Some believe that Socrates was made famous solely by his ability to win an argument. Of course, this cannot be taken away - Socrates knew how to win any argument. And he did it so skillfully that the opponent himself did not notice how he accepted the point of view of Socrates and defended it with incredible fury.
In the time of Socrates, everyone argued, and among the losers there was a popular saying: “If I knew how to argue with a fool, then in our last dispute I would have won.” So everyone justified himself, but in relation to Socrates, these words never sounded. They came to him again and again: to listen, to learn, to try to surpass ...
Before you are the rules, thanks to which the art of persuasion of Socrates reached such heights, to which all orators and philosophers have been striving for about 2500 years, but which no one has yet been able to surpass.
Emotion control
An elevated tone in an argument is your main enemy. And therefore, emotions must be under complete control, if you, of course, strive to comprehend the art of persuasion.
Eliminate the monologue
Sometimes you really want to explain your point of view to the interlocutor as detailed and accessible as possible. It seems to us that a person simply does not have enough information and that is why this dispute arose. If you are interested in how to argue with a person and leave a sense of respect for the opinion of the interlocutor, exclude the monologue from the dispute.
Dialog
Give maximum preference in any dispute to dialogue. Equal dialogue shows mutual respect of opponents for each other's points of view. Therefore, the ability to convince implies, first of all, the ability to conduct a dialogue.
Refutation of the words of the opponent
Contrary to a great desire, you should not directly refute the words of the interlocutor. This will not lead to positive results, but will only increase stubbornness. In this case, the dispute will be conducted not for the sake of truth, but for the sake of the dispute.
Ask
One of the most practical and effective answers to the question “how to argue properly” is “ask the right questions”. This is exactly what the great Socrates did: he asked a simple and short question, the answer to which was not difficult for the opponent. Thus, the philosopher relieved the tension inherent in the dispute, and involved the interlocutor in polemics.
Dialogue Plan
For Socrates, who knew how to win an argument, it was not difficult to plan a dialogue even before it began, and then, adhering to a clear strategy, lead the opponent to inevitable defeat.
If Socrates were our contemporary, he might have published the book “How to Win an Argument in Three Steps”, in which he would describe in a broad and detailed manner the basic rules for posing questions in an argument:
- Divide your belief into several simpler parts.
- Formulate each such part in the form of a simple question.
- Ask questions that push the opponent to a predictable, beneficial answer.
Correct answers of the opponent
Each answer received by Socrates during the dialogues only confirmed his correctness, the justice of his judgments. And, a uniquely built, logical chain of questions and answers, no matter how long it dragged on, ultimately led to the fact that the opponent himself refuted his initial beliefs.
You are quite capable of leading the interlocutor to the fact that he himself, with his own lips, expressed your opinion. Properly selected and posed questions will make you forget even to think about how to win in disputes. You will simply enjoy how the conversation flows and how your thought, voiced by the opponent, becomes his own conviction.
Don't argue
It is rather strange to hear that the art of persuasion is not honed and tempered in argument. Arguing has nothing to do with the ability to convince in our time.
Want to know how to win an argument? - Don't argue.
After all, the dispute, in itself, involves a kind of confrontation, a clash of two points of view, where one must necessarily be true, and the other false. In a dispute, there is a struggle, not a search for truth.
Try to understand the interlocutor. Treat his position with due respect. Show sincere interest in his thoughts and what led him to such conclusions, even if you do not agree with them. Listen and you will be heard.
Surprisingly, “not arguing” is the most effective method of persuasion.
Experiment, control emotions, ask questions, try to understand the interlocutor and do not argue - a short answer to the question "How to win any dispute using the Socratic method of persuasion."
Defending your opinion in a dispute is a real art that requires us not only to be eloquent, but also to know the simplest and most effective tricks for disarming opponents. Everyone can learn these techniques, most importantly, respect the sense of significance of all participants in the dialogue and maintain dignity.
Read on for 10 ways to put your opponent in his place!
