Why Discussions Don't Go Well

Many people, both at work and at home, say, "If we just talk it out properly, we can solve it."
However, in reality, there are many cases where the more people talk, the more hostile things become. For some reason, no conclusion is reached. The conversation goes in circles. Even though you didn't intend to yell, your voice gets louder. And in the end, everyone moodily nods, saying, "Let's just stop talking about this for now."
Even though no one is convinced, it ends as if they were.

This is not just a "common human relationship issue."
It is an almost inevitable phenomenon caused by the absence of structure.

To begin with, what does "discussing" actually refer to?
Many people vaguely think it means "exchanging opinions and finding a compromise somewhere." However, there is one fundamental misunderstanding in this way of thinking. It is the illusion that "if you have opinions, you should be able to adjust them naturally."

In reality, opinions are just raw stones that will only clash if there are no rules for "how to present them." Unless there is a "structure" for the progression—such as in what order, with what tone, and how to evaluate the opinions presented—a discussion cannot be established.a discussion cannot be established without a "structure" for the progression.

For example, suppose you are asked, "What do you think about this matter?"
At this moment, many people start by stating their "conclusion." However, another person might try to explain the "background" or "information" first. As a result, the two people's conversation will never align, no matter how long they talk.

This is becausethey are misaligned on "which level of the conversation they are talking about".

Moreover, the troublesome part is that this misalignment is difficult to recognize at the speed of conversation.
In other words, a situation occurs where "the words are understood, but the meaning is missed."

The reason people get tired during discussions is that they are unconsciously using energy onmisunderstandings caused by "level misalignment" rather than a conflict of opinions.

For example, the opinion "Let's increase advertising to boost sales" and the opinion "We should protect our brand value in the first place" may look like they are on the same discussion table, but they actually have different "levels of premise." One is a "tactical level" discussion, and the other is a "philosophical level" discussion.

If you treat these two in parallel, the conversation will not mesh. However,you cannot definitively say that either one is "misaligned". That is why it is even more confusing.

To resolve such structural discrepancies, you need the perspective of "drawing a map of the discussion before stating your opinion."

In other words,just by clarifying "which phase I am talking about now: 1) background, 2) hypothesis, or 3) solution," the precision of the conversation will improve dramatically.

This task might feel tedious. However,if you consider conversation to be "traffic control for meaning," it is actually a natural preparation.

Discussions don't go well because the participants' thinking layers are crossed. Yet, repeating "let's talk more properly" is now counterproductive.

What is needed is not the amount of language. It is the "introduction of structure" to align the coordinate system of thought.

For example, just by saying at the beginning, "What we are deciding in this meeting today is only the 'overall direction'," many conversations will become streamlined.
By saying, "Detailed numbers and methods will be discussed separately at a later date," the range of the discussion is shared.

This is like a "map" for a discussion.
If you walk without a map, no matter how correct what you say is, someone will get lost.

The true nature of the feeling that "we are having a discussion, but we don't understand each other at all" is,
in fact, an extremely logical flaw: "the structure of the discussion is not being shared."

If you align the structure, you won't feel anxious even if your opinions differ.
This is because you can see "where you are diverging."

Isn't the sharing of that perspective the essence of discussion?
Conversely, a discussion without structure is nothing more than a clash of "feelings."

To you, who are exhausted from clashing words, I want you to remember this.
That sense of discomfort is not your fault; it is likely due to the "structure."

I have started a new series #StructuralAnalysisSeries. I intend to dissect the structures of those fuzzy, frustrating parts of daily life. I would appreciate it if you could press the ❤ button to support me.