Why It’s Important to Slow Down the Conversation

Reclaiming the art of interaction

Editorial by Sinéad Stringer, The Thinking Society

In our rapidly evolving digital landscape, the velocity of information exchange has reached unprecedented heights. While this immediacy offers numerous advantages, it also presents challenges for our capacity for deep, reflective thought and meaningful dialogue. This article delves into the necessity of decelerating our conversations to cultivate a more thoughtful society, examining the unconscious processes influencing our decisions, the pervasive impact of social media, the enduring wisdom of ancient Greek philosophy, and the imperative to create spaces for deliberate, face-to-face interactions as we look to the communities and societies we want to build for our future.

Human beings like to believe they are rational thinkers, carefully considering facts before making decisions. However, research suggests that the vast majority of our choices are made unconsciously. Nobel Prize-winning psychologist Daniel Kahneman, in Thinking, Fast and Slow, highlights how we make thousands of unconscious decisions daily—ranging from simple motor movements to complex social judgments—without ever engaging in active, conscious thought.

It is this ability for speedy and prolific unconscious processing that has provided our human ancestors with an evolutionary advantage. Early humans needed to react quickly to threats, whether escaping predators or seizing an opportunity for food; determining which group of people is more likely to help us or kill us. Conscious thinking, on the other hand, is slow and effortful, consuming valuable mental energy. Studies in cognitive neuroscience confirm that engaging in deliberate, rational thought depletes resources. Research published in Trends in Cognitive Sciences found that the brain’s prefrontal cortex, responsible for conscious reasoning and decision-making, consumes a disproportionately high amount of energy compared to other cognitive functions[1].

While unconscious decision-making has helped humans survive, it also makes us vulnerable to manipulation. In today’s digital world, where we are constantly bombarded with information, advertising, and political messaging, much of our behaviour is shaped without our realising it. Social media platforms, for example, use sophisticated algorithms to target our unconscious biases, reinforcing existing beliefs and shaping our perceptions of reality.

This is why slowing down conversations is more critical than ever. When we take time to reflect rather than react, we engage our higher cognitive processes, allowing for greater discernment and more meaningful discussions. The challenge is that such effortful thinking requires energy, and in a world that constantly demands our attention, we often default to quick judgements and emotional responses.

To counteract this, we must create opportunities to consider ideas thoughtfully rather than reacting to them unthinkingly, opportunities to step away from the fast-paced, reactive nature of digital discourse and engage in more deliberate, in-person discussions. A thinking society is one that values reflection over reaction, ensuring that we are not simply being swept along by unconscious influences but actively shaping our collective future.

How Social Media Shapes Our Perception

In our hyper-connected world, social media platforms have become integral to daily life, offering unprecedented access to information and diverse perspectives. However, this constant exposure also subjects us to an unending stream of opinions, influences, and propaganda—often without our conscious awareness. These platforms are designed to keep us engaged, and do so by putting us metaphorically in a warm bath of acceptance and confirmation, reinforcing our existing beliefs and limiting exposure to differing viewpoints, ultimately leading to a distorted perception of reality.

The concept of filter bubbles, introduced by Eli Pariser, describes how algorithms curate content based on our past behaviour, effectively isolating us from opposing perspectives. This phenomenon is not merely theoretical; research has demonstrated its tangible effects. A study published in Applied Network Science[2] used agent-based modelling to show how social media’s filter bubbles and echo chambers contribute to societal polarisation by limiting the diversity of information users encounter.

While some argue that concerns about filter bubbles may be overstated, evidence suggests otherwise. These digital silos amplify specific messages and suppress alternative views, creating a skewed understanding of the world. A 2023 study in Nature Communications[3] found that individuals exposed primarily to one-sided political content on social media exhibited a stronger reinforcement of pre-existing beliefs, demonstrating the power of these algorithms to shape public opinion.

The implications of this curated reality are profound. By continually interacting within these algorithmically constructed environments, our beliefs become more entrenched, and our openness to differing opinions diminishes. This fragmentation poses a significant challenge to social cohesion, as shared understanding becomes increasingly elusive.

