communication, and how

 ~ the truth shall set you free (Jesus)

One of the most misleading bits of advice I've heard is that frequent, open, honest communication makes a couple stronger. Nothing could be farther from the truth. Too much communication can drive couples apart, and the wrong kind of communication can destroy them altogether (c.f. John Gottman's "Four Horsemen").

It is important to distinguish the types of communication we are using and to know their likely result when undertaking an important and potentially divisive conversation with a friend or partner. 

Aside from fact-sharing, which is a relatively benign form of communication*, there are two main styles of communication that can lead to very different outcomes: adversarial and collaborative. 

Among the adversarial styles are debate and argument. 

In a debate, each speaker represents a side or position and attempts to systematically submit facts, logic and evidence in support of it. In an argument, the debate devolves into trying to dominate one's opponent by being right, sometimes invoking what is morality "right" or "wrong" while often using defensive and aggressive strategies to buttress one's position and attack another's. While a debate may be clarifying as to why one holds a certain position, it usually does nothing to influence your adversary. An argument, on the other hand, is just another word for a fight, i.e. a forceful attempt to influence an adversary. If you choose to debate or argue with your friend or partner, expect it either to reinforce two already distinct positions, or to quash one side in favour of the other which is clearly not going to win any points with the loser. More communication like this in your important relationships and they will be over all too soon.

Among the collaborative styles are discussion and self-disclosure. 

Discussion is a tame form of argument. It is an active bilateral dialogue that does not seek to win but to exchange information in order to deliberate on a subject together, peacefully. Self-disclosure, on other hand, is more of a monologue. Like a debate minus the side-taking, it is a unilateral revelation of ideas, thoughts, feelings and beliefs so another can see into my reality, my truth. Where debate uses a lot of declarative statements, self-disclosure uses primarily I-statements, a personal and intimate style of communication which seeks to be seen without trying to force someone to agree (one hokey description I have heard of this is "into-me-see": intimacy).

When difficult topics arise, rather than promoting our view with debate or argument, relying on discussion and self-disclosure will maintain and even improve connection so decisions and/or choices can be made without driving two people apart. 

*Informing and consulting are a subset of factual communication mostly used for the purpose of clarifying logistics