What Ever Happened to Conversation?

I just had a disturbing experience about an hour ago. I was stopped in the hallway by a co-worker with whom I have recently had a disagreement (the underlying situation isn't important for this topic). I listened calmly and quietly as she expressed a series of views from her perspective of our situation. I responded first with a statement that verified my reception and comprehension of what she had said, and then with statements that presented views from my perspective of the situation. After one repetition of this process, when it was my second turn to express thoughts and perspective, she began interrupting me with her own perspective. After two attempts to complete my thought, I said "While I have listened to what you had to say, your interruptions have made it apparent that you are not interested in hearing what I have to say. This conversation is over, and I must admit that this really disturbs me." and I walked away.

I don't understand what has happened to conversation. Dictionary definitions of conversation may vary in wording, but all contain one particular word or its equivalent: EXCHANGE (as in "an exchange of verbal communication"). Well, an exchange means that elements are given from both sides... and I am increasingly concerned that this element of the modern conversation is an endangered species. My frustrating experience with my co-worker is a scenario I have witnessed between students, between colleagues, between strangers... the "conversation" becomes abandoned when at least one party (and sometimes both) cease to act as a recipient of communication, and insist on acting only as a contributor. This makes it stop being a conversation, and largely stop being an exercise of any value whatsoever.

How often do we fail to solve problems and disagreements because conversation is not actually occurring? I really feel it is probably astoundingly common - likely a majority of problems that are never resolved because of this. Sometimes, there is likely a solution that can be identified and enacted, if only both contributors are also acting as open recipients. Sometimes there may be no solution - but I am convinced that these problems are exacerbated and promogated to cause pain and stress much longer than they need be because of a conversation deficit... when one party feels that they are unheard, it becomes more difficult to let the situation go, while just knowing that you have been heard can be enough to bring closure, even when a "solution" isn't available.

It is all the more disturbing because it sometimes isn't in anger. I can almost understand when this happens because of rising emotions... but there are people who fail to act as recipients even when completely calm. Could this be some sort of a disability? Or is it something they have somehow never learned?

Personally, I end up feeling very guilty in situations such as these. See, I'm a rather sizeable man, and I have been told in the past that I can seem very intimidating for that reason, even when completely calm and personable - so I imagine that I can seem extremely intimidating when agitated, and so I work hard to maintain my temper and to avoid circumstances in which I anticipate potentially experiencing inputs that can agitate me. I don't apologize for who I am, but I try to be very considerate of others, and make certain that those who experience me in an agitated state only do so because there has genuinely been a legitimate and severe reason substantiating it. SO... when I realize I am in a conversation where I have been acting as both recipient and contributor but the other person has shifted into solely contributor mode, I respond by quickly ending the conversation, for caution's sake. Indeed, it contributes to the conversation deficit... but in these cases, the conversation (in particularly, the exchange element that qualifies it as a conversation) has already long since passed away.