Most people are bad at arguing. These 2 techniques will make you better.

Homepage | Forums | Main Forums | General Discussion | Most people are bad at arguing. These 2 techniques will make you better.

Viewing 6 reply threads
  • Author
    Posts
    • #232446
      Cold Mountain Trail
      Participant
      • Total Posts: 8,780

      1) If the argument you find convincing doesn’t resonate with someone else, find out what does…

      Willer has shown it’s at least possible to nudge our political opponents to consider ideas they’d normally reject outright. In 2015, in a series of six studies, he and co-author Matthew Feinberg found that when conservative policies are framed around liberal values like equality or fairness, liberals become more accepting of them. The same was true of liberal policies recast in terms of conservative values like respect for authority…

      “For instance, the loyalty message argued that Trump ‘has repeatedly behaved disloyally towards our country to serve his own interests’ and that ‘during the Vietnam War, he dodged the draft to follow his father into the development business,’” Feinberg and his co-author write in the study…. (or) “while so many Americans have suffered during the recent recession that the Wall Street Banks helped cause, Clinton has accepted millions of dollars from them in exchange for giving a few speeches” and claimed Clinton “is willing to sacrifice fairness and equality to achieve her own goals.’”

      2) Listen. Your ideological opponents want to feel like they’ve been heard….

      In 2016, the journal Science published a remarkable bit of insight: It’s possible to reduce prejudice, and sway opinions on anti-transgender legislation, with one 10-minute conversation…Instead of pelting voters with facts, “we ask open-ended questions and then we listen,” Fleischer told me in 2016. “And then we continue to ask open-ended questions based on what they just told us…”  In talking about their own lives, the voters engage in what psychologists call “active processing.” The idea is that people learn lessons more durably when they come to the conclusion themselves, not when someone “bitch-slaps you with a statistic,” says Fleischer. Overall, it’s a task designed to point out our common humanity, which then opens the door to reducing prejudice and changing opinions…

      https://www.vox.com/2016/11/23/13708996/argue-better-science

       

    • #232448
      carrotguy
      Participant
      • Total Posts: 477
    • #232496
      GZeusH
      Participant
      • Total Posts: 2,592

      If “most people are bad at arguing”, it certainly isn’t for lack of trying.

    • #232501
      ravensong
      Participant
      • Total Posts: 2,136

      “A lie doesn't become truth, wrong doesn't become right, and evil doesn't become good, just because it's accepted by a majority.” ~ Booker T. Washington

      The truth is, there’s no such thing as being “anti-Fascist.” Either you are a decent human being with a conscience, or you are a fascist.
      ~ Unknown

    • #232514
      Sorechasm
      Participant
      • Total Posts: 334

      I find that approach #2 can work wonders with those who have been misinformed. We usually find that our differences of opinion are of degree and not over much in the way of substance. So, after listening closely to their argument, and understanding their priorities, I can frame my position using similar priorities, and find alignment.

      So many of the right wing arguments are based upon tribal biases which that are relatively thin. A little compassion and understanding may dispel these biases completely.

      “Go and tell Alexander that God the Supreme King is never the Author of insolent wrong, but is the Creator of light, of peace, of life, of water, of the body of man and of souls;...what Alexander offers and the gifts he promises are things to me utterly useless;..." Dandamis, a great sannyasi of Taxila.Excerpt From: Yogananda, Paramahansa. “Autobiography of a Yogi.”

    • #232535
      HassleCat
      Participant
      • Total Posts: 3,495

      My advice would be something like your point #2. People are sometimes receptive to counter arguments if they are framed around some idea, opinion or value they just expressed. To do this, you have to look beyond the angry bluster and search for some kernel of truth in what they’re saying, then feed it back to them with a different slant. I think we’re all familiar with this technique from endless arguments about gun control vs. Second Amendment.

    • #232587
      MistaP
      Participant
      • Total Posts: 2,609

      yeah, for #2 also note that RW ideas come from different factions of the GOP–the fundies (authority, loyalty, family, meaningfulness beyond worldly failure and success), libertarians (freedom, government hurts the little guy and creates untaxed monopolist trillionaires), hawks (security, safety–something that anyone modestly informed about US FP can knock right across the net since Greece, Italy, Syria, Iran, Laos, Guyana, Guatemala, Lebanon, Cuba, the Congo, Indonesia, Brazil, the Dominican Republic, Vietnam, Cambodia, Bolivia, Chile, Bangladesh, East Timor, Chad, Afghanistan, Angola, Mozambique, the Philippines, Turkey, El Salvador, Nicaragua, Panama, Iraq, Russia, Georgia, Honduras, Libya, and Ukraine each failed on their own terms), and corporatists (rising tide lifts all boats, everyone’s an employee, you can’t buy anything if you don’t have any income, the hippies started those fires and poisoned those runoff victims)

      all of them value “success” (meaning you can take from those weaker than you since they’re losers, but squeal like a stuck pig when tax time comes because that’s unfair)

Viewing 6 reply threads
  • You must be logged in to reply to this topic.