Untenable arguments. Rules for persuading your interlocutor

Arguments are divided into strong ones, which have significant persuasive power, and weak ones. The strength of an argument is a relative value; it depends on those views and opinions, as well as the picture of the world reflected in the mind, which are characteristic of the listener.

However, there are arguments that are almost always strong. They do not cause criticism, they are difficult or impossible to refute, destroy, not take into account: * precisely established and interconnected facts and judgments arising from them, * laws, charters, governing documents, if they are implemented and correspond to real life; * experimentally verified conclusions;

expert opinions; quotes from public statements, books by recognized authorities in this field; testimony of witnesses and eyewitnesses of events; statistical information, if its collection, processing and generalization are made by professional statisticians.

Weak arguments include those based on: personal confidence or doubt of the speaker; inferences based on two or more separate facts, the relationship between which is unclear without a third; tricks and judgments built on illogicalities; references (quotes) to authorities that are unknown or little known to your listeners or that are not authoritative for them; analogies and non-indicative examples;

analogies and non-indicative examples; personal arguments arising from circumstances or dictated by motivation, desire; tendentiously selected digressions, aphorisms, sayings; arguments, versions or generalizations made on the basis of guesses, assumptions, feelings; conclusions from incomplete statistical data. The strength of these arguments is the higher, the more authoritative the speaker or the person whose words are quoted appears in the eyes of the listener.

Untenable arguments They allow you to expose and discredit the opponent who used them. They are: judgments based on falsified facts; links to dubious, unverified sources; invalid decisions; conjectures, conjectures, assumptions, fabrications; arguments designed to appeal to prejudice, ignorance; conclusions drawn from fictitious documents; advance promises and advances; false statements and testimony; forgery and falsification of what is said.

You can also use arguments “by contradiction”, those that contradict the thesis. At the same time, by temporarily agreeing with the validity of these arguments, you can show that the consequences of accepting their validity will be negative, absurd, or even absurd and terrifying.

Excessive persuasiveness always causes resistance, since the superiority of a partner in a dispute is always offensive. Give one or two compelling arguments and, if the desired effect is achieved, limit yourself to them. The order of the arguments presented affects their persuasiveness. The most convincing order of arguments is: strong - medium - one is the strongest.

Argumentation based on strong arguments supported by weak ones is possible. For example, you can prove the validity of a thesis based on facts and support these arguments with your own confidence and the statement of a famous person, an aphorism or a proverb.

When arguing, use only those arguments that you and your opponent understand equally. If the argument is not accepted, find the reason for this and do not insist on it further in the conversation. Don't downplay your opponent's strong arguments. It is better, on the contrary, to emphasize their importance and your correct understanding. Present your arguments that are not related to what your opponent or partner said after you have responded to his arguments. More precisely measure the pace of argumentation with the characteristics of your partner’s temperament.

Law of embedding (implementation). Arguments should be built into the partner’s logic of reasoning, and not driven in (breaking it), not presented in parallel. The law of the common language of thinking. If you want to be heard, speak the language of your opponent's basic information and representation systems. The law of minimizing arguments. Remember the limitations of human perception (five to seven arguments), so limit the number of arguments. It is better if there are no more than three or four of them. The law of objectivity and evidence. Use as arguments only those that your opponent accepts. Don't confuse facts and opinions. The law of demonstrating equality and respect. Present your arguments by showing respect for your opponent and his position. Remember that it is easier to convince a “friend” than an “enemy”.

Law of Authority. Citing an authority that your opponent knows and perceives as an authority enhances the impact of your arguments. Seek authoritative reinforcement for them. The law of reframing. Do not reject your partner’s arguments, but, recognizing their legitimacy, overestimate their strength and significance. Increase the significance of losses if you accept his position or reduce the significance of the benefits expected by your partner (cf. the method of contradiction). The law of gradualism. Do not try to quickly convince your opponent; it is better to take gradual but consistent steps. Feedback law. Provide feedback in the form of an assessment of your opponent’s condition and a description of your emotional state. Take personal responsibility for misunderstandings and misunderstandings. Law of ethics. In the process of argumentation, do not allow unethical behavior (aggression, arrogance, etc.), do not touch the “sore spots” of your opponent.

