Interrupting an explanation that doesn’t help you, that you don’t accept and won’t benefit from for one reason or another, getting the conversation back on track or reframing it.
Going back to the fork in the argument, the point at which one first began to disagree, is helpful and the main way I would put that. For me, reframing usually comes after going back to the fork doesn’t work.
I find that “misunderstanding” describes the difficulties in the process of actually trying to communicate better than “disagreement”. “Disagreement” is not so much a failure mode, as a way in which to focus on the questions that you need to form better mutual understanding about. So you abort a line of conversation not because of disagreement, but because of misunderstanding, while disagreement refocuses the conversation.
Going back to the fork in the argument, the point at which one first began to disagree, is helpful and the main way I would put that. For me, reframing usually comes after going back to the fork doesn’t work.
I find that “misunderstanding” describes the difficulties in the process of actually trying to communicate better than “disagreement”. “Disagreement” is not so much a failure mode, as a way in which to focus on the questions that you need to form better mutual understanding about. So you abort a line of conversation not because of disagreement, but because of misunderstanding, while disagreement refocuses the conversation.