7 Rules for Good Conversation

It is easier to have conversations with people now than ever before, yet somehow more difficult to have good conversation. The way I see it, as the technology of communication has increased, the skill of communication has been seriously impaired. Ironic, isn’t it?

Either way, I am going to put down rules for productive (read: pleasurable and profitable) conversation. These are rules I have learned either through (hard) experience or reading. I hope they serve you.

First, know this: Nobody follows the rules of conversation perfectly, just as nobody follows the rules of anything — either football or tennis —perfectly. The rules are there as ideals, something to be approximated, even if never 100% attained. They (rules) are worth having, because without rules no game, sports or conversation or otherwise, could be played or would be worth playing.

A good conversation is this. One that is both – to paraphrase Mortimer Adler – pleasurable and profitable. In other words, a good conversation is one people genuinely enjoy being a part of and are genuinely enriched by. They like it and learn something. 

Here are the rules of good conversation, as I see them. (Importantly, some of these rules pertain to prior conditions = what must be in place for good conversation to be possible. Other rules pertain to conversation itself = what guidelines must be adhered to within a conversation to ensure its goodness.)

Rule #1) Be willing to argue.

Profitable conversation – that is, conversation where people can learn and grow, together – can flow only from disagreement, or at least where something is at stake. Mutual admiration societies just reaffirm present beliefs. The point of any good conversation, inasmuch as good conversation is profitable (no matter who that conversation is with), is to get beyond agreement, and to SOME point of disagreement – which is to say, to the point of argument.¹ This need not happen immediately (indeed, often it is better to find common ground and points of agreement first, to establish friendliness and rapport), but it must happen eventually. To avoid disagreement, and to refuse to engage in argument, is to forgo serious conversation altogether. 

Let it be known I use the term “argument” as philosophers use it: namely, to provide reasons for the position you believe, and not in the more colloquial use of “quarreling” or “bickering.” Arguments are made in attempt to resolve – rationally – disagreement, but they should, for the sake of profitable conversation, be made politely.

Before proceeding, you may wish to consult my brief post on What Is a Good Argument, here.

Rule #2) Don’t argue to win. 

The purpose of argumentation is to get at the truth. If you wish others to be open to persuasion, you yourself must be open to persuasion. This means you must be willing to make concessions where necessary and realize that making concessions may not be fatal to your overall position (though sometimes it may be). The point is you must not set victory over an opponent – but the attainment TRUTH – as your target. When that intention is set, you can never lose, because even if your arguments do not succeed — or even if you are persuaded by your interlocutor — you still come out with what you went in for: greater understanding. 

Rule #3) Don’t argue to argue. 

We are all familiar with someone who argues for the sake of arguing (not for the sake of getting at truth), who goes out of their way to find something – literally anything – to disagree with. People find this sort of interlocutor annoying. Because they are annoying. Such agitators are not there to learn but to disagree (often) to display their own cleverness or cynical attitude. They find trivial and irrelevant points to dwell upon. My advice is to avoid being “this person” at all costs. Disagree where disagreement matters and be willing to let irrelevant issues go.

Rule #4) Don’t argue UNTIL you understand. 

While good conversation must eventually involve argument, one should not rush the process. Don’t argue until you understand. Before objecting, ask (clarifying) questions. Often it is enough to say, “Tell me if I’m understanding you right. Is this what you are saying?” then repeat what you think your interlocutor's position is. If they feel you have represented them fairly and you still disagree, then raise your objection. If they feel you have not grasped their point, ask them to come at it again, perhaps from another angle. Here is the critical point: Conversations are more likely to be profitable when people believe they are being listened to (and taken seriously) and the best way to ensure YOU are listening is by asking questions about, and repeating aloud, the other person’s position.

Rule #5) Be CLEAR about the primary issue. 

For productive conversation one must be clear what the primary issue is, and to avoid tangents or trivialities. The best way to ensure the main thing remains the main thing is to be explicit about it. The solution? Say aloud, “It seems what we primarily disagree about is this ____. Is that right?”

Rule #6) Take ONE thing at a time. 

Even when the primary issue is clarified, it may have many components, some more pressing than others. In which case, conversation partners must be careful to take one thing at a time. Religion is a good example. (How complex religious debates are!) Perhaps the question — the primary issue, as it were — is whether any particular religion is true. There is much that goes in to evaluating that question. For example: the existence of God, details of historical reliability, theological coherence, etc. Perhaps to resolve the primary issue many secondary issues must be adjudicated. If so, fair enough. Just be sure to take ONE thing at a time.