1. Follow the thoughts of the interlocutor
One of the main mistakes in a dispute is ignoring the remarks of a counterpart, when we direct all our imagination to inventing “beautiful” answers. Very soon, both participants forget about the subject of the dispute and get personal. Do not go into yourself, it is better to listen carefully and look for contradictions in the words of the interlocutor - pauses of uncertainty, perverted logic, excessive generalizations. Find weak points in the argument and strike there!
2. Fill up with clarifying questions
“Explain how you understand this? And what happens if it happens otherwise? In this technique, the main thing is to look for contradictions, ask clarifying questions, playing the role of a “simple-minded don’t know”, but not a cynical accuser. Pretend that you just want to understand everything, that you are not a threat, and at the same time continue to complicate matters. Sooner or later, the opponent will merge.
3. Back up your argument with facts
When the Internet is at hand, it has become easier to come out as a winner: just google the statistics on your question and show it to your interlocutor. It is easy to refute a proven fact if you find convincing examples. And to increase the chances of winning, a reference to the words of authoritative personalities - writers, scientists, historical figures will help. “Benjamin Franklin himself said…” “According to Yale University statistics…”
4. Play with guilt
Sometimes a well-chosen emotion devalues the most revealing arguments, you just need to skillfully use this weapon. "You take me for an idiot?" “I don’t believe that such an educated person as you could make such a mistake!” The trick is to hurt your opponent to the quick, make him question his knowledge, and then deflate.
5. Speed up your speech
Another way to confuse the opponent is to overwhelm him with so much argumentation that he would not be able to process. In this case, it is best to speak quickly, leaving the person no time to think about every fact mentioned. The state of discomfort will turn off the desire to compete - and you will emerge victorious.
6. Use professional terminology
Not only will cumbersome phrases emphasize your competence in the matter, but they will also add weight to the voiced words. You will give the impression of a person who is well versed in the topic. The opponent will immediately begin to wag, fail in argumentation, look for support on the side - and lose. Another option is that he will be ashamed to clarify the meaning of scientific words, pretending that he understood them well. This is where you catch him.
7. Make your opponent feel ashamed
How to help a disputant swallow false arguments, and even be ashamed of his ignorance? Play on a sense of importance, because no one wants to admit their incompetence. “You know very well the latest news of science!” "Surely you saw what happened yesterday?" And let nothing happen, the majority will fall for this bait, swallowing the bait. They will not want to admit that they have no idea what you are talking about here. This will be the beginning of the end.
8. Reduce the general to the specific
If you feel that you are being taken over, you can always point out to the enemy that his words and arguments are his personal vision of the situation, they say, he does not have the right to speak for everyone. "That's just your opinion, buddy!" What will happen? He will have to move from the topic of the dispute to the defense of his claims. And whoever defends himself, he lost.
9. Partially agree with your opponent
When we are in absolute confrontation, we are easily crushed. And here a trick comes to the rescue - to try to win over the interlocutor so that he relaxes and loses his vigilance: “yes, you are absolutely right, but” or “I agree with your words and still I would like to clarify.” That is, you seem to take the side of the enemy, and then push through your arguments. This removes the militant attitude from a person and simplifies communication.
10. Keep a cool head
Do not go beyond the bounds of decency, yell, insult, hysteria in response to provocations from the outside - this will lower your chances of winning. Be restrained in your emotions, try to be confident, show respect to your opponent and express your thoughts clearly. Interrupting, clowning, mimicking, you show yourself weak, leaving a chance for others to manipulate your feelings. Don't make that mistake.
Remember, you are not arguing with a person, but with his position, which does not correspond to your beliefs. Find fault not with the tone of the opponent, not with his appearance or character, but with the thoughts that he expresses. Explore the worldview, not the personality as a whole! If you see that a constructive dispute turns into demagoguery, that at your expense the interlocutor is trying to assert himself, ignoring common sense, put an end to it. Victory will not bring satisfaction if the goal is to humiliate a person, and not to find the truth.
Calculating average earnings is a very confusing topic. Many employees think that sometimes on vacation or a business trip they receive less than they are entitled to. This leads to resentment and conflict. But employers are not able to change anything - the rules for calculating average earnings are strictly regulated by law. Why do disputes arise?
