The 3 types of discussions

I believe that every discussion falls into one of 3 broad categories. And that understanding these types can help one navigate them more easily and be more successful.

The goal of a discussion is either to:

• improve on the topic being discussed and coming to a better version of it;
• convince the person you’re discussing with;
• convince the audience of the discussion.

Improving the topic

That’s what might be considered the classic, “best type”, of discussion. When the parties involved in it have the goal of evolving it and discovering the best version of whatever is being talked about.

They’re not interested in winning or having their idea chosen as the best one; usually, the resulting idea will be a new one that combines all the feedback and points being brought up.

The arguments are usually pragmatic, to the point and focused on the subject.

Convincing the other participant

The other type of discussion is when you’re trying to convince the person (or people) you’re discussing with.

That’s the typical, trying to win an argument.

In these discussions, participants focus on persuasive tactics rather than collaborative improvement. The goal shifts from finding the best solution to having your specific viewpoint accepted.

Convincing the audience

The previous two types of discussions are kind of obvious and most people know about them. But I think there’s a third, often overlooked, category: when one’s not trying to convince the other person they’re arguing with, but the audience following the conversation.

The best example of this is a political debate, the goal of each candidate is not to get a vote from their competitors, but to convince the ones watching the debate to agree with them.

This can be also very relevant inside corporations that can get very political. In these settings, the actual discussion partner might be almost incidental - they’re merely the vehicle through which you reach the real target audience. This explains why some arguments seem performative rather than genuinely engaged.

Mixture of types

The key concept though is understanding that each participant might see the same discussion through a different type. Making it a mixture of goals and ambitions rather than a clear conversation.

Maybe one participant is very open and trying to improve on an idea, while the other is trying to win an argument. Maybe you’re trying to convince the other side of your view but should rather be focused on the decision maker that’s not actively engaging in the debate.

Even though the first type is usually taken as the right kind of discussions, and the other two are frowned upon, I believe none of these categories are inherently bad. There are situations in life when a different approach or perspective is needed, even for a good cause. But failing to acknowledge these different types, and that different participants may be approaching the same conversations with different objectives leads to confusion and frustration.

Practical reflections

Many times even conflicting interests can get aligned by a wise negotiator without explicitly having to change the other person’s mind.

If what’s most important to you is taking the right path at a project, and you know (or notice) that the other person is too concerned on being right, you might lead them to take your point of view, with strategic compromises, and give them credit for it. That way, they win the discussion and you influenced the decision as you saw fit. Maybe you’re always losing your discussions even though you think you have the best ideas. There’s a chance you’re trying to convince the wrong person in the room. Look for who the audience really is - often the quiet observer might be the actual decision maker.

Recognizing when to shift between these discussion types can be a powerful skill. Sometimes improving the topic is the goal, sometimes winning someone over matters most, and sometimes it’s all about who’s listening.

Written by a human, edited with the help of AI.