To mitigate these effects, it is crucial to cultivate awareness of how social media platforms shape our information landscape. Actively seeking out diverse perspectives, following sources outside of our usual media diet, and engaging in open, real-world dialogues can help counteract the narrowing influence of filter bubbles. By doing so, we can foster a more informed and empathetic society, better equipped to navigate the complexities of our interconnected world.

Why Real Conversation Matters More Than Ever

Despite being constantly connected through technology, genuine face-to-face interactions are diminishing, leading to a decline in effective communication skills. This trend raises concerns about our ability to engage in thoughtful discourse and critically evaluate differing viewpoints.
However, recent studies indicate a worrying decline in communication skills. Research published in Discourse Studies[4] highlights how digital communication has altered interpersonal exchanges, reducing individuals’ ability to engage in deep, meaningful conversations. The study found that reliance on short, text-based interactions has weakened people’s capacity for extended verbal reasoning.

The implications of this decline are profound. Without strong communication skills and the ability to reason effectively, individuals may struggle to navigate complex social and political landscapes. This deficiency can lead to increased polarisation, as people become less capable of understanding and valuing perspectives different from their own.

To address this issue, it is imperative to prioritise the development of communication skills and critical thinking. Educational institutions and workplaces should emphasise the importance of face-to-face interactions and provide opportunities for individuals to practice and refine these skills. By doing so we can foster a society that values thoughtful conversation, respects diverse opinions, and engages in rational discourse.

The ancient Greeks placed immense value on the art of conversation, reasoning, and argumentation. Philosophers like Socrates, Plato, and Aristotle developed foundational principles of logic to guide rational discourse which was essential for law, societal ethics, politics and personal morals. It was seen as necessary to be able to understand their world, to distinguish truth from falsehood and live a virtuous life.

Socrates is widely recognised for developing dialectical reasoning, a method of questioning and dialogue designed to stimulate critical thinking and expose contradictions in people’s beliefs and logic. This approach was central to his philosophy, particularly in his search for ethical truths. In dialogues like Plato’s “Euthyphro”[5], Socrates asks probing questions that encourage his audience to reconsider their assumptions. He often employed the reductio ad absurdum technique to expose contradictions, demonstrating that beliefs, when fully examined, often led to illogical conclusions.

Socrates argued that ethical knowledge required rigorous reasoning and that identifying “logical fallacies”[6]—such as ad hominem attacks or false dichotomies—was critical for understanding morality and achieving wisdom. His method of questioning revealed how illogical thinking undermines ethical behaviour, emphasizing that clear reasoning is essential for virtue. Socrates sought universally applicable ethical principles, moral truths that would hold regardless of the personal or societal context in which they are applied.

Aristotle’s ethical philosophy, as outlined in his Nicomachean Ethics[7], expands on Socratic ideas by linking the concept of human flourishing (eudaimonia) ultimately to that of personal virtuous activity which included living a life of reason and wisdom. The actions of the individual and how they aspire to live virtuously, wisely and with reason, was viewed by Aristotle as both productive of, and supported by, a well-governed and well-structured society. A society made up of virtuous, responsible citizens is one that functions harmoniously and justly, fostering a collective well-being that surpasses individual pleasure. Thus, individual and collective flourishing are deeply intertwined.

Look Up

“Words are only a small part of what we communicate”[8]. In today’s digital age, our constant engagement with smartphones has significantly reduced face-to-face interactions, leading to a decline in meaningful conversations. This shift not only affects the depth of our relationships but also undermines essential communication skills.

A substantial portion of human communication is non-verbal, encompassing facial expressions, gestures, posture, and eye contact. These cues play a pivotal role in conveying emotions and intentions. While exact figures vary, it’s widely acknowledged that non-verbal elements significantly influence our understanding during interactions. For instance, maintaining eye contact can indicate confidence and sincerity, whereas crossed arms might suggest defensiveness or discomfort. Being attuned to these signals enhances our ability to connect authentically with others.