Average earnings - the average salary of an employee accrued for the billing period, say for a year. According to Art. 139 of the Labor Code, it is necessary to take into account all types of payments that exist in the company. Government Decree No. 922 of December 24, 2007 “On the Peculiarities of the Procedure for Calculating Average Wages” clarifies that average earnings take into account salary, wages for piece work, income as a percentage of revenue or in non-monetary form. We are talking about actual payments and actual hours worked for the year.
There are five situations where average earnings apply: vacation pay and unused vacation pay upon dismissal, business trip, training (advanced training) and medical examinations, periods for pregnant women and family-related (medical examination, nursing breaks, childcare allowance), as well as days off retirement benefits and salary retention until employment. The most common cases are vacation and business trip.
The calculation of vacation pay is one of the most difficult issues, because the law dictates some rules for accrual, and the labor market dictates others. The TC says that the employee has the right to at least 28 calendar days of vacation, and the company has the right to determine when this vacation is given. If you follow the letter of the law, the employer must draw up a vacation schedule and send a person on vacation for all four weeks at once. In this case, there will be almost no loss in earnings.
But they appear if the vacation is broken into parts. This is convenient for both the company and employees, but is not provided for by law. For example, because of the long January holidays, people began to divide their vacation into parts more often. The problem is that the employer is obliged to provide vacation in calendar days, and the salary is calculated based on working days. When an employee takes five working days to rest, for an accountant these are calendar days. Therefore, the salary is divided into more days and the cost of one working day is reduced. If you take a vacation for a calendar week, then the payments will be higher.
Suppose an employee's salary is 50,000 rubles. For a week from Monday to Friday, his salary will be 11,900 rubles. If he takes a vacation for these five working days, the income will be divided into calendar days (29.3, in accordance with Article 139 of the Labor Code) and will amount to only 8,500 rubles. But if an employee writes an application for leave for seven calendar days, he will be paid about 11,950 rubles. - the same amount that he would have received by working as usual.
The second most common case is business trips. Often an employee noticeably loses money if he is sent to another city or region. The difference is especially noticeable in the short months - January, February, May, in which there are the fewest working days. The person is dissatisfied: he works, and he is not transferred a salary, but the average earnings for the days of the trip, and this earnings can be noticeably less than the salary due.
The average earnings on business trips are considered to be the division of the salary for the previous 12 months by the days actually worked during this time. The calculations take into account salary, bonuses, allowances, additional payments, but without social payments and material assistance. In addition, the calculations do not include payments for sick leave, vacation, parental leave and business trips.
For example, an employee with a five-day work week and a salary of 35,000 rubles. goes on a business trip from Monday to Wednesday in January and must receive an average salary of three working days. Let's say he earned 416,000 rubles in a year, having worked 244 days. The average daily earnings will be 1706 rubles, in three days he will be credited with 5118 rubles. But if the employee does not go on a business trip, he will receive almost 6200 rubles. (35,000 rubles divided by 17 working days in January and multiplied by 3 days).
If, in addition to the salary, the employee also receives a bonus, the picture completely changes. The bonus is included in the average earnings, which rises significantly. But in one case, the premium is included in one-time payments for one month, in the other, it is proportionally divided into 12 months. It depends on what is written in the corporate regulation on bonuses.
Example from practice: an employee worked in the office for 21 days, and the rest of the month was on a business trip. His bonus was equal to a year's salary but included in that one month. As a result, his entire salary and bonus fell on 21 working days and his average daily earnings exceeded 100,000 rubles. If the premium is divided proportionally over 12 months, the average daily income would be about 10,000 rubles. per month. Such is the price of a single word in a bonus clause.-
adminAn argument is a confrontation of evidence asserting different positions or opinions on the same issue. How to learn to always win in an argument? What tricks do you use to prove you're right or just win the fencing of the minds?
