Yes, it is communication in general. Just structured to be a bit more productive than usual. Below is a more unified description I wrote about it, before you posted.
Overall, it’s a method of discussion where participants explore and understand the differences between them. When they fully understand each other’s differences, they then have a better chance of communicating productively.
To incentivize this kind of discussion, a kind that does not come easily to humans, it’s described as a game.
The long game
Over many participants playing for many audiences, both the players and audiences become more aware of each other’s perspectives, possibly resulting in better cooperation. That’s the long term goal of the entire game.
The medium game.
A player wants to have his perspective known as widely as possible, over multiple exchanges, as he believes his perspective is a worthy one to promulgate. He wants to have as many exchanges in front of as many audiences as possible. So he plays the short game to facilitate this medium term goal.
The short game
The players trade perspectives. They want, over the medium run, to trade with the best perspective takers - players who will understand their perspective the best. As the players choose who they trade perspectives with, each player tries to be as good a perspective-taker as possible.
An exchange.
The players describe their perspective in a few sentences or paragraph, accentuating what they think makes their’s different.
They then try to understand the way of thinking of the other player that produces that difference. How is that other player’s thinking different than their own? Areas of agreement are only important as reference points for understanding disagreement. In a single exchange, reaching an agreement is not at all the point. Understanding the difference is.
Many times, the difference is perceived as a flaw, the way of thinking is “wrong”. The point is not to point out the wrongness, but to understand it. To understand exactly what kind of thinking leads to this particular “wrongness”. To the point where a player can replicate the wrongness in their own minds (not that they agree with it, they just now understand how it works).
They test this understanding with hypothetical examples. If I’m trading perspectives with a flat earth conspiracy believer, I would try to figure out how he understands what information to trust, and what to not. I would try out hypothetical examples until I could predict what kinds of information he trusts and what kinds he doesn’t. Even if I think his ways of ascertaining veracity are completely wrong and flawed.
Even if it’s just gut instinct. I would ask “Using your perspective, if I just had the gut feeling that information is incorrect, I would not believe it?” If he says yes, then I’ve successfully understood at least part of his perspective.
The goal of a single exchange is to understand, as fully as possible, the differences in ways of thinking, without any attempt to reconcile those differences. The two players are not playing against each other, as they are helping each other understand each other’s differences.
So, it’s really just a method of discussion. Instead of trying to find areas of agreement, it’s looking for all the areas of disagreement, which is where all the problems actually lie. When we fully understand the disagreement, we understand the problems. If we just look for areas of agreement, we never understand the problems.
It makes consensus a two step process, where you have to zig before you zag.
First, you zig - fully understand the differences, the disagreements, without an inkling or interest in the similarities or areas of agreement. No one is trying to convince anyone of anything. No one is trying to prove anyone wrong. They are letting their guards down specifically so they can help each other understand each other’s “wrongness”.
Second, you zag. With a much fuller understanding of each other’s perspectives, there’s a greater possibility of consensus.