In his book, “The Anxious Generation”[9] social psychologist Jonathan Haidt discusses how the rise of digital communication has impacted traditional social skills. He observes that children today have fewer opportunities to engage in unstructured, face-to-face play, which historically allowed them to navigate conflicts and develop reconciliation skills. Haidt notes, “The decline of free play means kids are less likely to have minor disputes and then work them out, a crucial process for building resilience and social competence.”

To counteract these trends, it’s imperative to consciously prioritise real-life interactions. Engaging in face-to-face conversations allows us to fully experience the richness of human communication, fostering empathy and understanding. “Face-to-face communication remains the richest form of interaction, where both verbal and nonverbal channels are fully engaged, mediated communication can never fully replicate the depth of understanding facilitated by face-to-face encounters.”[10] When in-person meetings aren’t feasible, video platforms serve as valuable alternatives, enabling us to observe visual cues and maintain a personal connection.

By looking up from our phones and embracing direct communication, we can rebuild essential social skills, strengthen relationships, and enhance our overall well-being.

Why We Must Slow Down the Conversation

In our fast-paced digital era, social media platforms inundate us with a relentless stream of posts, opinions, and notifications, fostering a culture of instant gratification. This environment often prioritises immediate reactions over thoughtful deliberation, leading to superficial engagement rather than meaningful conversations. Social media platforms are designed to provide immediate rewards—likes, comments, shares—that trigger dopamine release in the brain, reinforcing the desire for continuous engagement. This cycle encourages users to seek quick validation, diminishing patience for more substantial, time-consuming interactions. Such behaviour aligns with the concept of “popcorn brain,” where individuals develop fragmented attention spans due to constant digital stimulation[11].

The emphasis on rapid responses and the constant comparison facilitated by social media can adversely affect mental health. A systematic review published in BMC Psychiatry found that excessive use of social networking sites is associated with increased risks of depression, anxiety, and psychological distress[12]. Another study in Frontiers in Psychology highlighted how smartphone-based social networking service use leads to lower life satisfaction and heightened emotional distress, reinforcing the need to disconnect and engage in more intentional communication[13].

In this context, it becomes essential to consciously slow down our conversations. Taking time to reflect before responding allows for deeper understanding and more meaningful exchanges. Engaging in face-to-face interactions or extended dialogues encourages empathy, critical thinking, and the ability to navigate complex issues—skills that are often underdeveloped in the realm of instant messaging. To foster a more thoughtful society, we must create spaces that encourage deliberate conversation. This involves setting boundaries for digital device usage, promoting environments conducive to in-depth discussions, and valuing the quality of interactions over quantity. By doing so, we can move beyond the superficiality of instant reactions and work towards healing societal rifts, improving our communities, and envisioning a future where all individuals have the opportunity to flourish.

The Societal Cost of Closing Down Free Speech

A free society depends on the open exchange of ideas. When free speech is curtailed, and citizens can no longer discern truth from falsehood, the consequences ripple across communities, institutions, and governance. The suppression of honest conversation weakens democracy, erodes trust, and ultimately diminishes society’s ability to self-correct and evolve. The ancient Greeks understood that truth is best revealed through debate and discourse. Socrates’ method of questioning—elenchus—was designed to challenge assumptions, refine arguments, and pursue knowledge. Aristotle further developed this idea, arguing that free citizens must engage in reasoned discussion to achieve eudaimonia—human flourishing[14].

John Stuart Mill, in On Liberty[15], warned of the dangers of silencing dissent, arguing that “the peculiar evil of silencing the expression of an opinion is…robbing the human race… If the opinion is right, they are deprived of the opportunity of exchanging error for truth: if wrong, they lose, what is almost as great a benefit, the clearer perception and livelier impression of truth, produced by its collision with error”.

