be scary. These obstacles require courage to overcome. Speaking truth to power and challenging the opinions and beliefs of others requires courage. Finding your voice requires courageous thinking. Speaking your voice requires courageous action. Have the courage to dialogue.

Notice the relative salience of curiosity and fear. Seek to attain and sustain curiosity. Identify and remove obstacles to curiosity. Notice when fear arises and displaces curiosity. Pause the conversation to note the emergence of fear, identify its causes, resolve the issues motivating the fear, and return to curiosity and dialogue.

External Constraints[edit | edit source]

Dialogue requires autonomy. Speaking your voice requires thinking for yourself and making your own decisions. Dialogue requires adopting an internal locus of control and rejecting an external locus of control. Repeating the opinion of others, deferring your own judgment to someone outside the room, appealing to the views of your chosen experts or luminaries, defending a special interest, holding conflicting interests, running a secret agenda, reciting dogma, remaining star struck, going along to get along, deferring to fate or luck, or introducing external constraints such as “my boss requires . . .” or “everybody knows. . .” all prevent you from making your own decisions and speaking your own voice. Shed these external constraints so you can think for yourself, represent yourself, speak for yourself, and participate in the dialogue. Speak in the first person about your own experiences, opinions, and beliefs.

Distractions[edit | edit source]

Dialogue requires focus. Multitasking seems to be emerging as the new status symbol. But dialogue is hard work that requires your full and present attention. Listening for meaning requires focus and full attention. Suspending judgment requires self discipline. Speaking your voice requires presence and thoughtfulness. Respect often requires patience and cannot be rushed. Reading mail, talking on the phone, text messaging, surfing the net, side conversations, watching the clock, preparing for the next meeting, writing notes, showboating, or wishing you were elsewhere are all distractions that will prevent you from fully participating in dialogue. Your lack of attention and concern also distracts others and may prevent them from participating in dialogue. Either focus your full and undivided attention on the conversation, or leave the room. Expect this focus of the others.

Poor Communications[edit | edit source]

Dialogue requires careful, detailed, delicate, and nuanced communications. Poor room acoustics, physical distance, language differences, accents, jargon, local vernacular, unfamiliar vocabulary, cultural differences, unshared abstractions, logical fallacies, intentional and unintentional distortions, hearing difficulties, and poor sound systems can all prevent dialogue from emerging. Collocated participants in a private room free of distractions sitting comfortably in a circle where everyone can easily see and hear everyone else promotes communication that can help dialogue emerge. If language differences exist, then effective translation services, including cross-cultural translations, are required.

Bad faith actors[edit | edit source]

Practicing dialogue requires both parties to act in good faith. Work to ensure that each participant intends to do their best to remain intellectually honest and abide by the dialogue guidelines described above. However, it is difficult to predict another’s behavior until the dialogue is underway, and you may encounter tricks used in bad faith to undermine the integrity of the dialogue in an attempt to “win the argument”. One trick is called the Gish gallop. This is a rhetorical technique in which a person in a debate attempts to overwhelm their opponent by providing an excessive number of arguments with no regard for the accuracy or strength of those arguments.

Mehdi Hasan suggests using these three steps to beat the Gish gallop: [4]

  1. Because there are too many falsehoods to address, it is wise to choose one as an example. Choose the one weakest, dumbest, most ludicrous argument that the opponent has presented and tear this one argument to shreds. This is called the weak point rebuttal.
  2. Don’t budge from this issue. Don’t move on from this issue until you have destroyed the nonsense and clearly and decisively made your point.
  3. Call it out, name the strategy. “This is a strategy called the ‘Gish Gallop’, don’t be fooled by the flood of nonsense you have just heard.”

Avoid entering into a debate with someone who is likely to use the Gish gallop.

Getting Unstuck[edit | edit source]

Even skillful dialogue can get stuck when It enters areas of high conflict. Journalist Amanda Ripley recommends “Complicating the Narratives”[5] to add complexity, encourage a range of emotions to flow, allow curiosity to displace fear, invite the conversation to go deeper, and continue the dialogue.

