At a recent conference, I found myself in conversation with a fellow participant. We were exchanging ideas when I saw his expression shift. He began to speak at length about what it meant to be human on the spiritual path. As he spoke, I started to feel less like a collaborator and more like a one-person audience.

About 10 minutes in, I drifted. I wondered what they would offer us for lunch and whether I would make it home on the train.

In the past, I might have berated myself for my lapse in attention, but something about the quality of the interaction stopped the usual self-flagellation. Perhaps, I thought, this was a very justifiable moment of countertransference, an unconscious response shaped partly by the other.

Later, a friend agreed this was a case of what we jokingly called “conference-splaining” – a phenomenon where conviction takes over and the conversation becomes unnervingly one-way. Of course, this is not limited to conference-goers – we are all guilty of it. I confess, I was probably waxing lyrical about an issue only a few days ago!

The irony is that the beliefs we find ourselves pontificating about are often very interesting, even resonant, to the listener. And yet, this isn’t a problem of content, but rather the way we relate to our beliefs – the way rigidity and indignation can shut down the relational field. In these moments, we find little........

© The Guardian