When open discourse is restricted, institutions that rely on free inquiry—such as education, the judiciary, and the press—begin to falter. In education, students may be taught not to think critically but to conform to prevailing ideologies, leading to intellectual stagnation. Studies have shown that environments where dissent is discouraged produce lower-quality scholarship and innovation.[16]

The judiciary, an institution tasked with impartial judgment, also suffers when free speech is curtailed. Without open debate and the ability to challenge laws and policies, the legal system risks becoming a tool of oppression rather than justice.

At the community level, restricting speech creates social fragmentation. Without open discussion, differences are not worked through but suppressed, leading to increased polarisation. Research on political suppression indicates that societies that discourage free speech experience greater civic disengagement and a decline in institutional trust.[17]

Governments that limit speech often justify it under the guise of public order or misinformation control, but history shows that suppressing dialogue rarely leads to stability. Instead, it breeds underground radicalization, as individuals who feel unheard seek alternative, often extreme, ways to express their views.

Valuing free speech does not mean endorsing all opinions as equally valid, but it does require creating a space where ideas can be tested and refined. The challenge today is to resist both state and cultural pressures to conform unthinkingly to the opinions that happen to be in vogue, and instead foster environments where truth is pursued through discussion, debate, and intellectual humility.

By looking back to the wisdom of the Greeks and the insights of Mill, we see that protecting open discourse is not just about preserving speech but about preserving the very foundation of a free, self-governing, and rational society.

Embracing Thoughtful Engagement for a New Society

In an era dominated by rapid communication and fleeting interactions, the need for thoughtful engagement has never been more pressing. The pace of modern life—accelerated by social media and digital platforms—often leaves little room for careful reflection, critical thinking, and meaningful dialogue. To build a society that values understanding, diversity, and genuine connection, we must intentionally slow down our conversations and create spaces for civil discourse.

Civil discourse is more than just polite conversation; it is the foundation of a functioning democratic society. It involves engaging in discussions that prioritise mutual respect, active listening, and openness to differing viewpoints. Studies in political psychology suggest that societies with strong norms of deliberative discourse are more resilient to misinformation and political polarisaion[18]. Such discourse encourages individuals to critically evaluate information, consider alternative perspectives, and engage constructively—even amidst disagreement.

In The Polycentric Republic: A Theory of Civil Order for Free and Diverse Societies[19], David Thunder explores how societies can be structured around multiple centres of power and influence, rather than being dominated by a single centralised authority. He argues that a polycentric approach allows for a richer, more diverse civic life, and requires citizens who are capable of critical thinking, respectful dialogue, and meaningful engagement with differing perspectives. Without these skills, diversity becomes a source of division rather than strength.

For a polycentric republic to function effectively, its citizens must engage in thoughtful and meaningful conversations, navigating the complexities of diverse viewpoints to collaborate across different societal sectors. This is in stark contrast to existing communication habits as discussed previously and summarised in a study in New Media & Society which confirmed that social media engagement encourages polarized and knee-jerk reactions rather than measured, reflective discussion.[20]

To counteract this, we must deliberately create space and time for slower, reflective conversations. Studies show that in-person interactions lead to greater trust and empathy compared to text-based communication.[21]

To cultivate a society that embraces thoughtful engagement, we must prioritise:

• Active Listening: Genuine engagement with others’ viewpoints, resisting the urge to immediately counter or dismiss their ideas.

• Open-Mindedness: Willingness to reconsider one’s beliefs in light of new information or persuasive arguments.

• Respectful Dialogue: Approaching conversations with civility and patience, even when disagreements arise.

• Critical Thinking: The ability to analyse claims, distinguish between strong and weak arguments, and recognize biases in both ourselves and others. Research has shown that individuals with strong critical thinking skills are less susceptible to misinformation and manipulation[22].

• Encouragement of Diverse Opinions: Valuing and seeking out differing viewpoints to enrich discussions and foster innovation.

By embracing these principles, we can build a society that not only tolerates diversity but actively thrives on it. Fostering civil discourse, critical thinking, and deep engagement, we can reclaim the art of conversation and build a future where individuals and societies can flourish.

