Background: Despite its dazzling technological advances, the contemporary world grapples with a human crisis born from the dominance of instrumental rationality and the coldness of interpersonal relations. In this context, dialogue—as authentic conversation—emerges as a fundamental solution for fostering mutual understanding, collective consciousness, and public reason. On this path, intellectuals, as bearers of critique and awareness, play a key role in promoting a culture of dialogue and revitalizing the public sphere. Aim: The aim of this research is to transform the abstract concept of "dialogue quality" into objective, quantifiable, and analyzable indicators in order to measure and evaluate the health and authenticity of dialogue within an influential social group (the intellectuals). Method: Accordingly, the statistical population, based on the components of the theoretical framework, consisted of all dialogues published in every issue of Ayin Monthly from 2004 to 2011 (issues 1 to 35) and every issue of Iran-e Farda Monthly from 2014 to 2020 (issues 1 to 59). Purposive sampling continued until theoretical saturation was achieved; meaning that the examination of subsequent samples yielded no new components or concepts in the data, and the data became repetitive. This stage was accomplished upon the analysis of 14 samples. Content analysis was selected as the research method, with the paragraph serving as the unit of analysis. Results: According to the research findings, it can be stated that within the examined texts, dialogical indicators were more prevalent than anti-dialogical indicators. Among the dialogical indicators, the principle of "honesty and frankness" was employed more than other dialogical concepts. Conversely, among the anti-dialogical indicators, the principle of "ignorance and certitude" (jahl wa īqān) was observed more than other principles. Conclusions: The analysis revealed that intellectual dialogues have progressed in form (frankness and focus on debate), but remain weak in substance (listening and avoidance of dogmatism). This gap between appearance and depth signifies an unfinished transition from debate to genuine dialogue.