Dispute and its types
The arguing parties provide evidence, arguments, tricks, elements of rhetoric in order to come to a result: to find an answer, to get the desired turn of events, or to gain the outward appearance of victory. It is on the final goal that the choice of methods for conducting a controversial bickering depends. Allocate a dispute for finding the truth, for persuasion, for victory, sports and play.
The argument theory was created by the ancient Greek philosopher Aristotle. He also distinguished the types:
Dialectics. When the disputants find out the truth with the help of logic, the correct arrangement of arguments.
Sophistry. Rightness is achieved with the help of true and false evidence: substitutions, mistakes, tricks.
Eristic. The idea is proved by dishonest methods and at any cost.
In the philosophical book The Art of Conquering, there is a somewhat different attitude towards the Aristotelian classification. In Schopenhauer, eristicism is based on the competent persuasion of others that one is right. It is an art in which the goal is intellectual victory.
Types of dispute using correct methods:
A dispute in order to jointly gain the truth or find out the grounds for accepting or rejecting an idea is called a discussion, dispute or discussion. The experience of conducting such bickering allows you to learn to recognize and not support non-knowledgeable or demagogic disputes.
Controversy is a "militant" belief. In any case, aimed at asserting precisely one's point of view and a complete refutation of another.
Doubtful methods of conducting a dispute are used:
In an eclectic dispute, which involves the search for truth, but using any means for this.
In a sophistical confrontation. Meaning, which to defeat, and not to find out the truth.
Interestingly, it is possible to prove one's case logically, but not to convince. This happens if difficult-to-understand arguments are chosen, the method of their presentation that does not correspond to the public (speech, manners, uncertainty in behavior). As well as vice versa, one can convince by emotional and psychological methods of influence, but not by argumentation.
Components of the dispute
A dispute is positive when the process and victory are not an end in itself. Leading to useful results for the arguing and being a special way of knowing. But this approach requires a certain personal culture. Algorithm of the "correct" dispute:
Reasoned and understandable presentation of thoughts to the interlocutor.
Listening and understanding the other's point of view.
Evaluation, challenging what was heard or correcting one's position.
Search for new arguments, listening to rebuttals.
So - until the truth is clarified or one of the opponents accepts the arguments of the other side. The main thing in a dispute is the presence of a problem or topic and evidence.
Any proof must consist of the following terms:
Thesis - the main idea.
Arguments (or arguments) that are made up of facts (objective, actual event) and opinions (subjective judgment, assessment, assumption).
Demos. That is, a way to convey arguments to the listener.
Only a competent connection of the components of the evidence will help to win the dispute.
How to argue in order to win?
A successful person who cultivates leadership skills needs the ability to argue, not only to gain a heady sense of triumph. And, as Turgenev believed, in order to benefit from a dispute with a more intelligent opponent, pleasure - from fighting with an equal, to help the weak in mind and for fun - with a stupid one. What is the right way to argue?
Courtesy and calmness. Respect for the opponent is obligatory, as well as for his sincere convictions. This is a sign of a broad mind.
Self-control is our everything, otherwise the defense of one's point of view and the refutation of someone else's opinion turns into a swara. Emotions interfere with listening and presenting arguments. generate errors that can be easily exploited by a competent adversary.
In the presence of listeners, equanimity makes a good impression.
Listen to your opponent. If only one side speaks, then there is no dispute, even if the second participant disagrees. And the speech of one speaker is just a monologue. Therefore, listening to the interlocutor is the most important condition. Including to win the verbal altercation.
It is a paradox, but it is when a person is allowed to speak out that he becomes more open to the perception of someone else's opinion. Of course, if he is not endowed with psychopathic traits.
And yet, with a detailed statement of the evidence of your assertion, sometimes the opponent's conviction that he is right is lost, which helps to win. This happens due to the lack of thorough knowledge about the subject of the dispute, or other aspects of the topic. Before discussing the problem of what is not realized, but raised when “pronouncing”.
The more a person speaks, the more likely to make a mistake or move away from the topic, taking advantage of this, they achieve superiority.
