This is great. I would extend the things discussed in the article. 1. Not everyone participates in a conversation for the same reasons. Some are here for ratio

This is great. I would extend the things discussed in the article. 1. Not everyone participates in a conversation for the same reasons. Some are here for rational purposes, others emotional purposes e.g. Getting an answer vs feeling accepted. Neither of these are wrong but being aware of that makes empathizing and filtering easier. We are social creatures and nothing we do happens in a vacuum. 2. Being right and useful is a core part of many peoples identity. If we can't contribute in a relevant way and be right, we'll often contribute in an irrelevant way so that we can be right. Our reasons for participation are largely emotional. 3. Communicating purpose is hard. Giving people the information and context required to decide when and how to act appropriately is hard. We often skip it e.g. in the discussion covered in the article at no time was the purpose covered. Why are we stating these things? It's not culturally standard and perhaps next to impossible to do but starting a conversation by: - Clearly stating the purpose. - Clearly stating your view points. - Considering what you want to get out of the conversation. - Considering what information, arguments or data would be needed to change your mind (if you are willing to change your mind). Would help make discussions be more effective. I wrote something about this a few years ago if anyone is interested to read: https://medium.com/@ioverthoughtthis/how-to-have-an-effective-debate-bb955c2c54fd https://medium.com/@ioverthoughtthis/how-to-have-an-effectiv...