Conversation or Confrontation?

I have noticed that much of the difficulty in having a productive conversation these days, especially on politics, is that people talk AT each other instead of WITH each other.  They strive to make their pet points and to "win" the argument, instead of finding the common ground on which they do agree, or the basic facts that are not in dispute, and then moving forward towards a solution or conclusion.

Several friends discussed this lately and I have paraphrased some of what they said, because it is well spoken to explain the problem and a solution:

• Friend 1:  Regardless of the persons I meet, I always learn from diversity if I am paying attention.  You want to withdraw from political wrangling? That's an understandable position; it can be stimulating and fun, but it can wear on one, too. I too withdraw at times, to rest my mind, and clear my head.
• Friend 2:  In church, I have met a fellow whose political convictions are not mine. But the sense of brotherly love that we feel for each other from the beginning seems to mean that we can actually discuss the positions as ideas without the bashing emotional baggage. Curiously, his wife is more conservative.  But basically we enjoy each other's company at a level deeper than the politics.  I don't agree with his politics but it doesn't keep me from having spontaneous love. I enjoy the company of several persons who are horrified that my wife and I are Republicans and have attended Tea Party Rallies and campaigned with them - and support Tea Party gambits to save the country, according to the Tea Party vision of the Good for the country. For the most part, I think if I have an opportunity to just hang with people in some kind of normal non-thinking socialization paradigm, the common family reality of humanity trumps the political divisions. It just so happens that we don't have that situation. There is a degree of difficulty in our relationship that might be remedied by physical propinquity, but we don't have that. Physical propinquity is not a universal balm because for the most part it seems that my sister and I are better off not being in each other presence. Maybe before one of us dies, that can change but for now it seems to be the practical truth. In  my readings in philosophy, I have dimly learned that the Greeks considered philosophy to be the effort to move from opinions to KNOWLEDGE. There are seemingly endless questions that emerge from a definition like that -- especially if we apply it to contemporary American Political Problems. Socrates' claim was that he knew that he DID NOT KNOW.  His primary engagement was with folks who believe that they DID KNOW.  Does REAL KNOWLEDGE exist? This is just one of those seemingly unlimited questions that arise in the philosophic approach to things.
• Me:  Well said.
• Friend 2:  We had an luncheon event at which this gentleman was present. We adjourned to Peet's for robust discussion. One thing I think we agreed on - commit to intellectual integrity at the cost of losing arguments and being humiliated.   But if our foundation is friendship and quest for truth, there is little cost to admitting -- hmm -- I was wrong about that. Or -- being able to confess honestly -- My feeling is that your opinion has some defect, but at the present time I cannot articulate what it is. With time, study and thought I might be able to rebut your opinion or come to an acceptance of its truth. When we are engaged in a hostile dynamic, you cannot admit weakness and fault because it will be used to destroy you, unfortunately.
• Me:  More well said. Can I copy it?