How often do you argue to prove your opinion? Some people do this all the time because they are confident that they are right even when their point of view has no basis. Others avoid controversy, mistakenly believing that their position does not deserve attention. There are also those who, having stocked up on arguments and verified facts, confidently defeat their opponents. Which category do you belong to? If to the first two, is it possible to change the situation and learn to competently defend yourself and your positions?
Do you need to defend your opinion?
An interesting question, especially considering the fact that there are exactly as many opinions as there are people on the planet. And if someone simply silently adheres to their own, then others believe that they are always right in everything. And this despite the fact that their point of view is often unsubstantiated. Such individuals will argue until the last moment; it is not possible to convince them. Bernard Shaw said this about them: “Every person has the right to his own opinion, provided that it coincides with ours.”
There is clearly a fallacy in this behavior, since in some cases it is better not to force your opponent to change his mind, but to leave this conversation for later. But this is only one side of the coin. The other is related to the fact that in many situations, no more or less human life depends on the correct opinion.
It turns out that it is impossible to give a definite answer to the question of whether it is worth defending your point of view. It all depends on the circumstances.
Socratic method
Socrates is one of the greatest ancient Greek philosophers. He had a huge influence on many generations of thinkers.
Socrates used a persuasion technique known today as the Socratic Method. It has several interpretations. One of them is to get affirmative responses at the beginning of the conversation.
Socrates asked questions with which his opponent was forced to agree. He received one statement after another until he had a whole list of “YES” sounds. Eventually, the person would find that he had come to a conclusion that he had previously objected to.
The Chinese have a proverb that embodies the centuries-old wisdom of the East:
“He who treads softly goes far.”
By the way, please note that many politicians use the method of obtaining affirmative responses from the crowd when they need to win the electorate at some rally.
Now you know that this is not just an accident, but a clearly working method that is deftly used by knowledgeable people.
So, if you want to convince people and defend your point of view, learn how to correctly formulate questions to which your opponent will be forced to say “Yes.”
Is truth born in a dispute?
They say that this is exactly what Socrates believed. However, in fact, he touched on deeper points than the usual exchange of opinions in raised tones. The philosopher loved communicating with different people. He not only conveyed his opinion to them, but also received a lot of useful information himself. This ensured that no one was left upset, offended or aggressive. This is what the search for truth looks like. You not only prove that you are right, but also enrich yourself with the knowledge that your opponent has.
Socrates believed that the best way to find the most correct opinion is through dialogue. Moreover, you need to talk with one person, and not with a whole crowd.
What can be concluded? Truth is not born in a dispute, because in the process none of the disputants listens to what others say. Each person is 100% sure that he is right, and while his interlocutor expresses his opinion, he thinks about the answer.
An interesting thought was expressed regarding the dispute: “A dispute is the best way to bury alive the Beautiful Lady - the Truth.”
Learn to formulate your words succinctly
In order to have time for constructive criticism after the dialogue, you need to learn not only to defend your point of view, but also to formulate quite succinctly the thoughts that are born in your head. To do this, try to discard unnecessary phrases and concentrate on the main thing - those words that will make your interlocutor change his point of view. The easiest way is to write down the main and unconditional arguments for your position and start any dispute with them. If you manage to confuse your opponent from the very first words, then winning the argument will not be difficult. The most important thing is to formulate your speech competently, succinctly and clearly. Then it will seem to other people that your arguments on other issues will be no less convincing.
Reasons that prevent you from defending your opinion
Psychologists identify three factors that in one way or another affect our self-confidence and that we are right. Let's take a closer look.
Lack of opinion
To defend a point of view, you need to have it. A completely logical statement. However, approximately 10% of the planet’s inhabitants in opinion polls and various tests choose items such as “difficult to answer”, “not sure”, “can’t choose”. It turns out that they do not have their own opinion and blindly obey the opinion of the majority. Such individuals are called conformists. They are also referred to as “office plankton,” representing a passive and indifferent mass of people.
It’s interesting that many people prefer people without an opinion and are not at all interested in those who still have one and stubbornly defend it.
Diffidence
Some people have their own opinion on every issue. But they consider it unworthy of attention and do not express it among colleagues, friends and acquaintances. Moreover, they avoid those who are doing well in this regard.
According to psychologists, such self-doubt begins in early childhood. Children grow up in a family that does not take their opinions into account, does not allow them to make decisions, does not trust them, and controls them in everything. The child understands that no one cares about him. Years pass, and the feeling of insignificance only gets worse. And already an adult believes that someone else’s opinion is much more important than his own.
Incompetence
Agree, it looks funny if someone defends their opinion on an issue they don’t understand at all. Anyone who knows at least the basics feels confident and looks decent in the eyes of others. Johann Schiller said it well on this matter: “It is not difficult for a convinced person to convince others.”
