Argue and admit mistakes: arguing correctly
alexander savina
It seems over the past few years of controversy and heated debate there was only more around - thanks in large part to social networks, where everyone can express their opinions and point out a mistake to another. We decided to understand the practical side of the question - how to argue correctly, to convince the interlocutor to pay attention to your arguments and to take advantage of the discussion.
Do not make an argument in a quarrel
The main mistake people make in disputes is excessive emotionality: it turns discussion into conflict. The book "The Political Brain" describes an experiment that was conducted by a group of psychologists. In 2004, during the US election campaign, they invited supporters of George W. Bush and John Kerry to participate. People watched videotapes where the candidate whom they supported said something that completely contradicted his views — and scientists at that time examined their brains with an MRI. The results showed that when people heard the information with which they disagree, the parts of the brain responsible for logic were inactive - but those that are responsible for the “hit or run” reaction were activated.
Thus, the dispute turns into a conflict, and it does not matter who is right and whose position is better reasoned. This situation often takes place online: although there is more time to think about your answer, we do not always hold back and often respond emotionally - or simply start a discussion with a negative post. “It doesn't matter whether you are telling the truth, whether your position is justified and whether the facts are at the heart of it, because most people will not read what you really said. They will simply see the emotional side of your message and will respond accordingly.” , - the journalist, TV presenter and writer Kaitlin Moran speaks about disputes on the Internet.
The only way to cope with the problem is to try to control your emotions or, if it fails, to get away from the argument in principle. If your interlocutor is negatively disposed, try not to respond to him in the same way: it is better to take a couple of deep breaths and calmly and convincingly explain your position. Moreover, when anger leads you, you will be much less convincing.
Listen and clarify
This may seem obvious, but victory in a dispute is impossible without the ability to listen to your opponent and clearly understand his position. Often, when our interlocutor brings counter-arguments, we barely listen to him, because we think about what we are going to answer. Although discussion without this is impossible, it is better to keep a balance.
To clarify what exactly is in question is no less important than listening. If you are not sure that you have understood your opponent correctly, do not be afraid to ask again: a lot of disputes are delayed simply because the interlocutors do not fully understand each other and give arguments that are not related to the positions expressed. This is useful also in the event that the interlocutor moves away from the topic or cannot concentrate on one question - this is how you can keep the discussion in the right direction.
Do not use the same argument again and again.
Admit it: most of the disputes in ordinary life end in nothing, and each of the interlocutors remains with his opinion. If you feel that the discussion comes to a standstill, you should not use the same arguments over and over again - instead, it’s better to end the discussion. Anita Vangelisti, a professor of communication theory at the University of Texas who specializes in interpersonal communication, believes that in cases where the dispute is exhausted and you want to end the conversation, it’s better to say something like, "I still do not agree with you, but not I want to swear because of this. " According to the expert, it allows you to stay with your position, but at the same time be polite - and what else is needed?
Focus not on differences, but on similarities.
A good technique to help win the argument is to pay attention not to differences, but to similarities in your positions, and try to speak the language of your opponent. It is better to build the arguments so that they are clear to the interlocutor and appeal to his opinion. For example, if you tell relatives who hold conservative views about the advantages of emigration, you should not say that the rejection of immigrants is racism. Instead, it is better to try to explain the benefits they bring to the economy. This approach makes your position more universal: if you use standard arguments, they will be understandable and close only to those who are already on your side - and this is not what you want.
Do not be distracted from the topic.
This is especially common in discussions in social networks: everyone who has ever participated in a large-scale online dispute knows that, at a certain stage, people unfamiliar to the author of the post who pay attention to what is not related to the original topic are connected to it. A vivid example is the discussion that unfolded in the comments to the post of a student of the Higher School of Economics. She accused the teachers of violating the rights of students: the first claim that the head of the group can only be a man. In response, the girl was accused of not protecting the rights of men when they faced discrimination. And although the fact that a person has decided to defend the rights of a certain oppressed group does not mean that he will defend the rights of all, such charges are made regularly.
Good advice on how to cope with such situations was given by Caitlin Moran: “When they tell you:“ You can't talk about something without mentioning something ”, the best answer in this case:“ I know! Let me do it first, and you - the second, and then we can make the world a better place with double power! Thank you for volunteering! You acted like an adult. On behalf of the whole world - thank you! "".
Understand that our knowledge is limited - and use it
We get involved in a dispute when we think that we know the subject well - but when asked additional questions, it often turns out that this is not so. This discovery can be used as an advantage: the study, whose data were published in the journal Psychological Science, showed that people are becoming more open to someone else's point of view when they are asked to explain how, in their opinion, the measures they support should work.
The researchers suggested that the Americans participating in the experiment express their views on several policy areas that often cause controversy (imposing sanctions on Iran, health care and carbon dioxide emissions into the atmosphere). Study participants were divided into two groups. The first was to explain why he holds this or that point of view, as in a normal dispute. The members of the second group were asked not to talk about the merits of their position, but to explain how measures should be introduced, for which they advocate, and what consequences they would lead to. According to the results of the experiment, the members of the first group remained unconvinced. The members of the second group began to put their position less zealously, as they saw the problem in a new light.
This technique can be used in any discussion: ask the interlocutor to think about the consequences of the policy that he supports, or how exactly the events developed, the explanation for which he offers. And be prepared for the fact that it is not he who will have to change his opinion, but you - not always manage to get out of the dispute as a winner.
Admit mistakes and do not be afraid to yield
The argument in a dispute is rarely flawless. It is human nature to make mistakes, so the ability to admit mistakes is necessary in any discussion. Moreover, one inaccuracy does not mean that you are wrong in everything and you need to radically reconsider your point of view - it is enough to recognize it and continue to defend your opinion. This will show opponents that you are open to discussion.
The ability to give in to the interlocutor, defending his position is a good rhetorical device that helps to get out of the dispute as a winner. Abraham Lincoln, for example, said that the southern states have their own rights, but they do not include the right to slavery and to expand slavery to other territories - we all remember how this discussion ended.
Learn to play
There is no universal answer to the question of how to win any argument, simply because it is impossible and it is not necessary. It is much more important to learn to lose and benefit from experience, gaining new knowledge. Philosopher Daniel Cohen, specializing in the theory of argumentation, in his lecture for TED explains why it is bad to take the argument as a war, where there is a winner and a loser. We strive to determine who won, even when the discussion brought benefits to both participants and they brought something new for themselves.
He advises a new model of discussion - a dispute-representation: you imagine that you are talking to an audience that you are trying to convince of something, while invisible viewers weigh the arguments of opponents and act as a jury. In this case, even if you lose the argument, it will still benefit you: you will learn something new about your position, test your theory and reveal imperfections in it. In this case, the discussion helps all of its participants - and this is what we should strive for.