Difference between lecture, debate, discussion and dialogos

Verbal information sharing and exchange of ideas have been around for ever and we engage in some form or the other daily. We don't think about it - we just do it.

But when a frustration incentivises us to start digging deeper into the mechanics of it - we find out that there are specific modes of interacting in the domain of passing knowledge that make them well suited for a particular use case, but not for the other.

Further prodding surfaces more insights, and that's about our own discernment in terms of what is a good and fruitful communication with view to cohering, synergising and acquiring relevant knowledge.

I'll now go into the types, cover the main categories and say about how we sometimes can't tell the difference, but that will be the topic of a future article.

The first major distinction is that the communication can be one way, duplex or multiple ways.

Lecture

is a formal presentation to an audience and I see it as a pouring of knowledge from a higher ground, meaning that the lecturer is considered to be an authority on the subject.

The information mainly flows one way, with limited opportunities for interaction. Lectures are usually prepared, well rehearsed performances, mainly used for educational purposes.

Debate

is a formal and structured argument that is performed in front of an audience and is usually conducted between polarised parties. The communication flows to and from all parties. Each participant effectively competes to persuade listeners or judges to acknowledge that one side's argument is stronger than the other.

Apart from the audience - we sometimes have facilitators, moderators and judges.

Debaters face each other, and engage in verbal battles, attempting to assert themselves in a way not too dissimilar to gladiators fighting in an arena.

The language used to define methods and actions, along with the strategic aspect of the argument also highlights the close resemblance to military. What emerges is a vividly drawn picture of a battlefield, with the debaters in the middle and their respective supporters cheering from the side while emotions run hot.

There are formal rules and time limits. In this respect it also has similarities with a game of chess.

Some of the terminology used includes: claim, evidence, contention, framework, fallacy.

Debates, from a certain angle, can be seen as the most extreme type of brainstorming, their goal to defeat the opponents and win new followers.

Moving in the direction of more collaboration.

Discussion

is a an event where multiple parties share thoughts in a more of an informal environment, engaging in a friendlier and less adversarial style than debate.

The participants are still distinctly themselves and are bringing ideas to the table in order to test them against others, but are more prepared to onboard what they find useful. The goal is to give and take and come out of the exchange enriched, rather than jubilant.

Dialogos

is the most advanced type of collaborative communication. Using the Greek word is meant to link it to Plato's dialogues. Here, we are at the stage where we're not merely exchanging information, but getting into a state where a very deep exploration of ideas is possible.

The results can be surprising and unpredictable as the interlocutors are aligned and communication very optimised. Many aspects of ego-rooted behaviours that are present in the styles above are dropped and the participants are devoted to the search of solutions and creativity to the detriment of the defence of their own ego.

Dialogos is not an obvious or instinctive way of communication. It requires awareness, reflection and trust. It is cultivated and nurtured, but the results can be magical.