It’s probably been awhile, hasn’t it?

One of the foundational ideas behind Nuance Forum is the mutually satisfying conversation, that is, satisfying for both or all participants. We believe that genuine, candid, mutually respectful conversations are both rare and deeply necessary for human progress, and a sincere commitment to this principle has wide-reaching implications for thriving in life, in relationships, and the broader culture.

Many involved in public discourse will routinely fall back on the “need for further conversation,” or vague notions of “improved dialogue,” but rarely get specific about what exactly is meant by this phrase, what its aims might be, and what good could come of it.

If “further conversation” is just a disguise for something like “you need to sit down, be quiet, and listen to me until I change your mind,” it’s easy to see why more conversation rarely settles anything. The adage “someone convinced against their will is of the same opinion still” comes to mind.

But if the goal of a conversation is satisfaction, or better yet, mutual satisfaction, that’s another thing altogether. After all, what is the point of a conversation if it isn’t some kind of mutually satisfying outcome? When people talk obliquely of “resolution” or “healing” or “closure,” perhaps this is what they have in mind.

It begins with an agreement

Nuance Forum is built on the idea that if two people begin a conversation, agreeing in advance to seek a mutually satisfying outcome, it sets the tone for a very different kind of interaction. And to do this successfully, both or all participants must be genuinely interested, not only in their own satisfaction, but the satisfaction of all involved.

And this is a lot harder than it seems.

To begin with, for a conversation to be satisfying, it needs to matter. Small talk, although not unpleasant, also doesn’t really matter very much. There’s nothing of any consequence being discussed, that’s why we call it “small.” And for something to “matter” there probably needs to be something at stake, which means the opportunity for disagreement or dissatisfaction increases dramatically.

And to add complexity, it seems anything we do unilaterally to make the conversation more satisfying for ourselves, ends up almost certainly making the conversation less satisfying for the other person, and vice versa, leading to conflict or power struggles. It may be that the only answer is to sincerely strive for the other person’s satisfaction and then hope they’re willing and able to do the same for us.

We’re using the term satisfaction a lot here, as if everyone knows what it means. To clarify, it isn’t quite the same as happiness or enjoyment, but something more fundamental, more nuanced. Satisfaction implies some need being met, as in a “satisfying meal.” It speaks to some underlying hunger, or lack, or desire, which will persist until satisfied.

We might describe a satisfying conversation as simply free of conflict. We could avoid conflict by steering clear of difficult topics, keeping controversial thoughts or ideas to ourselves in the way many people approach Thanksgiving dinner with contentious relatives. But most people don’t consider this approach particularly satisfying.

Or maybe satisfaction comes from convincing someone to adopt our point of view. But for most of us, persuading someone of the rightness of our opinions, while temporarily gratifying, probably isn’t nearly as satisfying as feeling heard, respected, and validated. That the other person genuinely received what we had to say and gave it honest consideration, even if their original position remains unchanged.
Yes, when done right, a satisfying conversation can be experienced as a deep level of connection and well-being, with all parties feeling more human, more centered, more heard and understood. And this can happen even when known disagreements, sometimes profound ones, may remain unchanged, fully explored, understood, and accepted.

Why are mutually satisfying conversations so difficult and rare?

This isn’t the space to explore this comprehensively, but we humans are social creatures, constantly balancing between competition and collaboration as we pursue our narrow interests as individuals and our collective interests as members of various tribes, and ultimately humanity. In so many interactions in life we are operating simultaneously as allies and adversaries, torn between cooperation and competition.

And if a conversation, to be satisfying, must also matter, and to matter must also include something of consequence at stake, we see how the opportunity for conflict and dissatisfaction is built in.

Is there anything we can do to increase the frequency of these kinds of conversation? To have more of our own, to help facilitate others, to make these deeply rewarding experiences more common, and maybe put a little shine on our small corner of the universe?