It follows from the previous paragraph that it is necessary to have fundamental knowledge about the subject that caused the disagreement. And from different positions. A dispute between two ignoramuses is meaningless, as well as an expert with a stubborn layman.
Reasonable reasoning:
Establish the "modality" of the thesis: it is true, sufficiently reliable or false. Likely, less likely or, if there are no arguments for or against, only possible.
Ideally, this requires truthfulness. But the use of incorrect techniques implies that deliberate dishonesty is also possible.
Collect arguments for and against the main theses. When collecting information, ask questions: “How and why?”. This will help to identify for yourself the boundaries and scope of the topic in which you will have to argue and find counterarguments.
Divide the arguments into "best", "good" and "bad". A few “strong” ones are better than many “weak” ones. The order of use depends on the chosen tactic. You can let your opponent speak, giving weak arguments, and then “baffle” with strong ones. But then, it is likely that the enemy will use the unsuccessful sides of your “bad” arguments, as an enhancement and addition to his evidence base. So, one should proceed from the subject of the contradiction and the psychology of the interlocutor.
"Homer's Rule" suggests using strong arguments, then good ones, and then the best ones again. And from the weak in the controversy - one harm.
It is desirable that each opinion is supported by a concrete fact. For example, the opinion: "Rosehip oil is better than expensive cream." Fact: "Scientists conducted a test in such and such a year and found out that the composition (what) has a positive effect (how exactly) on the skin."
Make sure that the recognition of evidence "pulls" the recognition of the thesis.
Incorrect maneuver: drawing up a false causal relationship.
Presentation of arguments. To defeat a disputant, one should competently and intelligibly, adjusting to the interlocutor. According to Aristotelian rhetoric, the following appeals stand out:
Pathos. By appealing to the emotions of the opponent, you can cause empathy or sympathy for your arguments.
Logos. Appeal to logic and reason. Facts, statistics, links to objectively authoritative sources are great.
Epos. Appeal referring to experience. For example, in a dispute about the best winter tires, a motorist who indicated, as an argument, his driving experience, will look more convincing than a “pedestrian” who has never driven a car.
Weakening the opponent's arguments.
Using the information that was collected earlier to confirm their correctness, find an error in the thesis or argumentative base.
To notice logical errors in the connection between arguments and theses, when confirmation of the main idea does not follow from the given argument.
Pay attention to the substitution of the thesis or departure from it.
If opponents do not have statistics, ask for just such evidence.
Ask leading questions so that the person arguing with you will come to the conclusion you need without noticing the catch. T. n. Socratic method.
Exposing a single case as a system that confirms the rule.
Distort the argument, dismembering it, choosing weaknesses. Sometimes to the point of absurdity.
"The boomerang effect". To turn an argument or judgment against the speaker means to increase its impact.
To win in a dispute, tricks and evasions, methods of psychological influence, and rhetorical devices are also used.
Psychological methods of influencing the opponent.
When arguing for the sake of persuasion and victory, manipulative techniques are used: simple “mirroring”, flattery, praise, expression of empathy. Or, on the contrary, annoyance of the opponent, deliberately urging him on, so that in a hurry he would make a slip or make a mistake.
irony, . They defuse the situation, create a favorable impression with the audience. Negative irony psychologically suppresses the opponent. But in a business debate, witticisms are out of place.
To attack the personal qualities of the interlocutor is "an argument to the person." Suitable as an auxiliary trick, but not as the only one. It is considered incorrect, but sometimes effective.
Rhetorical device: begins with agreement with the argument, assumptions. But at the end is the strongest counterargument.
Focus exclusively on weak arguments, pronouncing them several times.
Use as often as possible the word "yes" yourself and call it from the enemy. The Socratic Method makes some use of this. Studies have shown that “no” causes a surge of adrenaline in a person, and a positive affirmation helps to release endorphins. Psychologically, it relaxes, reduces the ability to fight. The counterpart will become more suggestible and convincing.
Use the pronoun "we" - this reduces the opponent's desire for confrontation.
