Cognitive incision is a useful tactic.

One of my questions would be, why should we have to use ‘tactics’ like cognitive incision to get a word in, to try and focus a pointless conversation, to stop a droning bore or interrupt a domineering narcissist?

How about we change our basic patterns of how we talk with each other, when our default behavior is not getting us what we want?

Our culture’s default mode of conversation or discussion is to let whoever dominates mostly dominate, and whoever submits mostly submit. With the occasional token “inclusion,” such as “we haven’t heard much from Dave yet — anything you want to say, Dave?”

This mean we miss much of the intelligence and wisdom in a group, because only a few people are actually conversing in most cases. And often they’re not actually conversing, just trying to “win” whatever is at stake.

Doing it differently can be quite simple to start with— just take turns. Make space for each person to contribute. Don’t allow interruption or cross-talk or side conversations. Everyone else is listening. Cognitive incision can still be beneficial — as a form of contribution, rather than a ‘tactic’.

This will often be really difficult to do, in practice. It requires emotional maturity, self-regulation, responsibility to self and group, respect for other perspectives and opinions, and appreciation of how a whole can be far greater than the sum of some of its parts.

Tricks and tactics to temporarily disrupt default behavior do not affect outcomes nearly as much as outright changing default behavior.