Instead of parting words
In general, love and respect yourself. Without this, no one will respect you. This means that no one will argue with you, because what can you do with someone who cannot stand up for herself?
Photo by Alex Green: Pexels
If you don't respect yourself and are not confident in yourself, then by default you will be considered the one who will do whatever she is told. Therefore, it is very important to gain fortitude, courage to express arguments in your favor, and most importantly, to really be sure that your opinion is correct, original, and no one is allowed to discredit it.
Don't criticize yourself and don't reproach yourself for mistakes. All this will not give you confidence in your own eyes, and certainly will not elevate you in the eyes of other people. People always read your own attitude towards themselves and instantly form their own. Good luck to you, be confident in your abilities!
What skills are needed to defend your point of view?
So, how to learn to defend your opinion? There are several recommendations.
Self confidence
This character trait is difficult to develop. But if you try, you will succeed. Always keep these points in mind:
- Your life is in your hands. Parents, friends and anyone else should not be responsible for her. You are responsible for your actions and decisions. This means that you have every right to have your own opinion. You also have the right to defend it in cases where others unreasonably try to convince you or suppress you.
- Mistakes are not scary. It is part of your life experience that shows you how to behave or not behave in the future. Remember that whatever decision you made was the best for you at that particular moment in time. And even if it is wrong, there are no ideal people, right? And those who consider themselves such have also stepped on their own “rake” more than once.
- Your opinion is the most correct for you. Remember this. By exchanging it for someone else's, you begin to live the life of that person. Do you need it? People are unlikely to treat you any differently after this; you certainly will not become more important in their eyes. Agree, it is also unpleasant for you to communicate with those who always agree with others. So learn not to worry about people's opinions about you. Do not hesitate to actively participate in conversations, listen to your opponents, but do not allow them to humiliate you or persuade you to their point of view.
The story of your interlocutor about his rich experience in some matter can also deprive you of self-confidence. This is not an argument at all, because it was received in circumstances that you did not experience. Each of us has our own experience, sometimes different from others. And even if there is not as much of it as we would like. The main thing is that it was obtained by you thanks to your actions and decisions.
Self-development
Here too we will talk about experience. Perhaps you are afraid to argue due to his absence. But think about the fact that many people stubbornly defend their point of view without having any evidence of correctness. No, they are not role models. Here the matter is different. A person who can prove his words with facts and arguments always takes a more advantageous position.
In view of the above, it is a good idea to set aside time for self-development. Especially in cases where you know that you have gaps in a particular area of knowledge. And further. Never think that someone is better than you, smarter, etc. Such reasoning is not only humiliating. They make you an easy target for those who like to manipulate and suppress.
The art of communication
There is a statement that the winner in a dispute is not the one who is right, but the one who knows how to convey his point of view to others. That is why it is important to develop the art of defending your positions. We are not talking about hysterical screaming and quarrels, as in some TV series and famous talk shows. The ability to communicate correctly lies in resolving conflict situations, the ability to find an approach to each individual interlocutor, oratory skills, 100% mastery of facial expressions, gestures and voice. Mastering these skills is difficult, but quite possible.
Competent argumentation
This is an ideal option for aggressive opponents. Psychologists recommend using three different techniques. The first involves listening carefully and seeming to agree with his point of view. However, after this you make one single powerful argument that instantly proves you are right.
The second technique concerns positive responses. Build the dialogue so that your interlocutor answers affirmatively to each of your questions. Later, when you touch on more complex topics, he will quickly and painlessly agree with your opinion.
And finally, the third technique is “salami”. By presenting irrefutable facts and arguments, a person is gradually prepared to agree on the main issue. And then they move on to discussing details.
By the way, re-facing is also quite effective in a dispute. This is a technique in which, step by step, the opponent is led to draw conclusions that are contrary to his point of view.
Put yourself in the other person's shoes
This must be done, of course, mentally. Let's say you are sure that the person is fundamentally wrong. But for some reason he persistently proves the opposite. Think about why he does this? Once you get an answer to this question, it will be easier for you to find the necessary arguments and convince him.
Be friendly
If you want to win someone over to your side, first convince them of your friendliness and do it sincerely.
The sun can make us take off our coats faster than the wind, and kindness and a friendly approach convince us much better than pressure and aggression.
Engineer Staub wanted his rent to be reduced. However, he knew that his master was callous and unyielding. Then he wrote to him that he was vacating the apartment as soon as the lease expired.
After receiving the letter, the owner came to the engineer with his secretary. He greeted him very friendly and did not talk about money. He said that he really liked the owner’s house and the way he maintained it, and that he, Staub, would love to stay another year, but could not afford it.