Homer's rule. The order of the arguments presented affects their persuasiveness. The most convincing order of arguments is: strong - medium - one is the strongest (do not use weak arguments at all, they do harm, not good). The strength (weakness) of arguments should be determined not from the point of view of the speaker, but from the point of view of the decision maker.

Socrates' rule. To get a positive decision on an issue that is important to you, put it in third place, prefacing it with two short, simple questions for the interlocutor, to which he will probably answer you “yes” without difficulty. The interlocutor subconsciously tunes in favorably and it is psychologically easier for him to say “yes” than “no”.

Pascal's Rule Don't drive your interlocutor into a corner. Give him the opportunity to “save face”, preserve his dignity. Nothing disarms more than the terms of honorable surrender.

The Matthew effect, or the effect of accumulated advantage, is a social phenomenon consisting in the fact that advantages, as a rule, are received by those who already have them, and those initially deprived are deprived even more. In other words, those with power and economic or social capital can use those resources to gain even more power and capital. American sociologist Robert Merton first began to talk about the Matthew effect: in a publication in the journal Science in 1968, he drew attention to the psychosocial factors influencing the recognition and evaluation of scientific works.

Merton called the Matthew effect the potential advantage that the publications of established scientists have over the publications of their less famous colleagues. Given the same scientific level of two articles, the chances of success in the professional community are higher for the one written by a more eminent author (for example, a Nobel laureate). The name of the effect is given from a quote from the Gospel of Matthew: “To everyone who has, more will be given and he will have abundance, but from him who does not have, even what he has will be taken away” (Matthew 25:29).

Study for example. There is one difficulty on the path to independently mastering the techniques of persuasion, which is not easy to overcome alone and about which we must warn the reader.

You can’t ask your manager why he refused you: either you couldn’t convince him, or the question is fundamentally unsolvable for reasons unknown to you. You're always left guessing."

Errors are better visible from the outside, especially when the process of persuasion is observed by a specialist in these matters. By regularly conducting practical classes, the author became convinced of how difficult it is to develop persuasive speech skills.

You have to analyze dozens of dialogues in order to master all the above persuasion techniques, at least 2-3 situations for each technique.

Let's give some examples.

How to take time off from work. During practical classes on the topic “Persuasion Techniques,” one of the participants shared her problem: tomorrow she must leave work two hours early, but there is a danger that her manager will not let her go. How can I talk so that I’m sure he’ll let you go?

The teacher suggested rehearsing: “I am your boss, you- asking for time off. Let's try. So, I’m listening to you.”

- Viktor Pavlovich, let me go 2 hours earlier.

- What is it?

- You see, my sister is coming, with two children, with heavy things. I definitely need to meet her.

- You say things are heavy too?

- Yes very. You know, with children there is so much to gain! Stroller and stuff.

- So, maybe it’s better for your husband to meet her, since it’s so difficult?

- We thought so too. But his boss didn’t let my husband go, he said there was a lot of work...

- Yeah! This means they have a lot of work, and we have little! No, let your husband meet her! I can't let you go.

- But this is my sister...

- These are your problems and solve them not at the expense of work. Go and work.

Is this dialogue plausible? Quite, our heroine admitted, and others agreed with her.

Let's figure out what happened. The reason for the failure is that the petitioner violated Homer's rule. First of all, her arguments contained a very weak argument (they didn’t let her husband go - there was a lot of work). Moreover, there was not a single strong argument. After all, the strongest argument for a female employee (the need to meet her own sister) for a manager is no more than average strength.

Strong arguments for a manager are those when work does not suffer and discipline is not violated. How to achieve this? We prepared strong arguments, armed our participant with them, and this is what she said two days later, when we met again in class. The conversation with the manager took place as follows.

- Ivan Petrovich, today I came to work an hour earlier and worked without lunch, so I practically finished all of today’s work.

- Commendable. But what causes this?

- The fact is that my sister is coming with her children, I definitely need to meet her. Therefore, I ask your permission to leave two hours earlier.

- So, you say the work is already done?

- Yes. And in case you have any urgent business, the girls promise to do it, and if they can’t,

Gut, I’ll come early tomorrow and have everything done by the time you arrive.

- Well, of course. Of course, go and meet me. How many children does your sister have?

- Two.

- There are probably plenty of things...

- Yes, there will probably be enough...

- That's it, I'll try to help you.(Calls on the phone). Hello, dispatcher? Can you give us an hour and a half “rafik”? Will you give it? Thank you!" The car will be at the main entrance.