References

1. Raichle, M. E., & Gusnard, D. A. (2002). Appraising the Default Mode: Implications for Consciousness and Decision-Making. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 6(5), 206-214.

2. Kaiser, J., & Rauchfleisch, A. (2024). Echo chambers, filter bubbles, and polarisation: How social media shapes public discourse. Applied Network Science, 9(1), 45-62.

3. Bail, C., Argyle, L., Brown, T., & Yang, J. (2023). Exposure to opposing views on social media can increase political polarisation. Nature Communications, 14(2), 1129-1144.

4. Tagg, C. (2021). “Digital Communication and the Decline of Extended Discourse.” Discourse Studies, 23(2), 189-207.

5. Plato. (1997). Euthyphro. In E. Hamilton & H. Cairns (Eds.), The Collected Dialogues of Plato (pp. 1-17). Princeton University Press.

6. Hansen, H. V. (2020). Fallacies and Argument Appraisal, Cambridge University Press.

7. Aristotle. (2002). Nicomachean ethics (W. D. Ross, Trans.). Batoche Books. (Original work published ca. 350 BCE)

8. Mehrabian, A. (1971). Silent Messages: Implicit Communication of Emotions and Attitudes. Wadsworth Publishing Company.

9. Haidt, J. (2024). The Anxious Generation: How the Great Rewiring of Childhood Caused an Epidemic of Mental Illness. Penguin Random House.

10. Lapakko, D. (2007). Communication is 93% Nonverbal: An Urban Legend Proliferates. Communication and Theater Association of Minnesota Journal, 34, 7-14.

11. Moawad, H. (2021). “Popcorn Brain: How Constant Digital Stimulation is Changing Our Thinking.” Neuroscience Journal, 45(3), 112-129.

12. Keles, B., McCrae, N., & Grealish, A. (2020). “The Impact of Social Media on Adolescent Mental Health: A Systematic Review.” BMC Psychiatry, 20(1), 348.

13. Wang, X., & Gao, X. (2023). “Social Media and Psychological Well-Being: The Role of Smartphone Overuse.” Frontiers in Psychology, 14, 985958.

14. Aristotle. Politics, trans. Ernest Barker. Oxford University Press, 1998.

15. Mill, J. S. (1859). On Liberty. London: John W. Parker and Son.

16. Lukianoff, G., & Haidt, J. (2018). The Coddling of the American Mind: How Good Intentions and Bad Ideas Are Setting Up a Generation for Failure. Penguin Press.

17. Inglehart, R. (2018). Cultural Evolution: People’s Motivations Are Changing, and Reshaping the World. Cambridge University Press.

18. Kunda, Z. (1990). The Case for Motivated Reasoning. Psychological Bulletin, 108(3), 480-498.

19. Thunder, D. (2023). The Polycentric Republic: A Theory of Civil Order for Free and Diverse Societies. Oxford University Press.

20. Bail, C. A., et al. (2021). Breaking the Social Media Prism: How to Make Our Platforms Less Polarizing. Princeton University Press.

21. Derks, D., Fischer, A. H., & Bos, A. E. (2008). The Role of Emotion in Computer-Mediated Communication: A Review. Computers in Human Behaviour, 24(3), 766-785.

Pennycook, G., & Rand, D. G. (2019). The Implied Truth Effect: Attaching Warnings to a Subset of Fake News Stories Increases Perceived Accuracy of Stories Without Warnings. Management Science, 65(11), 4944-4957.

---

If there is a chance for a better society, then would you want to be part of building that for you, your family, and your friends?

The Thinking Society presents: "How Critical Minds Build Free and Flourishing Communities".

---

Are you eager to share your insights, discoveries, or research with a global audience?
PANDA focuses on open inquiry, sense-making of scientific developments and the drivers influencing our societies, with an emphasis on the events that mark the Covid era. We invite submissions of articles from experts, enthusiasts, and professionals willing to share their expertise. Please submit your articles to our editorial team at media@pandata.org.

---

Your donation ensures we can continue supporting independent thinking. Donate now.