She suggests continuing the dialogue by asking one or more of these questions:

  • What is oversimplified about this issue?
  • How has this conflict affected your life?
  • What do you think the other side wants?
  • What’s the question nobody is asking?
  • What do you and your supporters need to learn about the other side in order to understand them better?
  • Tell me more.

Counterfactual Questions[edit | edit source]

Many beliefs, biases, and unkind stereotypes, although strongly held, are formed arbitrarily. The arbitrary basis for many such beliefs can be exposed, and often revised or dislodged, by posing counterfactual questions.[6]

For example, during dialogue ask questions like these as appropriate:

  • If you were born in a different place, would you still hold that belief?
    • If you grew up in New York City instead of Boston, would you be a Yankee’s fan rather than a Red Sox fan?
    • If you were born in a different country, would you practice a different religion?
      • How would your beliefs differ?
    • If you were born in a different country, would your patriotism be to another country?
      • Would you be fighting on the other side of this war?
  • Would you hold different beliefs if you:
    • grew up poor;
    • were born disabled;
    • were born another race;
    • were born another sex;
    • were obese;
    • were unattractive;
    • grew up on a farm rather than in the city;
    • chose different friends;
    • had different parents;
    • were an orphan;
    • became fatally ill;
    • spoke a different language;
    • won the lottery;
    • lived 1,000 years ago; or
    • worked in a different job?

How would your beliefs be different?

Why would your beliefs be different?

What is the basis for your current beliefs?

If you can get people to pause and reflect on the origins of their beliefs, they might decide that it is irrational to apply group stereotypes to individuals, or to hold strongly to arbitrarily formed beliefs.

Recovering Dialogue[edit | edit source]

Because dialogue is fragile, conversations that begin as dialogue can shift their tone and become argumentative. Take care to notice when this happens, pause the conversation to announce this shift and restore the dialogue.

The shift often occurs when curiosity yields to fear.

Throughout each dialogue session:

  1. Periodically notice the tone of the conversation to determine if the rules of dialogue are being followed.
  2. If you notice a slip away from dialogue toward debate or other argumentative forms of communication, interrupt and pause the conversation. A request such as “Let’s take a break here to examine our dialogue skills in action” may provide an effective transition.
  3. Describe the shift in conversational tone that you have noticed. It may be helpful to identify specific dialogue characteristics that are missing, or the argumentative characteristics that have appeared. This conversation may be contentious. Cite specific examples such as “When you said X, were you speaking from curiosity or from power? (pause here to allow a thoughtful answer) Were you seeking insight or trying to win an argument? (pause) Were you assuming my positive intent, or becoming combative?”
  4. Ask that these argumentative behaviors be abandoned. Resolve to return to the goal of insight rather than winning. Allow this topic to be discussed if this helps identify the characteristics that distinguish dialogue from argumentation. It may be helpful to explore the prevailing temperaments of the participants to determine if conditions are suitable for continuing dialogue.
  5. It may be helpful to take a short break to reflect on what happened, improve your dialogue skills, strengthen your relationship, reaffirm your intent to continue dialogue, and sharpen your ability to notice when and how the dialogue transformed.
  6. Resume the dialogue from some place before it became argumentative.
  7. Continue to monitor the tone of communication and pause if argumentation arises again.
  8. Use these Phrases for managing conversations throughout the process.

Success Stories[edit | edit source]

The power of dialogue has achieved some successful solutions to very difficult problems. Here are some examples:

Assignment[edit | edit source]

  1. Learn the distinctive skills of dialogue.
  2. Remove the obstacles described above.
  3. Assemble and engage the stakeholders.
  4. Create the space, increase safety, build trust, level power, defer decision making, demonstrate empathy.
  5. Invite the group to do something truly important, and then
  6. stand back.

Allow an important dialogue to emerge as meaning begins to flow.

Optional Assignment[edit | edit source]

  1. Read the essay From Demagoguery to Dialogue
  2. Stay alert for opportunities to intervene in a discussion gone bad, stop the action, ask for fact checking, remind the discussants of the rules for dialogue, and encourage the discussants to practice dialogue.

