Not too sure if I misunderstood the initial premise of the post, but the examples given seem not to be “similar” enough for me to follow the reasoning about the cause(s) for the dialog going poorly to be the same.
The one commonality I can immediately make out is that the initial proposition seems too unspecific for the interlocutor to know what the intention of the speaker actually is (other than to answer with, “you’re exactly right, so now what?”).
At the very least, if I add an implied question of, “assuming you agree with P, what do you suggest we do about it?”—I then imagine that a reasonably deep thinking person (B) will reply back that P is too abstract (“that headline” for instance doesn’t specify WHICH headline in the form as it is given, neither does it specify any other context parameters, such as what kind of publication it is, and why the people behind it may be doing exactly what their intention is with the headline; it may not align with the preferences of A, but why does that make the headline “wrong” in any way...?)
Every choice in life (headlines, fixing security/safety problems in software, tracing exposed individuals) is a trade-off, and I don’t think that there ever is a “fixed” correct choice that would apply across all possible combinations of variables in a scenario—hence why smart people can disagree in the first place...
Not too sure if I misunderstood the initial premise of the post, but the examples given seem not to be “similar” enough for me to follow the reasoning about the cause(s) for the dialog going poorly to be the same.
The one commonality I can immediately make out is that the initial proposition seems too unspecific for the interlocutor to know what the intention of the speaker actually is (other than to answer with, “you’re exactly right, so now what?”).
At the very least, if I add an implied question of, “assuming you agree with P, what do you suggest we do about it?”—I then imagine that a reasonably deep thinking person (B) will reply back that P is too abstract (“that headline” for instance doesn’t specify WHICH headline in the form as it is given, neither does it specify any other context parameters, such as what kind of publication it is, and why the people behind it may be doing exactly what their intention is with the headline; it may not align with the preferences of A, but why does that make the headline “wrong” in any way...?)
Every choice in life (headlines, fixing security/safety problems in software, tracing exposed individuals) is a trade-off, and I don’t think that there ever is a “fixed” correct choice that would apply across all possible combinations of variables in a scenario—hence why smart people can disagree in the first place...