Lately, the word 'dialogue' has been all the rage. It is fashionable to appeal to dialogue as the philosopher's stone that solves all subject conflicts, especially in the political arena. Who has not heard it said more than once that "this can only be solved through dialogue". This presupposes that there are no other alternative or complementary procedures to dialogue, which, moreover, would be infallible. Dialogue would have no limitations or shortcomings in itself. It is true that we need more dialogue in all life situations, but not as a mantra. The term 'mantra' is currently used in a derogatory way, to demystify reiterative and supposedly fallacious arguments. In Amando de Miguel's opinion, "there is an idea, almost an obsession at times, that citizens and their representatives must dialogue without interruption in order to agree on everything, whatever the cost, at agreement . But dissent is often as necessary as consensus. The mythification of dialogue can sometimes hide the inability of politicians to solve the problems of the people, the taxpayers". On many occasions, the people who offer dialogue have previously decided not to give in to their position staff, so that dialogue is only a formality and an alibi. It is not uncommon for those who presume to engage in dialogue to be dogmatic and/or fanatical. Other people distrust, not dialogue, but certain spurious forms of dialogue. One of these is dialogue that is conditional on not crossing predetermined red lines, which turns the supposed dialogue into something merely instrumental. Dialogue is conducted in order to gain time or to load up on reasons before a planned and desired break-up. Another form of false dialogue is the one that is carried out without thought; sometimes it is comical, although without the grace that had the loquacious and irrational dialogues of the brilliant Cantinflas. Dialogue is a resource widely used by humorists. Many jokes are dialogues. For example: -I've been to the doctor and he took me off whiskey, tobacco and drugs. -But, did you come from the doctor or from customs? The famous humorist Armando M. Guiu said: "politics is, sometimes, like a 'dialogue for kissing kisses'. Nobody says what they think; some do not think what they say; those think and do not say; these, nobody knows what they think; of those beyond, one thinks that they think, but they do not think that one thinks". I imagine that both those who do not engage in dialogue and those who are obsessed with dialogue would change their attitude if they knew the historical origin and meaning of true dialogue. The Philosophy arose from dialogue. When Socrates went around the public place confessing his ignorance and asking for answers to his questions, he invited to dialogue (maieutics) to deepen the answers received. Plato agrees with his master that true thought is dialogue. The Philosophy was born with dialogue, that is, with the very essence of human thought concentrated on the search and knowledge of truth. Often, those who most invoke the resource to dialogue are those who do not know how to listen. If this lack affects both interlocutors, there is no dialogue, but rather two superimposed or collective monologues, a trait that Piaget attributes to three-year-old children. Dialogue demands active listening from both interlocutors. It is an attitude that disposes the receiver to concentrate on the speaker and to provide answers. Active listening includes showing occasional student that you have been understood. It refers to the ability to listen not only to what the person is expressing verbally and directly, but also to his or her hidden feelings. The delegate needs to have empathic understanding: the ability to put oneself in the other person's shoes to try to see things as they see them. There are some obstacles that prevent us from listening efficiently: attention divided between different objects; attention focused on ourselves; pretending to listen; downplaying what someone else says just because we have different ideas. We must avoid the 'expert syndrome': giving the answer before the other person speaks. Perhaps the main obstacle is the personal shortcomings of the interlocutors. Thus, according to Benjamín Santos, "the arrogant do not engage in dialogue, they impose. Fanatics do not dialogue, they insult. The self-sufficient do not dialogue, they despise. Those with a complex of superiority or inferiority do not engage in dialogue, they look down on or look down on the other. Jean Lacroix affirms that all authentic human activity is dialogue: dialogue with the world, which is poetry; dialogue with others, which is love; dialogue with God, which is prayer. He adds that our culture is dialectical, because thanks to the incessant confrontation of ideas, it becomes an effort to overcome.