What does a learning discussion look like?

I once wrote to a "student" a note on how to evaluate comprehensively. Its a process of active engagement. I cant find that note but will try to reproduce it here. You first need to read everything without addition or subtraction. Then you ask questions like, if this point is good, why and how is it good? If it is not correct, why and how is it not correct? Then we go one step further. We ask, how can this idea be improved? How is this relevant to me? Where does this idea stand in my order of priorities? etc. etc. You also need to see if it's overall good or overall bad. The specifics and the general.

But before we even begin the process of evaluation we ask questions to the author. Is this what you mean? Can you elaborate on what you are saying? I do not want to misunderstand. I want to engage my reasoning faculties.

This is called a learning discussion. There is no drama. No one is trying to put the other down. No one is trying to prove his superior intellect before everything is considered. There is no up down. All are learning. And the winning argument is adopted. Sometimes its a hybrid of two or more ideas. There is learning and there is growth. Think on this.

Very similar to a technical discussion on chess. Only different variables and on a bigger canvass.