- Oh, thank you very much!

- Everyone would ask for time off like that...

The boss's last comment explains the reason for his thoughtfulness.

If we analyze the conversation sequentially, we discover a competent use of the already mentioned Homeric rule. First, a few strong arguments: the work has been done, and the necessary time has been spent. Then an argument of average (from the manager’s point of view) strength - you need to meet your sister. And at the end - the strongest argument (an agreement in case of a possible urgent task).

The result, as we see, exceeded all expectations. But if you think about it, it is quite natural. The care shown by the manager for the subordinate (calling the car) is a response to the care for him. The employee solved her problem on her own, without “blaming” it on the manager, as often happens when someone asks to let her go. And here, perhaps, not only reciprocal concern, but also a hint to other employees on how to ask for time off.

Problems for motorists. Here is an example of applying another Socratic rule.

"I'm late for work. And then there are no free parking spaces near the building where I work. I pull back and spend a few minutes looking for an empty seat. Finally, having found it, I see my boss’s car standing nearby. “Surely he also spent a long time looking for where to stand,”- I thought.

I had just entered my room when I was called to the boss.

- Why were you late?

- It’s very difficult to find a parking place... You probably also drove around before you got up...

- It was...

- And so every morning! Maybe we need to take some measures so that we are allocated additional parking spaces?

- Yes, something needs to be done. By the way, take care of this, find out who you need to contact on this issue.”

A positive answer was received to both questions asked by the latecomer.

Another rule helped get out of this difficult situation: the subordinate began with what they had in common with their boss - with the difficulties of parking. As a result, he came out of the situation with honor.

Extraordinary leave. The “art of the possible” must be involved here.

An employee turns to her manager:

- Sergei Nikolaevich, I would like to take a vacation in July.

- Lyudmila Ivanovna, you have a scheduled vacation in September.

- Yes, but my husband has a vacation in July, and we would like to go to the seaside to relax, we haven’t been there for so long!

- Everybody wants. I can't help you. Why was the request unconvincing?

Because the person who asked did not show empathy for the leader, did not put herself in his place. After all, violation of the vacation schedule risks the fact that during some periods of the year there is simply no one to work, which is why both the work and its manager suffer. In addition, by breaking the schedule, the manager can cause a chain reaction of similar statements and even claims.

The employee is trying to shift the solution of her own problem to the manager, which makes her an unpleasant interlocutor. In order not to be driven into a corner (Pascal’s rule), the manager refuses, as they say, “from the threshold.” In addition, the desire of a subordinate to swim in the sea is a weak argument for a manager (Homer’s rule has been violated).

The petitioner's task is difficult, but not hopeless. The conversation could have ended differently if the petitioner, realizing the manager’s difficulties, had made it easier for him to resolve her issue. True, this requires preliminary preparation.

- Sergey Nikolaevich, can I talk to you now?

- Yes, what do you have?

- In winter, a vacation schedule for this year was developed. Is he in force now?

- Yes, definitely!

- Is it possible to exchange vacation time with someone else?

- It is possible, if it does not expose the work area.

- I agreed with Ivanova (she has a vacation in July) to exchange with me for half a month, if you allow us to take vacations at intervals, in two steps. For family reasons, I need at least two weeks in July.

- What about your immediate supervisors?

- They agree.

- Okay, write applications, but only get endorsed by your managers. I'll sign.

Noteworthy, first of all, is the application of the Socratic rule (obtaining agreement on auxiliary issues) and the reduction of the requirement by half. This is the result of elaborating the issue, discussing it with those who could give up vacation time. They say: “Politics is the art of the possible.” Faced with the impossibility of fulfilling her desire, the worker asks for what she can actually get.

Preparatory work is certainly the result of empathy towards the boss: the petitioner realized that the manager will not deal with solving her personal problems, that this is a matter for the subordinates themselves.

The employee does not specify the reason for the request, replacing it with generalized “family circumstances.” After all, they can be more serious than those initially named. If the leader asks you to name these circumstances, they must be more compelling than just a desire to splash in the sea.

If there are no people willing to change their vacation time, you need to look for other strong arguments.

For example, complete the most important July work ahead of schedule, agree on a replacement, enlist the support of your immediate supervisor, etc.

Child in a puddle. Here is a very typical scene.

