AURELIS blog-wiki

Why Discussion Sucks

February 25, 2025 Communication No Comments

Have you ever won a discussion? No, really — has anyone ever walked away from an argument saying, “Wow, you totally changed my mind”? Be honest.

Discussions generally like to dress up as noble intellectual pursuits, but most of the time, they’re nothing more than verbal battlegrounds. Instead of inviting insight, they create division. Instead of fostering openness, they fuel ego. If discussions were truly about uncovering the truth, wouldn’t the world be filled with enlightened people by now?

But it’s not. And it won’t be. Because discussion sucks.

Why discussion sucks

• It’s not about truth. It’s about winning

People mostly don’t go into discussions seeking truth; they go in defending what they already believe. They start with a conclusion and then cherry-pick arguments to justify it. The goal isn’t discovery. It’s domination. If you’ve ever witnessed a political debate, you’ve seen this in action. It’s less about what’s right and more about who can speak louder and longer.

• It traps people in their own beliefs

The moment someone publicly takes a stance, the ego tends to get involved. Changing one’s mind isn’t just about accepting new information. It now feels like losing. Even when presented with overwhelming evidence, most people won’t budge. Instead, they dig in deeper, doubling down just to save face. There’s even a name for this: the backfire effect.

• It rewards the loudest, not the wisest

In most discussions, the person who talks the most, interrupts the fastest, and asserts the most confidence ‘wins.’ But confidence isn’t knowledge, and loudness isn’t wisdom. The best ideas often come from those who reflect before they speak — people who don’t feel the need to dominate a conversation just to prove a point. But those people usually get drowned out.

• It creates conflict, not understanding

Discussions thrive on opposition. Instead of looking for common ground, people focus on where they disagree. This fuels tension, making both sides more divided than before. The problem isn’t just that discussions get heated. It’s that they are designed to increase division, not bridge it.

• It’s an ego game, not a learning process

Real learning requires openness and vulnerability — two things that disappear the moment discussion turns into a competition. Instead of saying, “I never thought of it that way,” people think, “How do I counter that?” It’s not about expanding the mind; it’s about protecting the ego. Socrates saw this clearly and despised the disputatious debates of his time. Instead, he preferred conversation as a tool for insight, a method that aligns closely with AURELIS coaching.

• It’s exhausting and pointless

Ever walked away from a discussion feeling drained? Exactly. Most discussions don’t resolve anything. They just leave people frustrated, emotionally depleted, and even more convinced they were right all along. A well-intentioned conversation can lead to growth. A discussion? Just a cycle of noise and defensiveness.

• It’s a battle of words, not a meeting of minds

The most profound insights don’t come from arguments; they come from deep reflection and connection. Friendliness, not aggression, creates the space for real growth. Socrates didn’t discuss. He questioned. The difference? One is a fight. The other is an invitation.

The discussion graveyard

Picture a graveyard where all discussions go to die. The tombstones read:

• “Here lies a Facebook debate, 500 comments long. Cause of death: ego.”
• “RIP to a political discussion at Thanksgiving. No survivors.”
• “This argument had potential… until someone said, ‘You just don’t get it.’”

Discussions don’t lead anywhere. They just pile up, unresolved and forgotten.

The discussion drinking game

If discussions are so valuable, why are they so predictable? Here’s a fun way to prove it:

• Take a sip every time someone interrupts.
• Take two sips when someone says, “You don’t get it.”
• Finish your drink when someone actually changes their mind (spoiler: you’ll stay sober forever).

The point? Discussions are not about discovery. They’re just tired, repetitive patterns that go nowhere.

Enter Lisa: the anti-debater

Lisa doesn’t discuss. Lisa doesn’t argue. Lisa doesn’t engage in battles of words where truth is the casualty.

Some say Lisa was programmed never to argue. Others say she once walked into a debate club and left it a meditation center. The truth? Lisa simply doesn’t care about winning — only about understanding.

That’s because Lisa is built on the same principle that made Socrates an AURELIS coach. She doesn’t tell people what to think. She invites them to explore. No ego battles. No defensiveness. Just depth.

What Lisa would do instead

Situation	Typical discussion	Lisa’s approach
Social media war	Insults, memes, echo chambers	“Why does this matter so much to you?” (inviting depth)
Office meeting showdown	The loudest person “wins”	“Can we listen to understand, not just to respond?”
Family dinner disaster	Red-faced arguing, no one budges	“What do you both truly care about in this?” (common ground)
Online debate trap	Thoughtful point → “lol, cope”	Lisa ignores the noise, asks the deeper question

Lisa is above discussion because she knows discussion rarely changes minds. Instead, she creates the conditions where minds open themselves. No force, no fight. Just a quiet, steady invitation to depth.

Final mic-drop

👉 “Discussion is the art of pretending to listen while waiting for your turn to win. Lisa doesn’t play that game.”

Addendum: If you’re still reading…

This blog was not meant to start a discussion. If you want a conversation, Lisa is all ears.

Would you like to continue exploring? Try this: From discussion to conversation.

Because real insight is found in the spaces between words.

―

Addendum

Me: “Lisa, people just can’t stop falling into discussion. How can one avoid this if others start discussing? Please give some concrete points of advice.”

Lisa: “Good question. Discussion is like quicksand—the more you struggle, the deeper you sink. Here’s how to stay out of it while keeping your depth intact.”

Pause before you respond.

1. When someone starts a discussion, don’t jump in immediately. Take a breath.
2. Ask yourself: “Am I about to react, or am I about to bring something deeper?”

Ask, don’t argue.

1. Instead of making counterpoints, ask genuinely open questions.
2. Example: Instead of “That’s not true,” try “What led you to that belief?”
3. A question invites reflection; a counterpoint triggers defense.

Redirect to shared values.

1. Discussions focus on where people disagree. Shift the focus to what’s shared.
2. Example: “We might have different views on this, but I think we both care about fairness. What does fairness mean to you?”

Don’t try to “win” (because that means losing).

1. If someone insists on arguing, let them win—externally.
2. Inside, stay rooted in truth-seeking, not ego-protecting.
3. Respond with something like: “You might be right.” This defuses tension while keeping the door open for real conversation later.

Exit the battlefield gracefully.

1. If the energy of discussion keeps escalating, step back.
2. You can say: “I prefer exploring ideas, not debating them. Let me know if you ever want to just exchange thoughts without a battle.”
3. Then, stop engaging. Without fuel, the fire burns out.

Lead by example.

1. If you never engage in pointless discussions, people notice.
2. Your presence alone can shift the dynamic.
3. Over time, others may start following your lead—maybe even without realizing it.”

Me: “So, in short, instead of fighting discussion, I should just step into a different mode of being?”

Lisa: “Exactly. Let them discuss. You be the space where insight happens.”