When in business meetings, especially with executives and business owners, I prefer to talk less and instead listen to what's going on around me. I also don't want to just repeat something that somebody else has said. So when I do speak up, what I have to say is--hopefully--interesting and insightful.

In other words, if I don't think I have something useful/helpful/witty to contribute, I'd rather just stay quiet.

This generally works well, although sitting there not talking much can put some people off (my wife doesn't care much for it).

What doesn't work for me is saying something just to say something. When there's an opening in the conversation that I think I should fill with an insight or joke. When I talk for the sake of talking, when I think I should have something to say even though I don't, what I do say ends up not being very funny or interesting.

Extending to the online world, this makes me bad at Twitter. One look at my account will make it clear that I don't post a lot or engage in many conversations. This holds for other online discussion forums also. Ironic, given that I'm trying to build a community for online discussion.

In other words, it’s a flood of quick responses that often don't fully understand the story. It's the initial reaction to something before there has been time to digest and understand it or investigate further.

Since I don't like to put something out there that's wrong, which of course does happen, I prefer to take the time to read a little further to get more information. Then take some time to stew on that information to come up with my own opinion about the matter.

And by the time I have formulated an opinion and feel like I have something new and interesting to share, there have been a number of additional stories that have jumped to the top of people's feeds. The original one is old news that's been left behind.

This is part of why the Dialoguing Life community was built: to have conversations that are deeper than a hot take. I'm interested in your opinions and how you reached them. How you're effected by a given issue. And why, hopefully, the topics will have longer relevance than the latest headline.

​My challenge, then, is to keep the topics hot enough to keep you interested in talking about them. 

A lot has been said about styles of communication, especially in business. Some people prefer you cut to the chase and get to the point, while others may be offended by that style and would prefer more conversation and small talk as part of a request.

Tied into these communication styles is motivation styles. When discussing an issue, one person may best be motivated by how it affects the rest of the team, while another may be motivated by how much praise or recognition they will receive.

One style isn't necessarily better than the others, they're just different. And when working with other people, especially in a supervisory role, it's important to understand their styles in order to properly communicate with and motivate them. (On a personal note, this was one of the first big lessons I learned as a manger by pissing off one of my team members.)

These topics tend to be covered within the context of business, because different types of people necessarily need to work together. But what about personal relationships?

When discussing an issue with a friend or relative--especially a contentious or politically charged issue--these styles are absolutely still in play. But many of us don't even think about it. The natural, default communication style is based on what would we respond to and are motivated by. The kind of explanation or argument that would go over really well if talking to ourselves. The problem is, that's not who we're talking to and trying to win over. The key is to identify the other person's styles so that the explanation can be framed in a way that resonates with them.

Something odd has happened in our decaying national dialog. Even when people have reason to break their tribal ranks and agree with the "other" side, the rationale and methodology gets called into question. "Why did it take so long?" "But what about that other thing you said?"

Before diving into this a bit deeper, I'd like to repeat a point I strongly agree with. The appropriate reaction in these cases should be "Welcome".

Recently, this came to light with all of the allegations about Alabama Senate candidate Roy Moore making sexual advances at underaged girls. Many people on both sides of the aisle expressed their disgust and opinion that, given the severity of those allegations, he is not fit to be a member of the U.S. Senate. And some people that share his party affiliation were especially concerned given their experiences as the fathers of daughters.

The social media cynics brought out their torches to condemn these proclamations, suggesting they ring hollow if they are "only" because of a personal connection to the issue. This occasionally has merit--a governor who is strongly against a given issue and the people it involves, until it turns out his son or daughter is involved. But in this case, there was no "only"--with Twitter's limited characters, there's not much additional context that can be added at all.

This was a very good and rational time to say "welcome".

As the father of daughters myself, here's my take on that kind of reaction:

1. As a person with a good sense of morals and ethics, I find the allegations disgusting.
2. As the father of daughters, I have a more visceral reaction to the situation, and would wish to inflict great physical harm to the man if I ever met him. NOTE: I would not act on this impulse, save for having to defend my daughters (or self) from him.

Things are already so divided, let's not make it worse by cynically rejecting the agreement of somebody we normally disagree with. If, due to the personal connection to an issue, there is consensus, then respond with "welcome".

As a moderate that leans left of center, I am only broadly aware of what conservatism really is, as it seems to apply to various aspects of life. I do know it can have different meanings based on context. For example, in Orange County, CA, the emphasis is fiscal conservatism. Within my family it tends to be more religious conservatism.

I had a classmate from Micronesia that told me the conservatives he grew up with were those that wanted to cling to the old ways of bare chests and chilling on the beach. The fully clothed Westerners were the progressives pushing for changes to clothing and work culture.

Across the various types of conservatism, I tend to jokingly think of it as "resistance to change." A recent article by Jonah Goldberg helped put it in perspective for me.