A little boy wants to walk in a puddle. The mother screams for him not to interfere with her. But the child still goes to where it is deeper. His mother explains to him that he will get his feet wet, catch a cold, get sick, and may even die from this. But the boy goes further. Finally, the enraged mother grabs her child, pulls him out of the puddle and spanks him. The child naturally roars...

Why are parents unconvincing in such cases? Because they violate many rules of persuasion.

First of all, they do not show empathy for the child. Putting themselves in his place, they would understand that curiosity draws him into the puddle: what is there? And having understood the reason, they would have guessed that fighting curiosity is useless (and even harmful - it delays the child’s development). You just need to put rubber boots on your child and let him satisfy his curiosity. If there are no boots, it is better to distract the child with something no less interesting for him, that is, to fulfill one of his needs - the need for development (self-realization).

The lack of empathy also leads to the fact that arguments are given that are strong for an adult, but not understandable for a child (“you will get sick”, “you will die”). This violates the corollary of Homer's rule: since the strength of arguments is determined by the listener, there should be no weak arguments.

The situation is also worsened by violation of rule 11: the mother begins with a shout, that is, with a conflictogen. The result is the child’s stubbornness, the desire to act in defiance of the shout (a reaction to belittling the status of the person being persuaded).

Rule 8 is also violated here: the mother begins not with what unites her with the child, but with what separates her (according to his concepts).

As a result, the parent violated five rules of persuasion. One cannot count on the persuasiveness of her speeches.

Strengthening doors.One day, when I opened the door when the doorbell rang, I was convinced that the neighbors had also called, since they also opened the doors.

Two young men of good appearance stood on the platform. One of them addressed us with the following speech:

- You, of course, know that there are a lot of burglaries now. Thieves break down doors or open locks with a master key in a few seconds. We strengthen door frames and install strong doors with particularly complex locks for security purposes. The cost of work ranges from... to... depending on the materials used. Orders can be placed now or by phone. Payment - after delivery of the work to the customer.

Many people at our entrance placed an order for the proposed service.

The success of young people is not accidental. Their speech complied with all the rules of persuasion. They started with what they had in common with the listeners (rule 8) - protecting apartments from thieves. Mentally, the listeners agreed with the statement of two ways to enter apartments (Socrates' rule). There were no weak arguments among the arguments, and the last argument (payment after execution) was very strong, all according to Homer’s rule.

Confession of an innocent victim.“At the final stop, the driver opened only the front door and began checking the passengers’ travel documents. My two friends and I entered three stops before the final one. I was the only one with a ticket, and I punched it right away. When the three of us approached the driver and explained the situation, he demanded that all three of us pay a fine. To my indignation, he said that I punched the ticket when the check began. No matter how much I tried to prove it, he didn’t let us out until we all paid the fine.”

Approaching the controller together with her friends who were free riders, the girl artificially lowered her image: since her friends are like that, that means you are a violator (they say: “Whoever you mess with, you’ll get the hang of it”). Therefore, the girl’s arguments turned out to be unconvincing.

"Krohobor."A passenger travels in a taxi from the center to his neighborhood. Upon arrival at the place, the taxi driver calls an amount that is one and a half times higher than the meter reading. To the bewilderment of the passenger, he explains that not everyone will come here from the center, that, judging by his respectable appearance, the client should not be petty.

After listening to the taxi driver, the passenger replied: firstly, in a taxi they pay according to the meter, and if the driver wanted differently, he had to warn about it; secondly, there were many free taxis and there would certainly be people who wanted to go here, he was convinced of this more than once; thirdly, the word “krohobor” means “a person who covets other people’s crumbs.”

The taxi driver could not find anything to object to, and the client paid off the meter.

A brilliant example of the application of Homer's rule! Not a single weak argument, and the strongest one is in the end!

When the rules work against us.The girl was late for class. There is not a single ticket in my pocket, and the kiosk at the bus stop is closed. Hoping to buy a ticket already on the bus, she counted out the money and began to make her way to the driver’s cabin. But a controller appeared on her way, who, after listening to the explanation, found it unconvincing.

The girl asks passengers to testify- she just sat down and took out money, but everyone is silent. The controller demands to pay a fine or get off at the nearest stop. Afraid of being late, the girl was forced to pay a fine.

Rule 4 worked against the girl. And it worked in two ways.

