Discussion about discussion

I am wondering, can there be more than one type of discussion? Is there? In your path have you ever been on a one sided discussion? On the giving end of one ? What type have you had personally. ? Have you experienced different types of discussion that harm? Have you been on the side of discussion that help? Have you given either ? May the Force continue to be with y’all - all and may we continue to find it in the seek.

There seems to be an obvious answer to this question. Of course there are various types of discussion. Discussions are undertaken for several reasons. To discuss dilemmas in which the participants explore a problem or situation of one or more moral or ethical concern. Discussions are undertaken to explore a present issue or problem. Ideas are discussed such as the root cause of a problem and how the issue or problem can be resolved. Philosophical differences between ideas can be discussed. New concepts or ideas can be explored and common misconceptions ferreted out as a form of research discussion. Exploring the individual meaning behind a topic is also very common.

These discussions take many forms. As a means of problem solving, a means to develop better arguments for either side, a way to define goals, find the effectiveness of methods, evolve thinking, self-reflection and evaluation and to develop critical thinking skills through welcomed critique. These sorts of investments build personal relationships with the subject matter and can take place in a multitude of forums including:

Committee or Conference - Relaxed and informal with a limited number of persons and no audience. It can be a way of issuing information, exchanging ideas, training or formulating policies.

Panel discussion - Three to six persons as the focus with the presence of audience. A panel leader conducts the discussion. The leader often encourages audience members to participate.

Symposium - Participants each deliver a speech that deals with an aspect of the subject matter. A moderator gives opening remarks about the subject that is going to be discussed before introducing the speakers. Audience members can ask questions after the speechs.

Lecture or Forum - An expert lecturers delivering a talk or a speech to an audience. Afterwards the audience can participate through an open forum.

Debate - a formal discussion on a particular topic in a public meeting or legislative assembly, in which opposing arguments are put forward

Role Play – A group discussion where participants are given specific roles to play in the backdrop of a given situation. Within the framework of their role, the participants have to solve the problems inherent in the situation given to them.


Of course we have all been involved in many of these forms and forums if not all over the years I would say. Anyone that has ever attended school, gone to a meeting, participated in the work force, joined a club, or had a family discussion has participated in many of these types of discussion. I don't see any discussion as ever being detrimental at all. Any form of communication in a format undertaken honestly in these forms is constructive.

Any ?
Edit
Ever been in a one sided conversation before ? On the giving end of one ? What type have you had personally. ? Have you experienced different types of discussion that harm? Have you been on the side of discussion that help? Have you given either ?

Carlos.Martinez3 wrote: Any ?
Edit
Ever been in a one sided conversation before ? On the giving end of one ? What type have you had personally. ? Have you experienced different types of discussion that harm? Have you been on the side of discussion that help? Have you given either ?

Sometimes listening is better than speaking and sometimes speaking is better than listening. The first allows the intake of knowledge and the second allows the dispersion of knowledge and a way to practice explaining your own thoughts and beliefs. I have personally had all types. No I cant see how any discussion can ever harm. Yes I believe free communication in all forms is a helpful process if you allow it to be. I have received and given all.

Care to elaborate ?

Carlos.Martinez3 wrote: Care to elaborate ?

I just did?

Kyrin Wyldstar wrote: No I cant see how any discussion can ever harm.

Not holding anything against you kyrin, but you need only open a history textbook to see MANY people come to harm over discussions over almost any issue. Heck with your military background you represented your entire country, as such you had to focus heavily on upholding one national perspective (even if you disagreed with it) within the international discussion, over multiple issues that can and will result in death and misery to people/groups with valid interpretations of the discussion.

Furthermore, it takes only one person/group to push their interpretation of the discussion forward and end up bringing much harm to others. For examples one may consider debates on global warming and the lack of focus by the superpowers like the US and PRC to fix the damage caused and how it has led to numerous individuals at risk of losing their livelihoods because of flooding, storms, etc. Or perhaps the valid (albeit extreme) interpretations on Islamic beliefs causing dozens of Terrorist groups to form and adopt lethal force as the discussion broke down and lead to the spreading of negative ideals that left 2,996 dead on 9/11 and hundreds of thousands more in a war on terror, which by definition was a "war on alternate opinions in a discussion".

Don't get me wrong, discussions are still arguably the best communication technique that help us provide and be provide with new knowledge like you said, but I for one cannot deny there are still negatives when talks break down, which happens at lot especially nowadays.

Other than that top notch answer

Discussion is often used as a front.

As often as not, one (or more) parties to a discussion have no interest in progress or negotiation or compromise - they either want to have the discussion to stand on a soap box (a one sided entry into what is supposed to be a multi-party discussion) or just so they can say "well I tried to have a discussion, but everyone else was unreasonable, and since unreasonable people are bad, I'm going to do what I want anyway, and now I have the moral high ground too"

I'm not negating any of the points brought up already, just adding another one - There is nothing inherently genuine about a "discussion" that makes it more noble than any other form of...engaging with opponents.

and there are just as many weapons you can bring to a discussion - they might not result in blood being spilled, but they do mean that an outcome of a discussion is, again, not necessarily more fair or just than that of trial by combat or rolling dice.

Committee or Conference - Relaxed and informal with a limited number of persons and no audience. It can be a way of issuing information, exchanging ideas, training or formulating policies.

Since I'm on a ramble - a committee or conference often does have any audience - it's the 90% of people in the room who don't have an agenda, or have an agenda that is not related to the subject of the conference. The discussion is usually between a few parties with a vested interested in the issue, and everyone else is either impartial, or unpleasantly called to vote on the spot on issues they don't necessarily understand.

A wise response James, I often see a gun or atom bomb to be an extension of one's ability to dominate, to control. With words one can turn someone to their side whereas with a weapon all you can do is kill or maim or frighten. The phrase "the pen is mightier than the sword" is definitely true in literature, but in my mind the greatest item we have at our disposal is our voice, be it for good or evil the masters of speech who do not default to the moral high ground can get things done.

We see many forms of discussion everywhere and in one stroke a simple idea that discussion is discussion. There are certainly many classifications of discussions. However, like anything we as humans try to place as an absolute classification, they are absolutely all different at the same time. Take a tiger for example. Each has different stripes, but that is not the end of the individual differences in each. Behavior, location, hunting strategies; even with all these differences each is still considered a tiger by an understanding of the vast majority of those classifying that this large cat is identified as a tiger.

Interestingly enough to me classifying discussion is an interesting concept in itself, because each discussion had by a group of people tend to share multiple characteristics of other types of discussion. Whether in error by those participating or by simple nature of interaction. This said each discussion an individual takes part in will most likely change the nature or classification of discussions previously had as each is an individual experience. Second to this each individual involved will often classify the discussion differently, while at the same time the objective individual not involved will classify it as wholly a different thing. It is why we may see simple introductions or statements turn to debates, which may turn to sharing of knowledge on one hand, or suppression of it depending on the view of the individual.

James, nail meet hammer, that is a good way of putting my personal experiences with almost every governing and corporate body I have interacted with.

There are always one sided discussions, some may be listening but not hear (having a predetermined response in mind) while others are hearing but not listening, (winging a reply, but with a lean towards a preconceived notion that may in fact be irrelevant to the actual message being delivered.)

Just a few cents I have on this.

Much Love, Respect and Peace,
Kobos