For as long as humans have existed, we have been social creatures. We have always had the deep-seated and instinctual desire to communicate with others, and to know that we are heard, considered, and occasionally understood.

But somewhere between the development of spoken language and the current day, we misplaced much of our ability to fulfill that desire in others. It’s unclear whether this shift happened gradually or all at once, but what we can observe is that somehow, humans forgot how to listen, be considerate, and understand each other.

This is where the conversation deficit comes in.

We don’t want to talk to others if it means having to listen and consider that we are wrong. It’s so unlikely that we will come across someone who believes the exact same things that we do, and as it turns out, that’s the only person we really feel comfortable talking to anymore.

The way I see it, this is for one of two reasons. The first is that we’re afraid that disagreeing with someone will lead to a fight, hurt feelings, and the end of a friendship. The second reason is that our suspicions from the first reason are often true.

We don’t want to hurt our friends’ feelings by disagreeing with them, so we’d rather not talk about the things we don’t agree on. We assume that nothing good will come of our conversation simply because we disagree, and that a disagreement will probably put our relationships on edge and cause tension. What we’re forgetting is that humans crave simulating conversation. By conversing with someone we don’t agree with, we’re opening up pathways to consider new ideas from new points of view.

For instance, I was having a conversation with my dad the other day about the death penalty. He’s a police officer, and he was recalling a time when he worked on a case involving a serial child molester and murderer. He talked about being in the room with the man after he had been caught, and feeling that pure evil was present in the room. And that was a major part of why he supported the death penalty.

Now, I’m not a police officer. I’ve never (to my knowledge) been in close quarters with someone who had done such horrid things or who let off an aura of absolute terror. I also don’t support the death penalty. However, in that situation, I had to step away from my beliefs and assess the fact that I didn’t have the experiences my dad did. I couldn’t factor that into my beliefs. How could I look at my dad after hearing this story and tell him he was wrong? I couldn’t. I just had to understand where he was coming from.

I’m not saying that listening to his story changed my mind on my beliefs, because it didn’t. But because we talked about it instead of tiptoeing around a disagreement, I had a new point of view to consider. I understood how someone like my dad could think and believe differently than the way my experiences allow me to.

But that’s not something that people are eager to admit. Any admission that we understand how someone could feel differently than we do equates to a white flag in our minds. We see it as backing away from our beliefs or admitting that we are wrong. Many times, feeling that way makes us aggressive and pushy about our own beliefs, and those emotions are detrimental to open conversations.

When you start talking to someone and you find that you disagree, it often turns into an angry conversation full of accusations and insults. We are so caught up in our need to be right, that we have forgotten how to respect someone with opposite opinions and consider how they see things. We often resort to anger because our minds see it as our best defensive move, but we shouldn’t feel the need to be on the defensive.

While being relentless in our pursuit of being right, we are disrespectful to people who believe differently, and that shuts down the desire to communicate. We fail to grasp that conversation is not about being right, it’s about opening your mind to how others think, and helping the people talking to you do the same.

If someone insults your beliefs, they usually continue on and insult you as well, and as they get louder and louder, your desire to talk to them gets smaller and smaller. And that’s understandable. Nobody wants to be disrespected because of what they believe in. Herein lies the problem.

We have long since devolved into this subgenre of our species that rejects the notion that another person may have different insights that we have yet to consider. And by resigning ourselves to ignoring the possibility that we could learn from our peers, we doom ourselves to simply devolve further, drifting away from our social roots until our only engaging contact is arguing with a stranger thousands of miles away over Facebook in the comments section of some news article. That is not social stimulation.

Our minds, our governments, and our species will not grow if we do not discuss, and if we do not share what we think and have learned. It is impossible to know everything, but by engaging in productive and meaningful discussion, we reopen the lines of communication and enable each other to consider and discover new ideas, concepts, and solutions.