How to argue

Philosophy & Economics: General

How to argue

PG (Pierre-Guy) Veer February 27, 2016 at 12:44 pm

I will admit it outright: I am a terrible orator. Now, talking in public is usually much better than it used to be. But when it comes to conversations about politcs and economics, I’m at loss to remain Friedman-calm when facing outrageously false statements.

If it were done over writing I could easily kick their butts thanks to the many articles I wrote and tons of books I read (and stats that actually show my point). But when talking my heart starts racing, I feel like I’m hyperventilating and I sink to their level of emotions.

Are there any tricks to keep the cool even when faced by a barrage of nonsense?

You must be logged in to reply to this topic.

Frank Maruschak February 27, 2016 at 1:18 pm

What is the difference between an outrageously false statement and a false statement? Is there a difference between being dead and being outrageously dead? Sounds like you are letting people push your emotional-button with the COLOR of their Language. Just make them defend that colorful language.

You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
You must be logged in to reply to this topic.

David Ottinger February 27, 2016 at 1:35 pm

No tricks, but you can become more aware why you’re reacting that way. So for example, imagine you were teaching a kid math, and he said 9*6 = 48, which is blatantly false, would you experience the same emotional reaction? To take it further, imagine the kid being adamant about his answer and challenging you on it? Do you feel the same temperament rising in you?    Your answers are all clues to what’s triggering this reaction of yours. And, that’s really the point of the exercise: i.e. to discover what’s actually triggering this emotional response of yours.

Is it really the falsehood that irks you? i.e. People being factually incorrect.

Is it a dominance element? i.e. You’re being challenged, therefore triggering your flight, fight, or freeze response.

And, then there is your expressed discomfort with oration. Are you really as terrible as you think, or is it something else and you’re assuming you’re a bad orator? For example, did you have a parent or guardian that either verbally or physically attacked you when you were a child asserting yourself? e.g. From the parent: “Don’t talk back to me.”   “My house my rules.” Basically, any sort of “Be seen, not heard,” sentiment being enforced as the rule in that parent/child environment.

If this is something you experienced growing up, your somatic mind hasn’t forgotten it. Thus, when you feel the need to assert yourself, your somatic mind will prime you for a hazardous environment given that’s what happened in past experiences: Senses heightened; heart rate higher, thus primed to pump adrenaline to the arms or feet so you can react quickly(fight or flight); louder voice for intimidation.    All in all, a reaction that expresses, “This is my territory (i.e. area of expertise), therefore I am the authority here.”

And, I’m not saying this is what’s happening in your experience. I’m just giving you an example of how this might be unfolding physiologically and psychologically.

And, just for full disclosure: I’m no expert in biology or psychology. This is just what I’ve learned from exploring my own quirks.

You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
  
  PG (Pierre-Guy) Veer February 27, 2016 at 4:17 pm
  
  I find your comparison a little strange. Children don’t have fully developped minds, and what he says yes is wrong but I wouldn’t call it “upsetting.” Unless he started being disrespectful, I would let him humilitate himself to try to prove his point.
  
  As for myself: maybe it’s a control thing. However in most conversations, my opponents always try to trap me with trick questions, supposing I am omniscient. Worse; they are downright condescending, saying things like, “If you were struggling in life, maybe you wouldn’t demonize welfare as much.”
  
  You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
  - You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
    
    David Ottinger February 27, 2016 at 7:22 pm
    
    I didn’t mean to imply that the person you’re dealing with in the exercise must be a child. It was just an example. You can simulate anyone you want, and also even change the subject matter to see if that’s relevant to your internal response. The reason I chose a child for the mental simulation is because children are naturally non-threatening, so it’s a neutral figure. Although if you just got done watching Pet Sematary or Children of the Corn it might not be the case. (silly joke) Anyhow, I hope I’ve made it clear that changing the various variables of the interaction allows you to meditate and become aware of yourself.
    
    And, if the whole exercise is silly to you, that’s fine too. It’s basically Gestalt Therapy, although absent of a psychological coach.
    
    “If you were struggling in life, maybe you wouldn’t demonize welfare as much.”
    
    I find they’re questioning your integrity with comments like that, or at least that’s how I would treat that one specifically. But, comments like that are a form of manipulation as well if you take it to heart, no pun intended. It’s completely natural to be bothered by them. But, it’s also a ploy to provoke you (not to imply the user of such tricks is cognizant of their sophistry). If they can get you on the defensive, then they can steer the conversation. Maybe to even get you to feel guilty about yourself. If you discredit their point about you, then they double down by accusing you of something else. All in all, they’re trying to write you off as an immoral person by attacking character while you’re trying to discover what the truth is by attacking the subject matter.
    
    Such discourse can no longer be an honest one at that point. What you’re dealing with here is what I like to call epistemological conquest — which has many forms. A popular one being indoctrination.
    
    If you participate in an exchange of ideas, why not treat it like any other exchange? Being that consideration is a core principle of any genuine exchange, isn’t it ironic that the other party didn’t actually consider your thoughts while accusing you of being inconsiderate?
    
