<paraphrase> “The definition of a nerd is someone who thinks conversation is for peer reviewing ideas.” “What do non-nerds think conversation is for?” “Negotiating alignment.” </paraphrase>
A good difference to keep in mind when we want to bend parallel conversations with the alignment negotiators to intersection.
It's about whether the discussion is general (valid for anyone) or specific (these people, here, now). The latter gives some weight to subjective arguments and arguments from authority, the former does not, and this is a big qualitative difference.
Alice: “I need you to do X.” Bob: “OK, I’ll do X.”
Not much negotiating, but Bob has aligned to Alice’s request.
More subtle:
Carla: “Do you think we should do X or Y?” Danny: “I’m leaning X but Y might have the following benefits…” Carla: “I’m leaning Y for those exact reasons. Why do you think X?”
And so on, until alignment is reached. Hope this helps!
For me, this explains why some compulsively managerial types are incredibly averse to conceptual abstraction in conversation: it comes off as a bamboozlement attempt!