---
title: Two interpretations of discussions without results
date: 2014-04-19
tags: [discussion]
description: From my mathematics classes at university, I am familiar with discussions that are about very abstract problems with hardly any personal opinions involved. Political discussions are very different. I would like to offer two interpretations of such discussions.
---

> Always remember that to argue, and win, is to break down the reality of the
> person you are arguing against. It is painful to lose your reality, so be
> kind, even if you are right. -- Haruki Murakami

From my mathematics classes at university, I am familiar with discussions that
are havily oriented towards producing results. The situation is as follows: Two
people together try to find a solution to a clearly defined problem. When one
person has an idea for a solution, a form of role play unfolds: The first
person tries to defend their position while the second person tries to refute
it. Through this role play, the thesis is intensively tested for its weaknesses
and can be quickly discarded if necessary. The players do not represent their
actual opinion, but rather slip into roles to facilitate an efficient
discussion that actually yields results.

However, the example just given is about very abstract problems with hardly any
personal opinions involved. Political discussions are very different. People
are much more affected and are therefore less willing to back down from their
position once taken. I would like to offer two (not mutually exclusive)
interpretations of such discussions. Which interpretation we chose can
significantly influence how we evaluate a discussion.

I use a simplified notion of "political discussion" here. I take it to mean a
situation in which two people have different opinions and (at least
superficially) try to resolve their disagreement. Furthermore, based on my
experience I assume that the resolution sought very rarely takes place because
the people involved are unwilling to back down from their positions.

The first interpretation states that changing one's opinion during the
discussion is actually not desirable. If a person has actively formed their
opinion, it is embedded in a closely interwoven worldview. Thus, the opinion
cannot easily be changed without creating obvious inconsistencies. The
discussion can at best be an impulse for a longer process.

The second interpretation follows on from the above example: It also assumes
that the participants are role-playing. This time, however, the aim is not to
be able to discard a false thesis as quickly as possible. Instead, both sides
stick to their initial thesis, but hone their arguments on each other. The
theses are increasingly sharpened, weak arguments are dropped and gradually a
clear line of conflict emerges, the "core conflict". As with the first
interpretation, I assume here that most reflection takes place only after the
end of the discussion.

These two interpretations of seemingly inconclusive political discussions
indicate that agreement need not be the only goal of a discussion. If
individual learning is brought into focus, even inconclusive discussions can be
seen as successes.

In addition, the idea of role play can help to separate the personal level from
the content level so that a lively discussion does not turn into a personal
conflict.