Perhaps the methodologies in the article itself are too abrasive (the specific conversation topics used), and I could see taking the side that, yeah, okay, ther

Perhaps the methodologies in the article itself are too abrasive (the specific conversation topics used), and I could see taking the side that, yeah, okay, there's some critique here. But the issue of not communicating for selfish ends seems, not possible. Isn't all conversation, in some form, selfish? You're wanting information from other people (how their day was, what they're interested in), you want to vent about a topic, you want to communicate something that excites yourself and feel a connection, you want to get information for certain actionable issues. Even a purely altruistic use of listening to someone in need has its own selfish motivations, to strengthen a friendship, or to feel good about helping someone else (why do we help people in the first place? Does it feel good to follow our own principles?). There's definitely a spectrum there, and us, trying to perceive someone else's intent, is the framing that would make it right/wrong.