Obviously, the owner had never received such a reception from his tenants and was a little confused.
He began to talk about his worries and complain about the residents. One of them wrote him insulting letters. Another threatened to break the contract if the owner did not make his neighbor stop snoring.
“What a relief to have a tenant like you,” he said at the end. Then, without even any request from Staub, he offered to negotiate a fee that would suit him.
However, if the engineer had tried to reduce the rent using other tenants' methods, he would probably have suffered the same failure.
The friendly and gentle approach to solving the problem won. And this is natural.
Does aggression help in an argument?
Absolutely not. And there is a logical explanation for this:
- Your argumentation will decrease. It often happens that a person who runs out of facts and arguments simply starts shouting, getting personal.
- A quarrel with an opponent will not lead to anything good. It was said above that paying attention to the opinions of others about you is a waste of time. And so it is. But calmly and competently proving your point of view is one thing, but shouting and insulting is completely different.
Aggression will not help in the case when hot temper is inherent not in you, but in your opponent. There is an opinion that if he starts screaming, then the best way out is to start screaming back. But the result will be just a mad attempt to shout over each other.
Remember, if your opponent is shouting and trying in every possible way to hurt you, he has nothing more to say. Calmly end the conversation or change the subject.
Show compassion
Want to know a phrase that stops arguments, destroys ill will, generates goodwill and makes others listen carefully? Here she is:
“I don’t blame you at all for having such feelings; if I were you, I would undoubtedly feel the same.”
This kind of phrase will soften the most grumpy interlocutor. Moreover, when you say it, you can consider yourself absolutely sincere, because if you really were that person, then, of course, you would feel the way he did.
Thinking with an open mind, each of us can come to the conclusion that in fact, who you are is not your merit. It was not you who decided what family to be born into and what kind of upbringing to receive. Therefore, an irritable, intolerant and frivolous person also does not deserve more condemnation for being what he is.
Have pity on the poor guy. Sympathize with him. Show some sympathy. Tell yourself what John Gough said when he saw a drunkard standing on his feet: “It might have been me, but for the grace of God.”
Three quarters of the people you meet tomorrow crave sympathy. Show it and they will love you.
In his book Parenting Psychology, Dr. Arthur Gate says, “The human being craves sympathy. The child willingly shows his bruise, or deliberately inflicts a wound on himself in order to evoke warm sympathy. For the same purpose, adults talk in great detail about their misfortunes and expect compassion.”
Thus, if you want to persuade people of your point of view, learn to first be empathetic to the thoughts and desires of others.
Recommendations to help you defend your point of view
How else can you defend your opinion? Psychologists have identified a number of simple but effective tips.
Criticize the position, not the person
Do you think that during an argument your opponent is interested in your opinion about him, his appearance and other features? Hardly. He is only concerned with how to defend his position. Therefore, you should not throw sarcastic remarks and barbs. This will show your weakness and lack of arguments.
Be prepared to criticize constructively. You should have strong evidence in your arsenal that will instantly disarm your opponent.
Unlike stupid criticism of the person himself, a reasoned position will present you in a favorable light.
Use verified facts
Reliable information can drive your opponent into a dead end, even in cases where he is trying to piss you off with ridicule and barbs. And it is not necessary to give a lecture or retell scientific works. It is enough to provide a couple of links to research by well-known scientists in this field. If your interlocutor is an intelligent person, he will change his mind.
Present information clearly
This advice on how to defend your point of view is more relevant to disputes in the masses, for example, on social networks. When expressing your opinion, be as precise as possible. If possible, do not use specific terms, unusual expressions and puzzles. Otherwise, people simply won’t understand you. And if you do use a couple of incomprehensible words, immediately decipher them.
Be polite
Imagine two completely different people. The first one presents his point of view with dignity, using different forms of presenting information, verified facts and reasonable arguments. And the second one behaves like a small, constantly barking dog that is trying to attract the attention of others. Who do you think the audience will prefer? Of course, to the first person. In view of this, under any circumstances, behave with dignity and save face.
Be careful when quoting your interlocutor
Quoting your opponent’s words is always a big risk. Therefore, exercise caution. Do not take phrases out of context, do not add or remove individual words. Otherwise you will become a laughing stock. Better, using facts and arguments, prove your case step by step.
Psychologists recommend resorting to quoting only in cases where you are 100% sure that your opinion is correct and that you have arguments that will smash your opponent’s position to smithereens.
Argumentation markers
Any argument consists of a thesis that we justify and the arguments that we give in support of this thesis.
