Conversation outcome = 1. Mindset * 2. Messaging * 3. Message

By Duncan Anderson. To see all blogs click here.

Reading time: 5 mins

Summary: Conversation outcome = 1. Mindset * 2. Messaging * 3. Message

• 1. Positive Sum Conversation Mindset = 1.1 What did I learn? + 1.2 How does the other person feel? 

• 2. Messaging = 2.1 Empathy * 2.2 Word choice * 2.3 Confidence

• 3. Message = 3.1 Quality ideas + 3.2 Ideas put forward ‘like a scientist’ + 3.3 Not committing any logic fallacies

• Jingle: Getting good at conversations ≈ Getting good at life

+++++++++++

Details

1. Positive Sum Conversation Mindset = 1.1 What did I learn? + 1.2 How does the other person feel?

• Please read the blog link if you would like more info.

 2. Messaging = 2.1 Empathy * 2.2 Word choice * 2.3 Confidence

• I’ve found that messaging is hard to do well. But even if you do messaging well, if you don't have a positive sum conversation mindset then you are likely pushing sh!t uphill… and we haven’t even gotten onto message yet! 

• Empathy = 1. Understand how the other is feeling + 2. Have the other believe you understand how they are feeling

  • In some respects, empathy is the opposite of narcissism. 

  • I believe one key part of a good conversation outcome is to have someone feel good towards you at the end of a conversation. A key strategy I have for this is ‘empathy’. 

  • One way I attempt to build and show empathy is to ask questions like: ‘How did that make you feel?’ ‘Did that make you feel X?’ ‘Would this have impacted you in [the following way]?

  • But also not to just talk about logic, but to talk about how things make you feel. This often opens the space to get more into the emotions / empathy side of things. 

• Word choice: Soft ⇔ Absolute

  • Give yourself enough rope to change your mind gracefully, give others enough rope to change their mind gracefully.

  • I’ve written about this before here: IMO good messaging tries to provoke thought, not tell people how it is. 

  • Absolute vs Soft words

    • Must vs Should

    • Will do vs Could do

    • I like vs That is interesting

    • There are my thoughts vs What do you think

    • Etc etc. 

  • All else equal, I’ve found that it’s much better to use ‘soft words’ than ‘absolute words’. Using absolute words can often push others out of ‘understanding mode and into defence mode’. This can often turn a conversation from positive sum to zero sum. 

  • Ideas vs facts. 

    • Fact: today is Sunday. Idea: how to best spend a Sunday. 

    • Fact: coffee costs $4. Idea: how to best make a coffee. 

    • IMO you can be absolute about facts. 

    • However ideas can almost always be upgraded; you have your current best thoughts on what to do which you will hopefully upgrade soon. As such I’ve found it best not to be absolute about ideas.

• Confidence

  • Your word choice might be soft, you might be trying to empathize, but if your confidence says ‘I’m the sh1t’ it will likely ruin your messaging. People are unlikely to like you. 

  • I’m wanting to listen to you and learn from you even if i might know way more about this topic than you ⇔ I’m the sh1t and know way more about this than you. 

  • Too little confidence: don't put point forwards, fumble things.

  • Too much confidence: arrogance, not looking to be intellectual flexibility, to learn new things.

  • Just the right amount: listen, and want to be listened to. Change your mind when needed and have others want to change their mind when it makes sense. 

3. Message = 3.1 Quality ideas + 3.2 Ideas put forward ‘like a scientist’ + 3.3 Not committing any logic fallacies

• For some reason most of the ways I’ve seen people talk about improving conversations is around ‘3. Message’, not so much on ‘1. Mindset' or ‘2. Messaging’. To me they are all important, anything times zero is zero. So I try to do all well. 

• ‘Quality of ideas’ is of course important, but it’s certainly not the only thing! Having good ideas to add to a conversation is ideal, but also how you respond to others ideas is crucial. 

• Two frameworks from good to bad: 

  • Tim Urban - Zealot ⇔ Scientist

    • Scientist = trying to objectively improve our thinking through things like falsification. Updating views when it makes sense. 

    • Zealot = denying any and all facts that go against your point of view. Never updating a view. 

    • Read the whole blog, so good!  

  • A framework for conversations I like

• Things to avoid doing. These are ‘logic hacks that can maybe help you ‘win the argument’ but normally push a conversation from positive sum to zero / negative sum. 

• Debate = Zero Sum = Winner and loser

• Discourse = Positive Sum = Win win

• I’m trying to improve my understanding of ideas, to help others improve their understanding of ideas and to have all parties enjoy the process. 

• An example of what I think two key ideas are: 

  • 1. What does it mean to live a good life?

  • 2. What is the common good? 

• Below are a list of ‘logic fallacies’ that can mean you ‘win the argument’, but to me that is almost never the point of having a discussion. The point is normally to try to learn, to help the other learn and to have them feel positively afterwards. So try to be aware of these logic fallacies, to not commit them, and try to help others become aware of them too!

• A defence strategy against logic fallacies: Angels Advocate

If you only take away one thing

• In some respects you are in a conversation with yourself and with others constantly.

• So getting better at ‘conversations’ could be one of the most upstream things there is, and a key way to get better at almost everything else? 

• Put another way, I think I’ll work on getting better at conversations for the rest of my life. IMO the better one is at having positive sum conversations the better one’s life will be!