There is a type of communication that severely hinders problem-solving within the intimacy of the family circle or close relationships. It can be referred to as circular communication, representing the manipulation of dialogue and it’s detailed in another article.

There is an undeniable reality: to resolve issues, one must first discuss them. The issue of communication needs to be delved into deeply, as it is where the majority of problems lie. During the discussion, it is crucial to be in a dynamic of delving into the question, the subject, the problem at hand, and to listen and understand the other person.

In an ideal situation of openness to different ways of thinking, this could go somewhat like this: One must have some knowledge or information to justify their position. If one has an opinion on something without any knowledge, without having thought about it, and without having informed themselves or conducted research, they need to be aware of this and thus receive and analyze the other person's arguments, who might have done this work, including reflection.

If both have knowledge on the subject, it is then a matter of hearing the other person's arguments, which must be relevant to the specific subject at hand and preferably mention a credible and validated source, not based on beliefs. After hearing them, one should reflect on, question, and verify their validity to evaluate whether or not they should be taken into account. If at the moment, one does not want to simply accept the other person's arguments due to a lack of knowledge, it is, of course, possible to say, okay, I understand, I will also conduct research on the question on my end and get back to you later.

The other person should not try to muddy the waters by presenting stupid arguments to dilute or blur the discourse, and arguments unrelated to the subject, consciously or not, so that the discussion does not focus on the fact that this argument is unrelated to the discussion. This exhausts the interlocutor willing to move forward and wastes time, preventing the resolution of the situation or even the exploration of the problem.

This is in the hope of achieving mutual understanding and a consensus, or even solutions. In short, each party has intelligently listened to the other and has sought to present truly relevant arguments based on facts or "sorts" of evidence.
This is in an ideal situation, which is far from the norm in terms of communication and even more so in conflictual communications.