In order to learn how to win disputes, a business person needs to expand vocabulary, train, consciously manage emotions, and master oratory skills. To have an idea, as a cognitive activity, psychological methods of influencing the opponent and dispute methods: correct and incorrect.
In order to always win in an argument, for the sake of pleasure or persuasion, you can not use "dirty" actions, but you need to know about the different ways of conducting a discussion or polemic. To easily nullify tricks, tricks and evasions.
No matter how important the subject of confrontation, one should always remember that dissent is not a reason for a fight. If emotions run high, the debate is immediately curtailed. And for a self-confident person, sometimes it is more important not to win an argument by any means, but to admit defeat beautifully.
March 18, 2014, 03:18 pmGetting involved in an argument can be an incredibly stressful experience. Focusing on "winning" an argument sometimes robs us of the ability to really hear what the other person is saying. The situation can be remedied if you keep your cool, take time outs, and get your point across calmly and rationally (instead of yelling, yelling, or crying). Although we do not guarantee you victory in an argument, with this article you will be able to conduct it with dignity and perhaps transfer this mature manner of debating into future successful arguments.
Steps
Part 1
Express your position appropriately- If this is not possible, remember to at least breathe during the argument. You may want to make your case as quickly and loudly as possible, but the slower you do it, the calmer your participation in the conflict will be.
- Try to make your non-verbal body language and gestures express openness and affection towards the interlocutor. There is a little trick to this: with the help of the body, you can relax the mind. Do not cross your arms; let them hang freely at the sides or gesticulate to reinforce verbal arguments.
- Don't raise your voice. Work on keeping your voice even. If you tend to scream when you get upset or angry, work on your breathing. For example, for 4 counts (1-and-2-and-3-and-4-and) inhale, for 6 - exhale. This will help you stay cool.
-
Get rid of the desire to leave the “last word” behind you. Before you get into a serious conflict, remember that you don't always have to have the last word, even if you're right. Be content with having expressed your point of view correctly and rationally, even if this did not change the opinion of the interlocutor. So the dispute will not turn into an endless skirmish in an attempt by each of the parties to put an end to the discussion.
- Your attempt at a final lunge could hurt yourself, especially if you're in a relationship with that person (and even if you're not, people talk to each other and that can hurt you in the long run). If the argument has reached the final point - both sides have spoken and there is nothing to add - just leave this situation and move on.
-
Take a time out. It's best to do this before you even start an argument - it will give you both a chance to catch your breath and weed out irrelevant or rude arguments. Thanks to this, you will be able to look at the situation from the outside and see the whole problem (or problems).
- You can do this with your spouse, boss, friend, etc. When it comes to friction between the two of you, ask for some space and time to think things through. Then, suggest a specific time to resolve the issue.
- For example: you and your spouse/partner have an argument about whose turn it is to do the dishes (a conflict that later leads you to accuse the interlocutor of refusing equal participation in household chores is a common problem). Say the following: "You know, I wanted to discuss an important issue with you, but I'm thinking how to do it quickly and without nerves. Can we return to this tomorrow after work?" Then you slowly explain the reasons for your behavior and the reason for your feelings, give specific examples and suggest a possible solution to the problem.
- You can use this time to see if it's worth discussing. Sometimes the problem resolves itself instantly, and you see that the question is really trifling - and all you had to do was take a step back and look at the situation from the outside.
-
Be open to the opinion of the interlocutor. Usually, when there is an argument, there is no “right” and “wrong”. Usually we are dealing with two different points of view and interpretations of what is happening. You should be willing to accept a different version of events and hear counter examples, even if you strongly disagree. Your interlocutor can (and probably will) make significant, reasonable remarks.
- For example: you had a dispute with your boss - you think that the boss treats you badly (constantly bullies you and says incredibly offensive things). He insists that the problem arose because of your behavior. Now, consider the situation. Perhaps your behavior made the situation worse (instead of immediately arguing, you choose the passive-aggressive path). By admitting your guilt, you will relieve the pressure that the leader is experiencing, and at the same time, you will be able to tell how your behavior is due to his bad attitude towards you.
