10 psychological facts that will help you win an argument

About how to win arguments and understand when it is better to remain silent.

From time to time we encounter people who do not share our point of view.
And, of course, we want to prove the opposite. This is how disputes happen. In this matter, it is important not to quarrel and not to aggravate the situation, especially if you are dealing with a loved one. Remember: winning an argument does not mean that you are the only one who is right. Today we’ll talk about how to get out of disputes with dignity and remain a winner.

We will not consider legal disputes, since in them the decision is made by a subjective third party. We will talk about disputes, at the end of which you, the reader, without negative emotions and self-deception, will have the right to consider yourself a winner. Moreover, you will become a winner even when your opponent is confident of his victory.

Basic Concepts

Disputes, as a rule, arise not between those who know and those who don’t know, but between those with vague opinions. It is not for nothing that the phrase “clash of opinions” is used so often. The words “opinion” and “knowledge” are not synonymous. Therefore, usually one, or even all, of the disputants take erroneous positions, defending their delusions, convictions, beliefs, and not the truth.

Adults with their ingrained social instincts cannot be re-educated. Among these instincts is self-preservation of one’s own ego (by analogy with physical self-preservation), expressed in defending one’s belief in something always and at any cost, aptly called obstinacy. Therefore, victory in an argument is not always, or rather, extremely rarely associated with the opponent admitting he was wrong and accepting your position.

None of the people, including recognized professionals, have comprehensive knowledge even in their specialty. To be convinced of this, it is enough to pay attention to the fact that doctors are terminally ill with the same diseases for which they are being treated, and psychologists do not solve their problems, psychiatrists are one of the most suicide-prone professions, and most “scientists” are ignoramuses. Consequently, neither your opponent nor you have all the information to claim complete knowledge on a complex issue.

People can only see what they know. What we don’t know is supposedly not there for us. For example, humanity learned about the existence of electromagnetic waves relatively recently, although they have always existed. Knowing about them, people can visualize them using instruments. And now, for their constant use, the vast majority need only knowledge of the fact of their existence. Due to the absence or lack of knowledge about something, we cannot understand those who know, and if instead of facts we have learned and/or conjectured something that seems reasonable, then it becomes more difficult for us to get to the truth.

The overwhelming number of people do not know how and do not want to read. They were not taught this, and were even discouraged from trying. In the same way, people do not want and do not know how to listen. After all, this requires mental effort, attention to the meaning of words, comparison, analysis. Often people want to get a “magic pill” in the form of a short phrase, but they lack the knowledge to understand it and are too lazy to get it. Therefore, the preliminary educational program is not perceived by them. It is much easier to get by with labels attached to people and phenomena, stereotypes of behavior, and follow the instincts. Don't expect to be listened to.

Even if your opponent tries to hear you, there is a high probability of misunderstanding. No matter how you simplify your arguments, some of the significant words you use will most likely be missed or misunderstood, if only due to ignorance of their essence, and the meaning you convey will turn out to be distorted. This can only be combated by emphasizing keywords, but this irritates opponents, who are naturally confident in their infallible rationality and correct awareness. Emphasis infringes on their need for dominance, which automatically causes a desire to protect and restore it. A vicious circle effect occurs.

Each person has his own experience, set of knowledge, beliefs, misconceptions, beliefs and prejudices. In some ways, people are ready to admit their incompetence, but in many ways they consider themselves experts, while being laymen. The overwhelming number of people believe in the infallibility of their logic and rely on mythical, deceptively beautiful-sounding sanity. All this determines a unique understanding of rationality for everyone. Not everything that makes sense to you makes sense to everyone else. After all, even with the closest people we sometimes have fundamental contradictions that we can never overcome. Therefore, when entering into a dispute, do not rely on the reasonableness of your opponent, and do not overestimate your own.

One of the manifestations of people's unreasonableness is erroneous vindictiveness. Erroneous because some situation or someone’s action was perceived incorrectly due to lack of information and/or thoughtlessness. This is how people create grievances for themselves that are “unchewed by consciousness.” They drag them through their entire lives, periodically picking at them and updating them by hanging negative labels on the imaginary culprit, cherishing the hope of revenge. This accumulated “wealth”, with a convenient, in their opinion, excuse, splashes out on the opponent, who did not even suspect the presence of these invented grievances and memories. Do not be surprised if accusations of this kind are thrown at you in a dispute. By the way, review your grievances. Most likely, most of them were invented by you. They will not help you in a potential dispute with the offender. “Chew them and spit them out” so you never have to pick them again.

Why do disputes arise?