Linguistic markers of the thesis are most often words and constructions such as “therefore”, “so”, “for example”. We recognize arguments or arguments in favor of a thesis by constructions such as “because”, “so after all”, “based on”. It is important to highlight theses and arguments with markers: the more successful and accurate we select the markers, the easier it is for the interlocutor to perceive the structure of our thoughts. When markers are used in speech, the interlocutor gets the feeling that our thoughts are connected with each other and that we treat the interlocutor with respect - we offer him some connections and justifications, and not just sell some position.
Evidence that markers serve as a lifesaver can be found in a famous 1978 experiment led by researcher Ellen Langer and several of her colleagues.
Situation: large office, copy machine, which always has a queue. The fake actor joins this line. He looks exactly like the office employees. During the experiment, the actor plays out one of three scenarios.
In the first scenario, he only asks the employees: “Sorry, I only have five pages, can I skip the line?” Some people skip the queue, others don’t. In the second scenario, this actor formulates exactly the same request, but adds an argument to it: “Can I skip the line, I’m in a hurry.” In the third scenario, there is also a request plus a phrase that formally looks like an argument, but in essence is not one: “Can I skip the line, because I need to make copies.” It turned out that a request in combination with an argument (even a purely formal one) is one and a half times more effective than a request on its own.
When we say “because,” this stable combination gives the impression that there will be some kind of justification for the argument, even if it turns out to be fictitious and formal. Based on this, we can draw an intermediate conclusion: the structure of persuasive speech matters, and it is better to highlight it with special markers.
conclusions
- Good argumentation skills are easy to improve on your own.
- There's no magic trick for being persuasive every time, but there are a few simple structural techniques that can make difficult conversations easier to achieve.
- The structure of a persuasive speech matters, and it is better to highlight it with special markers.
- The argument must be SExI - with assertion, explanation and illustration.
- The connection between arguments helps to evaluate the contribution of each argument to the overall validity of the main thesis.
- To better build a line of argumentation, you need to think about it in advance. Argument cards help with this.
- It is better to place strong arguments at the beginning and at the end.
- Divide your argument into parts to better remember your points and arguments.
- The simplest pitching technique is PSB (Problem, Solution, Benefit). Highlight the problem, describe the solution, show the benefit.
Chunking
It's time to remember cognitive psychology and a 1956 article written by John Miller.
It developed the theme of semantic units of information organization or chunks. This is where the name “chunking” comes from - combining information into semantic blocks so that it is better remembered and perceived. What works in cognitive psychology will work for argumentation. Since it is difficult for us to hold more than seven independent units in short-term memory, it would be reasonable to group arguments into cells of two or three pieces. Each group should have its own label - a keyword or idea.
From this point of view, let’s return to Durov’s reasoning and try to make chunking so that important information does not fall out and the arguments are connected more harmoniously.
We see a very strong thesis, then comes a weaker one, which confirms the first. Seven arguments lead to this thesis. The first argument, that WhatsApp is a backward messenger, is not stated very clearly. To confirm the backwardness, supporting arguments are given about the lack of cross-device and synchronization. The following arguments are about the lack of ability to send large files and about restrictions in chats. These are passing moments that many of you most likely don’t even remember. And the last strong argument is about confidentiality.
Taken together, the speech is quite strong, but it can also be improved. At a minimum, you can cut off the overly ambitious and vague thesis about the backwardness of all messengers. It is better to concentrate on a thesis that we know exactly how to prove. There is a rule: he who proves too much proves nothing.
.
We group theses about cross-device functionality and lack of access when the battery is discharged into a story about backwardness. Large files and non-customizable chats are a story of inconvenience. And confidentiality is presented as the main argument. It would be nice to further highlight it with an example, illustration, or supporting argument.
What is convincing is that which is based on norms
Norms should be understood as a fairly wide set of rules existing in society. Laws, customs, traditions, regulations - it is convenient for truth to rely on them. Norms can be different, from social to sanitary, from linguistic to sexual, as long as they are relevant and generally accepted.
The argument by which statesmen are forced to respond more quickly to complaints is precisely based on the norms: “In accordance with the federal law of May 2, 2006 N 59-FZ “On the procedure for considering appeals from citizens of the Russian Federation,” I ask you to provide an answer within 30 days, otherwise In this case, I will be forced to contact the prosecutor’s office to attract those responsible for missing deadlines under Art. 5.59 of the Code of Administrative Offenses of the Russian Federation “Violation of the procedure for considering citizens’ appeals.”
What is convincing is what is confirmed by authority
A more than understandable argument. Even young people who love to overthrow authorities usually do this at the invitation of some authority figure.
Such an argument can be rude when a boss talks to a subordinate, or it can be soft when Leonardo DiCaprio advertises a certain brand of watch from a billboard.
Well, it could be like this:
“Beware of morally indignant people: they have the sting of cowardly anger, hidden even from themselves.”
Friedrich Nietzsche
