> don't directly address the point of your question / provide a much complex answer (or even worse, a non-answer) to a simple question
Understood the question, and without acknowledging the immediate implications, goes on to spell out the pictures that pop into their mind without sharing context for it.
> don't stay focused to the point of the discussion
In their mind, they are following the discussion to where it naturally leads. They only failed to connect the dots by providing context.
> don't have some level of clarity in their train of thought and speech
This one's hit or miss. Maybe they do have something that ties together what they're talking about but haven't shared it clearly. Other times, they're just rambling on.
> generally over-complicate matters by wandering off to other related subjects and extending the scope of the discussion
Continuation of two points above. If there were more sync-points where participants would be clear about what they acknowledge and agree on, acknowledge and disagree on, then they could get to why/where there are discrepancies in their viewpoints. Unfortunately many are unable to express why/what their objections arise from and are gut reactions which may be valid but difficult to name.
I think an effective way to fix this conversation pattern is to adopt "Yes, and ..." rather than the unspoken 'ok' then spoken "But ...".
> don't directly address the point of your question / provide a much complex answer (or even worse, a non-answer) to a simple question
Understood the question, and without acknowledging the immediate implications, goes on to spell out the pictures that pop into their mind without sharing context for it.
> don't stay focused to the point of the discussion
In their mind, they are following the discussion to where it naturally leads. They only failed to connect the dots by providing context.
> don't have some level of clarity in their train of thought and speech
This one's hit or miss. Maybe they do have something that ties together what they're talking about but haven't shared it clearly. Other times, they're just rambling on.
> generally over-complicate matters by wandering off to other related subjects and extending the scope of the discussion
Continuation of two points above. If there were more sync-points where participants would be clear about what they acknowledge and agree on, acknowledge and disagree on, then they could get to why/where there are discrepancies in their viewpoints. Unfortunately many are unable to express why/what their objections arise from and are gut reactions which may be valid but difficult to name.
I think an effective way to fix this conversation pattern is to adopt "Yes, and ..." rather than the unspoken 'ok' then spoken "But ...".