In this subsection of the article, to simplify the understanding of situations, imagine that you, the reader, are the party in the dispute who knows exactly what is being disputed, and your opponent (disputant) does not have such knowledge.

If rationality prevailed in the relationships between people, then there would be no disputes. There would be discussions that would differ from disputes in the presence of arguments and the interest of all parties in finding the truth. In disputes, contrary to the saying, truth is not sought. They arise due to the manifestation in at least one of the parties of an instinctive reaction to preserve the existing “picture of the world.” In this case, rationality may be completely blocked. Disputants do not even allow the thought of carefully listening and understanding the other participants in the dispute. They don't have time. They build defenses and prepare shells to repel a real or imaginary attack on their momentary ideas. Momentary because if the disputed information had been submitted differently or at a different point in time, then the dispute might not have arisen.

If the “projectiles” do not affect the enemy, then the blocked mind of the arguer is replaced by instinctive aggression (fight or flight). Arguments cease to have any meaning, and the debater’s aggression is directed towards the opponent’s personality, and sometimes turns into physical actions.

Even if you try to reach the mind of an incensed arguer, stopping to present your arguments, trying to show him a way out of the impasse, this will be perceived as weakness. This will only provoke the arguer’s instinct of dominance to assert himself over the defeated enemy.

Alas, the animal (biological) in people is much stronger than the mind. Therefore, not only ignoramuses, but also highly educated people behave this way. Not only strangers, but also loved ones. Even if the dispute is written, and the arguer has time to think through your arguments and carefully formulate his “shells,” he will not analyze or think. His main task is to protect his own picture of the world, which has been turned into a dogma that is not subject to revision.

***

Another cause of disputes is the disputant's bias towards you. For example, based on erroneous rancor. Prejudice is created by labeling you negatively so as not to waste time re-evaluating your personality and actions. Because of this, no matter what you say or write that is important, your words automatically create a desire to immediately challenge them. This reaction is caused by the instinctive need to demonstrate dominance. It manifests itself in people who subconsciously feel your actual dominance, which there is no need to present to the arguer, due to your fairly high self-esteem (in relation to your opponent). In these cases, the transition to aggression against your personality occurs quickly. Here the arguer usually does not try to look for arguments on the merits. “Baba Yaga is against!”, the rest is not important to start an argument.

One form of dispute that arises for this reason is scandal. Its difference from a dispute “for dominance” lies in the additional presence of mercantile goals of the initiator. The initiator of the scandal does not even think about selecting a basis for proof. Aggression against the enemy’s personality manifests itself from the very beginning.

Principles and techniques for participating in discussions and disputes

Knowing the nature of disputes allows you to participate in them without emotion, avoiding the instinctive blocking of your own mind, which makes victory impossible.

The easiest way not to lose an argument is to not participate in it. Don't initiate disputes. Let me remind you that a discussion is not an argument. It requires arguments. Unsubstantiated statements are of little use in it. Therefore, discussion without thinking is useless and can slide into an argument. If you are debating, accept your opponent's position as reasonable. If you want to clarify or change your opponent’s position, then formulate your arguments carefully and in detail.

When conducting a discussion or being drawn into an argument, adhere to the following principles:

Assume that your opponent is stronger than you (has a large amount of knowledge, practical experience and thinking abilities);
Consider everything your opponent says to be reasonable, at least until he demonstrates otherwise.
Listen/read carefully the words of your opponents;
Determine what your opponent is operating with (knowledge, opinions/assumptions or beliefs);
If your opponent does not operate with knowledge, then try to stop the discussion, since further discussion is useless. Don't argue with people who believe in anything. Faith and thinking are incompatible;
If you don’t understand something, don’t hesitate to clarify the meaning intended by your opponent;
Never criticize, try to humiliate or insult personally an opponent and/or another person mentioned in a dispute/discussion;
Direct all objections and criticism exclusively to the words, actions, and position of your opponent;
Carefully monitor the nature of the argument and the content of your opponent’s remarks in order to understand whether the discussion is turning into an argument;
Ignore all personal attacks against you, leaving them unanswered. After all, they are not about you, they are pronounced by a passionate, instinctive, argumentative person. His mind is turned off at this time. You won't be offended by a dog if it barks at you. So in a dispute, it is a biological being who barks, not a reasonable person.
If the discussion descends into an argument, weaken the rigidity of your argumentation, ask your opponent clarifying questions in order to weaken emotions and stop the blocking of his mind;
If you are unable to get the dispute back on track, end it immediately.