- Evaluate your immediate reaction (which is why the time-out to think is very useful). Your first thoughts in response may not be entirely correct (for example, in a situation where someone gives you arguments that contradict or challenge your worldview). Before you loudly shout about your rightness, study the issue using reliable sources of information.
- There may be several such situations in your life when you will argue with a person who is absolutely and undoubtedly wrong (usually this concerns issues of racism, sexism, etc.). You can't win this argument, because usually these people are not able to look at the world from a different angle (for example, to admit the idea that there are simply no grounds for racism and sexism). Don't get into an argument with these people.
Part 2
Behavior during an argument-
Show good intentions. In order for an argument to end well (especially if you want to end it in your favor), you need to convince the interlocutor that you take into account his interests. If you feel that arguing can benefit your relationship with this person, he will feel it too, and you will be more likely to get your point across.
- Before you get into an argument, remind yourself that you care about this person and your relationship (this can be as simple as “this is my manager, I will care about him someday” or deeper “this is my daughter, I care about her interests and worry about some of her decisions that she has been making lately”).
- This does not mean that you should be lenient. Never use phrases like "I'm doing this for your own good" or "I just want to help you get better." After such words, it will no longer be possible to reach a person.
-
Be present in the moment. Be present in the moment - be aware of what is happening to you at the moment, and not think about when the argument will end. This means that you will not raise your voice if you listen to the interlocutor and carefully consider his words. This means paying attention to the feelings and arguments of the opponent.
- Try to avoid arguing in crowded places where both of you can easily get distracted. Do not discuss anything important in situations where you can be interrupted by a phone call or SMS signal (it will be better if you turn off the phone or put it on silent mode).
- Use words to describe what is happening to you. This means that when your heart speeds up and your palms sweat, you should say what is happening to you (you are worried because you are afraid that after this argument your wife will leave you).
-
Lay out all your thoughts and arguments. The clearer, more transparent and more accurate you express your position, the easier it will be for your opponent to accept your position. You really shouldn't make general statements like "You never help me around the house" because your spouse will inevitably remember the one time he helped you and just won't listen anymore.
- The more specific, the better: if you are arguing with your manager, for example, remind him of specific cases when he undeservedly found fault and humiliated you, and tell about your feelings at the same time (reprimanding you in front of everyone, calling names, all those unpleasant things that he spoke behind your back, etc.).
- That's why, when a problem arises in a relationship (in any relationship), you should write it down. Thanks to this, you will be able to show your partner that this is not an isolated case, but a model of his behavior.
- If you are arguing about politics, religion, etc., make sure you know what you are talking about. You need to provide specific facts and avoid logical fallacies (we will discuss these below). Remember, when an argument is about such topics, it is very difficult for people to remain calm and rationalize their position.
-
Listen. You need to really listen to people and think about their perspective on the situation. An argument consists of two (or more) people with different views on a particular issue. It is very rare that one person is completely right and the other is completely wrong. To win an argument, you need to be sure that your opponent feels that their arguments are being listened to and carefully weighed.
- When the interlocutor expresses his position, do not forget to look into his eyes and really listen to what he says. It is not necessary to think through the next argument until the person has fully spoken.
- If you are confused or confused, ask clarifying questions to understand the other person's position correctly.
- That's why it's good to have arguments in a place where you won't be distracted and you can give your full attention to the person you're talking to. If you can't choose a place, try to find some secluded corner; make sure your dispute doesn't happen in front of everyone.
-
Manage your reactions. It is very easy to lose control in the middle of an argument. You may be upset or angry. This is absolutely normal, but in such a situation, it is better to try to behave calmly and remember to constantly breathe in your stomach.
- Sometimes it can be helpful to tell the other person how you feel. Say something like this: "Forgive me, but your statement that I'm lazy really upset me. How did you conclude that I'm lazy?".
- NEVER use name-calling or physical violence. This is incredibly harmful and abusive behavior, and there is literally no reason to use the first or second tactic (the only excuse is when you are in a situation where a person is physically harming you and you are afraid for your life; get out of the situation as quickly as possible).