Further Reading[edit | edit source]

Students interested in learning more about dialogue may be interested in the following materials:

  • Yankelovich, Daniel (September 5, 2001). The Magic of Dialogue: Transforming Conflict into Cooperation. Touchstone. pp. 240. ISBN 978-0684865669. 
  • Isaacs, William (September 14, 1999). Dialogue: The Art Of Thinking Together. Crown Business. pp. 448. ISBN 978-0385479998. 
  • Bohm, David. On Dialogue. Routledge. pp. 144. ISBN 978-0415336413. 
  • de Bono, Edward (August 18, 1999). Six Thinking Hats. Back Bay Books. pp. 192. ISBN 978-0316178310. 
  • Runion, Meryl (December 31, 2003). How to Use Power Phrases to Say What You Mean, Mean What You Say, & Get What You Want. McGraw-Hill Education. pp. 224. 
  • Fisher, Roger; Ury, William L. (December 1, 1991). Getting to Yes: Negotiating Agreement Without Giving In. Penguin Books. pp. 200. ISBN 978-0140157352. 
  • Ury, William (February 27, 2007). The Power of a Positive No: How to Say No and Still Get to Yes. Bantam. pp. 272. ISBN 978-0553804980. 
  • Fisher, Roger; Shapiro, Daniel (October 6, 2005). Beyond Reason: Using Emotions as You Negotiate. Viking Adult. pp. 256. ISBN 978-0670034505. 
  • Miller, William R.; Rollnick, Stephen (April 12, 2002). Motivational Interviewing: Preparing People for Change, 2nd Edition. The Guilford Press. pp. 428. ISBN 978-1572305632. 
  • Frankfurt, Harry G. (January 30, 2005). On Bullshit. Princeton University Press. pp. 67. ISBN 978-0691122946. 
  • Galtung, Johan (July 1, 2004). Transcend and Transform: An Introduction to Conflict Work. Routledge. pp. 200. ISBN 978-1594510632. 
  • Friedman, Maurice S. (November 10, 2002). Martin Buber: The Life of Dialogue. Routledge. pp. 432. ISBN 978-0415284752. 
  • Galef, Julia (April 13, 2021). The Scout Mindset: Why Some People See Things Clearly and Others Don't. pp. 288. ISBN 978-0735217553. 
  • Briskin, Alan (October 1, 2009). The Power of Collective Wisdom: And the Trap of Collective Folly. Berrett-Koehler Publishers. pp. 220. ISBN 978-1576754450. 
  • Grant, Adam. Think Again: The Power of Knowing What You Don't Know. Viking. pp. 320. ISBN 978-1984878106. 
  • How to have better political conversations, TED Talk, September 2016, Robb Willer
  • Dialogue And Exchange, TED Radio Hour program, Friday October 27, 2017
  • Free yourself from your filter bubbles, TED Talk, November 2017, Joan Blades and John Gable

I have not yet read the following books, but they seem interesting and relevant. They are listed here to invite further research.

References[edit | edit source]

  1. Galef, Julia (April 13, 2021). The Scout Mindset: Why Some People See Things Clearly and Others Don't. pp. 288. ISBN 978-0735217553. 
  2. Dennett, Daniel C. (May 5, 2014). Intuition Pumps And Other Tools for Thinking. W. W. Norton & Company. pp. 512. ISBN 978-0393348781.  Chapter 3
  3. Paul, Richard; Elder, Linda (December 5, 2014). Thinker's Guide to the Art of Socratic Questioning (Thinker's Guide Library),. Foundation for Critical Thinking. pp. 134. ISBN 978-0944583319.  Three Kinds of Questions.
  4. Mehdi Hasan, Stay Tuned with Preet, Debating 101, March 16, 2023.
  5. Complicating the Narratives, June 27, 2018, Solutions Journalism, Amanda Ripley.
  6. Grant, Adam. Think Again: The Power of Knowing What You Don't Know. Viking. pp. 320. ISBN 978-1984878106. , Chapter 6.