Signs of victory in an argument

To win an argument, it is not necessary for your opponent to admit defeat out loud, much less publicly. This happens extremely rarely. The subjective assessment of your “fans” who approvingly comment on the results achieved in the dispute should not flatter you. She is deceptive. Even if it seems to you that you have proven something to your opponent in a dispute, then this is self-deception, since you gave arguments to a person with a switched off mind. And your imaginary victory can cause the effect of mistaken rancor. Do you need it?

Signs of victory in an argument/discussion are:

Acquiring new knowledge either by you, or an opponent, or jointly, if this was a discussion;
Absence of negative emotions, since you acted, spoke wisely and correctly sensed the opponent’s state;
The absence of new grievances that could annoy you in the future;
Confidence in the absence of reasons for shame for something blurted out in the heat of the moment or fear that it might “hurt” when and if negative consequences arise;
Mild annoyance that your opponent turned out to be weaker than you expected, and conversation with him did not bring the expected benefit to either him or you;
There is no need to emotionally “wave your fists after a fight” in vain, and to be angry with yourself for missing the opportunity to say nasty things to your opponent and pour out all the accumulated grievances to him. Self-deception like: “But I hit him” is little consolation in case of defeat. And if you remember such an incident, then only with a condescending grin towards your opponent.

***

I wish you victories in discussions and disputes. Read my other articles and books!

Rating:
5.0 /5.
From 1 vote. Please wait...

Get into an argument to learn something new

DigitalFabiani/Shutterstock

Don't start an argument just to win or show off your knowledge. Otherwise you'll lose it before it even starts. Therefore, if you see that your opponent is arguing for the sake of arguing, just remain silent. And you will remain in a winning position.

Keep an eye on the conversation

Mutual insults and personal attacks are unacceptable, but the intensity of the discussion can be used to your advantage. The main thing is not to succumb to provocations, to remain calm if your opponent is trying to piss you off and confuse you. For this, the ability to abstract and observe from the outside the progress of the dispute will be useful. If you see that your interlocutor has gotten carried away and forgotten, you can add fuel to the fire and force him to behave more impulsively. Daily training of emotions using acting methods will significantly help you learn to argue and defend your opinion.

Be honest

memesmix.net

Never lie to win.
A victory won by a lie is a defeat. see also

50 interesting facts about human psychology

Operate with facts

youtube.com

How many times have you made a statement (without knowing the whole truth) only to realize later that you were completely wrong? Someone challenges you, but because you don't want to "lose", you continue to persist and insist on your own. This method will not help you win.

In the series “Clairvoyant,” the main character often used the following (not very convincing) phrase in an argument: “I heard both ways.” Before you make the same mistakes, stop and think about what you are going to say. This way, you'll be less likely to lose, whether it's a small matter or something important to your career or relationship.

Direct negotiations and consultations

Direct negotiations - establishing direct contact between disputing states to resolve an international dispute

Types of direct negotiations:

By the number of participants - bilateral or multilateral;
The subjects of negotiations are the government, heads of state, authorized persons;
According to the form of conduct - written and oral;
According to the nature of the issues being considered - economic, social, political, etc.
Consultations are a type of direct negotiations, the purpose of which is to prevent the emergence of international disputes. Consultations are most often carried out in accordance with a previously concluded agreement.

Be willing to see the other person's point of view

Jason Henry/BuzzFeed News

You don't have to agree with your opponent to see his or her point of view. However, if you want to win an argument, you need to be able to see the world the way your opponent does. By understanding his psychology, you can determine what influences him.

He may feel threatened, anxious, or irritated. Or maybe he knows something that you don’t know. In any case, such empathy will reduce the tension and allow you both to come to a solution.

If you can't be unbiased, at least pretend

MTV/giphy.com

Getting defensive is one of the worst ways to win an argument. Don't let your opponent feel like you're stuck in your position, unwilling to consider alternatives. If you feel like you're carefully considering the other side's position, your proposed solution will seem much more reasonable.

Moreover, your opponent can take your side without you having to do anything other than listen. By allowing your opponent to speak, you help the situation resolve itself.

see also

18 tips and facts to help you survive a tense conversation (no magic, just science and psychology)

If you have run out of arguments, but you need to win the argument

Put a spoke in your opponent's wheels by forcing him to be distracted by unimportant things. Ask for evidence as often as possible, and when it is presented, try to question the authority of the sources. With all this fuss, it is easier to knock your opponent off his position and quietly change the topic to a more convenient one.
Call on acting to help. With the help of theatrical skills you can win any argument. For example, artificially increase the temperature of the conversation or portray a wall of impenetrable indifference when you are one step away from an emotional breakdown. To master these techniques, it is not necessary to enroll in a theater university; it is enough to take a course at an acting school for adults.
Find a way to end the argument at the ambiguity stage. Yes, this is not a victory, but it is not a defeat either. It will allow you to save face and rehabilitate yourself at the next meeting. There can be any reason. Here you can even let the conversation go a little beyond the bounds of decency, if there are no alternatives left at all.