BONUS: Regarding secondary issues, try to identify at the outset which are most relevant. Debates in conversation are often knotty, so it is helpful at the outset to get some agreement with your conversation partners about what aspects are mostly likely to result in progress. Here it is important to identify WHERE everybody in the conversation is at. Regarding the question of religion, not all aspects of the debate are relevant to all people. For example: There is no use resolving the question of God’s existence if your interlocutor is already a theist. That point can (probably) be skipped. However, if your interlocutor is an atheist, probably there is no point in arguing for a particular ecclesiastical structure. That is going to have little to no tug if their hold up is more fundamental — i.e. the existence of God.

Rule #7) Be willing to hit PAUSE. 

Persuasion on a particular point – more especially conversion to an overall worldview – is hardly something that happens in a single conversation. It takes time for people to change their mind, to mull over various considerations, even when they are being open minded. This means for conversation to be good it must be patient and willing to hit pause. Not everything can reasonably be expected to be settled in a single sitting at the bar. 

I think there are (at least two) natural signs for when to hit pause in a conversation. One is when a significant concession has been made, or some agreement reached where previously there was disagreement or uncertainty. If somebody, including yourself, sees the other person’s point on a major issue and admits it, one may wish to relish in the profit of the exchange up to that point, and turn the conversation back to lighter affairs, like movies or sports. 

To offer an example, I was having a religious conversation at a fellow’s house one evening. While not a religious person himself, he was interested, though he had many objections. I answered his objections to my ability, and frequently told him how important his questions were, and how I struggled through many of the same considerations myself in the process of my own religious conversion. At one point, he said, “Thank you for answering my questions. You’ve given me a lot to think about. I’m really going to consider it.” This was the ideal to end the conversation.

Of course, I could have kept pushing it, arguing further for the positions I believe. But why? The conversation had already been pleasurable and profitable — for the both of us. The acknowledgement of my interlocutor of having found the reasons I’ve given persuasive was a satisfactory — and quite natural — stopping point even if, as I believe, more points could have been made or issues raised. There is an important saying, that is, “To quit while one is ahead.” In good conversation, I think this often applies. 

The other indicator that it may be time to “hit pause” is more obvious though unfortunately more common, and that is when somebody – including possibly yourself – becomes overpowered by their emotions and is no longer capable of rational disagreement. One indicator that this is happening would be the emergence of fallacies of irrelevance. The moment somebody brings another person’s grandmother into the conversation or mentions how they believe things that Stalin believed, probably it is best to 1) indicate that fallacies are being committed, and 2) to return to the conversation at some later point, when emotions are better in check. 

There is nothing wrong with drawing attention to the fact that the conversation has taken a downward turn because certain nerves have been struck, and it might be better for everybody to discuss something else, like the newest Bond movie. Don’t whip a dead horse, as the saying goes. Better to maintain the relationship and revisit the issue at a later time, then continue getting people emotionally agitated.

Finally, let it be known that the best conversations take place among friends. Getting into deep conversational waters with strangers is not only difficult, but often less fruitful since there is less of a trust factor or element of respect. People tend to be more open to persuasion when they are talking with people they already know, like, and trust. This doesn’t mean pleasurable and profitable conversation with strangers is impossible — hopefully, the rules above should help make for better conversations, even online — but we should not forget one of the best aspects of friendship are the conversational ones. The rules set above, then, are not just for better conversations, but, I would argue, better friendships.

- Pat

PS - To leave with an example:

Below is a conversation I had with Dr. Jim Madden and Dr. Gaven Kerr. Broadly speaking, we agree on a lot in this conversation. However, we found a point of disagreement, concerning the links (if any) between meaning, morality, and God.

I won’t spoil the episode: I just want to say I thought this was a good conversation. We staked our positions, offered reasons for believing them, and (respectfully) challenged each other,. We asked questions. We did not rush. We did not try to settle everything. Toward the end of the conversation, we agreed that progress was made and that insights flowed – in fact, the best insights in the conversation, probably – from the disagreement. 

1. My friend Jim helpfully mentioned that parties need not disagree for a conversation to be profitable, just so long as they are arguing toward something either is unsure about, in order to obtain truth. This is true.