    You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
- - - You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
Chase February 27, 2016 at 2:05 pm

I work as a customer service lead at Amazon.com so I have had plenty of experience dealing with “outrageously wrong” people who were often irrationally angry. Here are some of my best de-escalation techniques:

1. Speak a little softer. Speaking softer forces the other person to focus on your words more and converse at your level. If they are mad or yelling, they will not be able to hear what you are saying. They have to calm themselves down to understand what you are saying

2. Recognize that they are (probably) not mad at you or debating you. They are upset with a situation and seeking a solution. Empathize with them and show that you want to fix the same problems they do, just in a different way

3. State your position with confidence. Once you have heard their proposed solution and recognized how wrong it is (likely filled with statism and economic fallacies), state your position clearly with confidence. You can be confident in your answer once you have recognized the flaw in their solution. If you have successfully calmed them down and established empathy, they will be more willing to accept your confidently-stated answer.

Those are some of my best tips. While I have used them mostly to calm customers and find solutions to the myriad issues that can occur, I have found that they work well even in political, religious, and economic disagreements.

You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
  
  PG (Pierre-Guy) Veer February 27, 2016 at 5:19 pm
  
  I have tried the empathy trick, stating that I do care about the poor, but they unavoidably question it since it’s not through government. I confiendtly state my opinion and facts, and usually in a calm manner, but they often coma back aggressively.
  
  You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
  - You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
    
    Rick Rule February 27, 2016 at 8:53 pm
    
    It might amuse the participants in this discussion to review my videos on mentoring. Were I more technologically competent, I would, of course provide links.
    
    One is from the recent CYCLE series, hosted by Liberty.Me, and the other is from Capitalism and Morality, also available here at Liberty.Me.
    
    Pay attention to the old Xerox technique, ” feel, felt found”. the finest persuasion technique I know.
    
    You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
    - Jayant Bhandari February 28, 2016 at 3:32 pm
      
      Here is the link of your talk from Capitalism & Morality 2015: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nd8SJXZgbow&list=PLVakOKBvbSujZ6Cu_jHmZgz5qqIagEs9c&index=3
      
      You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
- - - - You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
Marchella February 27, 2016 at 6:12 pm

Try to get personal, that way has worked for me, show how they are directly affected by overreaching gov, the woes of central banking etc. Vague ideas don’t work for many. Be personal, direct and relevant.

If they continue to be emotional just try to stay logical. But I realize some cannot tell the difference.

You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
You must be logged in to reply to this topic.

Leanne Baker February 27, 2016 at 9:14 pm

My experience is that if the other person is emotional and aggressive, it will never be a productive, two-way discussion. There’s no harm in walking away and not engaging at all — it doesn’t mean you’ve “lost” the argument. Sometimes it’s enough to be able to state your truth, especially if the other party is assuming that “everyone” agrees with what they are saying. “Actually, the only politician I would consider voting for is Ron Paul.” “I have lots of doubts about the validity of global warming hypotheses.” “I can’t agree with your conclusions, because I worry about the unintended consequences.” Again, if the other person doesn’t want a discussion, that may be the end of it. If you really want to change someone’s mind in a discussion, I also find that you have more potential for success if you are already friends, or at least have paved the way with chit-chat about non-controversial subjects or subjects about which you already agree.

You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
  
  Randall Chester Saunders February 28, 2016 at 1:38 pm
  
  “if the other person is emotional and aggressive,”
  
  You’ve already won, Leanne. :>)
  
  You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
- - You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
Randall Chester Saunders February 28, 2016 at 1:36 pm

Why argue?

This is a serious question to anyone who thinks arguing is some kind of necessity.

It is easy enough to win argumets, but there is almost nothing of value that is actually won.

If you really feel you have to argue there is a site called “Changing Minds” that describes itself as, “<b>How we change what others think, feel, believe and do</b>,” with almost exhaustive resources. I think all argument is a waste of time and energy, but if it gives you pleasure or satisfaction, it’s not sin–so enjoy!

You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
  
  PG (Pierre-Guy) Veer February 29, 2016 at 1:23 pm
  
  It mostly happens in family gatherings, where I am the only one questioning the God State, and so-called atheist meetings, who have switched from the supernatural god to the god state. I find the latterv rasther amusing; they discard religion based on facts and reason… but never do the same for government programs.
  
  So unless I isolate myself completely, such conversations are unavoidable
  
  You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
  - You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
    
    Paul Bonneau March 14, 2016 at 1:29 am
    
    No they aren’t. “It takes two to tango.”
    
    I had the same reaction as Randall. I was more like you when I was young, but I’ve come to realize argument and logic basically doesn’t work. What does work is imitation. If people see you happy with your life, they may wonder why and ask you things. You can’t beat sense into their heads. Humans just don’t work that way. Read “How to Win Friends & Influence People”.
    
    Here’s a little article I wrote.
    
    http://strike-the-root.com/evicting-statist-within-us
    
    If people try to push your buttons, just smile back at them. 🙂
    
    You must be logged in to reply to this topic.