Keep your emotions under control

elinsomniomehacemierda.tumblr.com

Emotions play an important role in conflict by changing how you view the situation. Therefore, it is equally important to control them. If you lose your temper, you will only widen the gap between you and your opponent. Plus you'll make him angry. Then the dispute can go very far.

Don't worry about appearing weak if you remain calm in the middle of an argument—in fact, you'll earn bonus points by showing that you can exercise self-control. Who knows, the argument could end right now when you both accept a more reasoned point of view.

Remain hopeful that the dispute will be resolved soon

webcomicms.net

Argument, by definition, is associated with negative emotions. In the midst of this “scream fest,” it is difficult to imagine that one can cross to the other side while maintaining one’s dignity. However, awakening a sense of hope allows you to think more clearly, leading to the likelihood that you will win through the sheer power of logic. This hope allows one to “find creative solutions to the disputes at the heart of the conflict.”

In other words, you can see a way out of what seems like a battle of endurance. This is what happens in everyday life when thinking outside the box helps all parties find a solution. Moreover, it can lead you to unconditional victory.

The principle of peaceful resolution of international disputes.

Classical international law recognized war as a legitimate means of resolving disputes between states. Only at the beginning of the 20th century. The process of forming the principle of peaceful resolution of international disputes began to develop.

In 1907, the Hague Convention for the Peaceful Settlement of International Disputes was adopted. However, the priority of peaceful means of resolving disputes in this Convention was not established as a mandatory norm: states were only asked to “make efforts”, and even then “to the extent possible”.

The Charter of the League of Nations, adopted in 1918, imposed stricter obligations on member states of this organization: not to go to war until three months have passed from the date of a decision regarding a particular dispute by international arbitration, a court or the Council of the League of Nations. In 1920, a world judicial body was created for the first time - the Permanent Court of International Justice.

The first document in the history of international law that provided for the prohibition of the use of force in resolving international disputes was the Treaty on the Renunciation of War as an Instrument of National Policy of 1928 (Kellogg-Briand Pact).

The principle of peaceful resolution of international disputes was finally formalized only in 1945 with the adoption of the UN Charter, Art. 2 of which states that states must resolve their disputes by peaceful means and only peaceful means are the only legitimate ones.

Legal content of the principle of peaceful resolution of international disputes.

The principle of the peaceful resolution of international disputes is a generally recognized peremptory norm (jus cogens) of international law, according to which “disputes between States must be resolved exclusively by peaceful means so as not to jeopardize international peace, security and justice.”

States should strive for the speedy and fair settlement of their international disputes through negotiation, inquiry, mediation, conciliation, arbitration, litigation, recourse to regional bodies or agreements, or other peaceful means of their choice. States choose specific means of peaceful settlement of international disputes by mutual agreement in accordance with the circumstances and nature of the dispute.

In the event that the disputing States are unable to settle their dispute by one of the above-mentioned peaceful means, they are obliged to continue to seek a settlement of the dispute through other peaceful means agreed upon by them.

States parties to an international dispute, as well as other states, must refrain from any action that may aggravate the situation so as to jeopardize the maintenance of international peace and security, and must act in accordance with the purposes and principles of the United Nations.

Use body language

Mongkolchon Akesin / Shutterstock

One effective method is to use body language to show that you understand the other person's arguments. Make eye contact and don't forget to smile sincerely. This way, your opponent will think that you have taken his side. And at this time you will declare the strengths of your position.

Be creative

Benjamin Curry / Lifehacker.com

Attorney Miriam Defensor-Santiago said, “Sometimes you have to catch your opponent off guard. Then you will have to use tricks that are not written in books. If your opponent is very pompous, you should lower your tone and speak more calmly... And if he is very, very serious, joke.”

In other words, don't behave like your opponent, otherwise you will definitely lose. You can put out fire with fire, but this rarely happens. Basically, if the person you are arguing with is naturally short-tempered, shouts and behaves aggressively, it is useless to argue in the same spirit. Instead, be calm, lower your voice, and make it seem like your opponent is overly excited about what you're arguing about.

Be creative, unpredictable and flexible. Arguments are successful not only because of their strength, but also because of their presentation.