I rather have a nice conversation than “winning” an argument.
A rule I give myself is to never assume I’m 100% right, and acknowledging it.
2 Likes
Winning implies a game, or that one is Charlie Sheen. That doesn’t have anything to do with the objectivity of the scientific method. Once people have begun to bicker about consensus the science has degenerated into politics.
I know just the place. It’s1 pound for 5 minutes, or 8 pounds for a course of 10.
5 Likes
Sort of like that…but also I mean people who just want to talk and be listened to. Almost separate from being right - lecturing makes them feel smart and being listened to makes them feel validated. The rightness is a necessary part of it - but sometimes it seems the other parts are more enabled.
An example can be the apology when busted for being unfair, someone apologizes but keeps you there listening to their apology: “I apologize. You see, I’m actually right because…” (grow old waiting for them to be done making their case because they love being listened to.)
It can be sad to need to be heard that badly, and I can have some sympathy. But also it can be pretty rudely passive aggressive - just a time suck that leads nowhere because the real point is you’re stuck listening to them and paying them attention.
that was all a bit long winded.
all you need to win an argument is modus ponens and reality
The problem with “winning” an argument is that when I’m right it means I have to apologize and bring flowers.
5 Likes
We would have a quiet internet.
1 Like
The other option is to accept that people have different beliefs and attitudes to you.
1 Like
Or the silent majority. Again.
1 Like
“Is!”
"Isn’t!"
3 Likes
A seemingly unfortunate list of techniques.
- “what makes you think”/“why do you believe” often comes off sounding very arrogant
- “so you’re suggesting that…” is very close to the nasty “so you are saying that …” which again always comes off as very arrogant.
- “Use scientific visuals” Really? This backfires far too easily. Either people respond emotionally because they don’t understand what they are seeing, or as @wsmcneil pointed out, they know their facts and the discussion gets derailed
- “Demonstrate that other people agree” AKA appeal to popularity. 9 out of 10 dentists recommend Splorch Toothpaste for a glowing smiles!
- “end your sentences with verbal affirmations” Far too many ways to abuse this one
Every single one of the “how to get agreement” examples come off as very snide.
If this is how to “win” I’d rather not play.
3 Likes
Now I think I should start arguments after reading your advice…
Well, none of that works on me! I still maintain we’ll NEVER colonise Mars.
1 Like
For the “Mirror your Opponent” step, I followed the citation, and the research was an experiment that showed that you can convince a group of 26 undegrads to choose goldfish over graham crackers if someone else copies their snacking choices. That seems like a far cry from the claim that “if you mimic your opponent they are more likely to believe you”.
1 Like
Respectfully, no–but that’s because we’re not talking about the same people. The purpose of my reply was to point out that these purpose-neutral tactics that are used by perfectly innocent people doing perfectly innocent things are the same tactics used by scam artists and demagogues.
Most people, if asked, would say that their ability to tell if someone is manipulating or lying to them is “above average.” That’s obviously a mathematical impossibility, but it’s also something that is readily contradicted by observation. People, even genuinely smart ones, fall for these kinds of things all of the time. What I’m doing is inviting people to take the advice given here, and rather than use it to convincing other people, use it to look for times when other people are using them to try to convince them.
I’m not trying to tell people to never change their minds, I’m trying to help them recognize when someone is unexpectedly trying to change their minds without their knowledge.
2 Likes
OK - we are in agreement - powerful tool can be used for good or eeeevil
1 Like
Yep! The history and methods of con-artistry are an interest of mine, and one of the things that I’ve come to understand from researching that is that the methods employed by dishonest people are generally the same ones employed by honest people, just with dishonest intentions. Most people are generally good, and generally honest, so they expect other people to be the same way. Con artists know this and carefully exploit it.
1 Like
We’re still not going to colonise Mars any time soon.
Not for sufficiently immediate values of “soon”, no.
See, this is a guide to winning an argument every time.
But I don’t want to win an an argument when I’m wrong. That’s not why I argue.
I argue to see if other smart people can poke holes in my arguments.
I’m not trying to win. I’m trying to learn.
(I’m actually hoping to lose most arguments I get into, because that would be far more interesting — I learn new things that way.)
‘Winning’ arguments even when you’re wrong is the first step on the road to becoming a psychopath. Or possibly a TV pundit.
2 Likes