- No need to treat the interlocutor like an idiot (whatever you think to yourself). Don't talk down to the person, don't be overly sarcastic, don't mimic the person when they talk, don't laugh when they express their feelings.
-
Avoid certain phrases. There are some phrases that seem to be designed to annoy people. If you want to have a real reasonable argument (and not an attempt to scold, suppress the interlocutor, or impose your point of view on him), run from this like the plague:
Part 3
Avoid fallacious logical reasoning- That's why it's good to think ahead about what you're going to say. This gives you the opportunity to see if there are any errors or gaps in your position.
- If you notice that the person you are arguing with is using faulty judgments, point it out to them. For example, you might say, "You're saying that 70% of the people don't support this political reform, but the same could have been said about the abolition of slavery a couple of hundred years ago. Are you sure you want to base your judgments on this argument?"
Understanding the essence of erroneous logical reasoning. Logical fallacies are arguments that undermine your position because they are based on false judgments. If you find that you've been making a false statement in order to convince your opponent, you should reconsider your position.
-
Avoid the wicker man. This type of error is as follows. After listening to the interlocutor's opinion, you simplify and average it, and then argue against the erroneous paraphrase of the opponent's words that you made, neglecting what the person actually said (argument in favor of why it is very important to listen carefully to the opponent).
-
Avoid moral equivalents. This logical fallacy is expressed by equating a petty, minor offense with a major, serious crime. In politics, such tricks are found at every step and are what you should avoid - they only annoy, and discourage a person from any desire to understand your point of view.
- Example: comparing a political figure with Hitler. In doing so, you equate a person who does something you disagree with with a dictator who orchestrated the worst massacre in the history of all mankind. Unless this someone is systematically committing genocide, don't call him Hitler.
- If your position is based on a moral equivalent, you should reconsider the real part of your argument.
-
Avoid getting personal. We are talking about a technique when, instead of analyzing the opponent’s position and arguments, you switch to his appearance or character. Women are especially sensitive to such attacks on their appearance, no matter what the arguments are.
- For example, if you argue with your mother and call her stupid or crazy, it has nothing to do with her position and is completely directed at her personality and character.
- Such attacks only reduce the likelihood that a person will listen to your words. If you are the object of this behavior, point out to the person what they are doing, or leave the argument (most often people who get personal are not inclined to take the other side in principle).
-
Do not stoop to "arguments to the people." This kind of fallacious logical reasoning appeals to emotions, using concepts like "good" and "bad" instead of dealing with real arguments. This is another kind of logical fallacy common among politicians.
- An example of an "argument to the people": "If you don't support the war in Iraq, you are not a true American, you are a terrorist." By making such statements, you are not discussing the real issue (whether the war in Iraq is justified or not), but raising questions of patriotism of those who think otherwise, which, in fact, is useless and means absolutely nothing.
-
Don't use "how many track". This monstrous delusion is constantly used in various spheres: political, personal, social. The slippery slope may sound very convincing, but it doesn't stand up to any close scrutiny. This argument is based on the idea that event A leads to a series of small steps (B, C, D...X, Z) that follow it. The fallacy equates A with Z, saying that doing A will result in a consequence Z (or vice versa, if you don't do A, Z won't happen).
- For example: "Smoking in public places means the government wants to take away all of our civil rights." A - a ban on smoking, Z - the removal of all civil rights. Event A has no direct connection with Z (there must be quite a lot of steps between them).
-
Avoid hasty generalizations. These are generalizations based on insufficient, false or biased reasoning. This happens when you rush to conclusions or arguments without first having studied all the necessary facts.
- Example: “Your new girlfriend hates me even though I only talked to her once.” The problem here is that you only saw the girl once. She can be shy, she could have a bad day. You don't have enough evidence that this girl hates you.
Keep calm. The key to winning an argument is to remain calm. The more you get angry and upset, the more difficult it will be for you to convey your opinion to the interlocutor. Keeping a cool head takes practice, but the better you can keep your temper in check, the more effective your arguments will be.