Young people often behave inappropriately on public transport: they do not give up their seats to older people, act in a swaggering manner, and often travel without a ticket. Therefore, the image of this age group among passengers is very low.

Apparently, for this reason, those around her did not support the girl when she turned to them to confirm the correctness of her words. And such support is worth a lot. After all, the status of the group is much higher than the status of any of its members. If those around her had supported the girl, the inspector would not have risked demanding a fine from her. On the contrary, the lack of such support lowered the girl’s status and further convinced the controller that she was wrong.

1. 5 ADVICE OF P. SERGEICH AND F. PLEVAKO

Ten tips from a famous lawyer

The arguments that we have found ourselves are more convincing than those that have come to the minds of others.

B. Pascal

Advice formulated by the famous Russian lawyer P.S. Prokhovshchikov (literary pseudonym - P. Sergeich), are based on an excellent knowledge of human psychology.

1. Don't prove the obvious.

The listener is always looking for something new in speech that is unknown to him. And not finding it, he loses interest in both the speech and the speaker. This is exactly what happens when they hear common truths or platitudes.

The following story tells about the results that breaking this rule can lead to.

The trolleybus driver, as an initiative, took on the additional responsibility of educating passengers on various topics while traveling along the route: traffic rules, good manners, etc. The speaker in the cabin did not stop, endlessly repeating common truths. Passengers unanimously expressed outrage at such an intrusive “service”; many complained that they got off the trolleybus in a bad mood.

2. If you find a compelling argument or strong objection, do not start with it or express it without proper preparation.

Essentially, we are talking about the competent use of Homer's rule.

3. Throw away all mediocre and unreliable arguments.

We talked about this when commenting on Homer’s rule in paragraph 1.1.

4. Don't miss an opportunity to make a strong point in the form of a dilemma: the conclusion made by the listener is more impressive for him than what he heard.

For example, in the case of an obvious lie of an opponent, we can say that, apparently, he is sincerely mistaken, and perhaps he is deceiving deliberately. Listeners will undoubtedly accept the second as true, and this conclusion is more destructive for the opponent.

5. Don't be afraid to agree with your opponent, when there is an opportunity to turn his own statements against him. Or at least prove their uselessness for the opponent.

"- Wonderful! - said Rudin, - therefore, in your opinion, there are no convictions?

- No- and doesn't exist.

- Is this your belief?

- How can you say that they don’t exist?

Here's one for you for the first time.

Everyone in the room smiled and looked at each other.”

(I. S. Turgenev. Rudin.)

6. If the arguments are strong, it is better to present them separately, developing each in detail separately. If there are only weak arguments, you should collect them “in one handful.”

Quintilian said that “the weak mutually reinforce each other. Deprived of meaning qualitatively, they are convincing in quantity - in that they all confirm the same circumstance.”

7. Try to support one piece of evidence with another.

8. Don't try to explain something you don't fully understand.

Inexperienced people often make this mistake, as if they expect that they will find an explanation if they look for it out loud. The enemy is sincerely grateful to such speakers. It should not be forgotten that the attention of listeners is always focused on the weakest part of the speaker’s reasoning.

9. Do not try to prove more when you can limit yourself to less.

Don't complicate your task.

10. Avoid contradictions in your arguments. Let us quote P. Sergeich: “This rule is constantly

violated by our defenders in the courts. They thoroughly and diligently prove their client’s complete innocence of the crime, and then declare that in case their arguments did not seem convincing to the jury, they consider themselves obliged to remind them of the circumstances that could serve as a basis for absolution or, at least, for leniency. A few final words turn the entire defense into ashes. This is an error in the very scheme of speech.”

Adults here are likened to an unreasonable child who, when asked if he broke the cup from the set, replies: “No, not me! But I won't do it anymore."

Test "Is it difficult to unbalance you"

Peace of mind is a precious quality in many ways. The proposed test will help you answer the following question: “Are you really irritable or just don’t want to control yourself?”

In each of the test situations, you will have to answer the same question: “Does... annoy you?”, indicating one of the possible answer options:

• a) very annoying;
• b) not particularly annoying;
• c) is not annoying in any way.

Situations

1. A crumpled page of the newspaper you want to read.
2. An older woman dressed like a young girl.
3. Excessive proximity of the interlocutor (for example, on a tram at rush hour).
4. A woman smoking on the street.
5. When someone coughs in your direction.
6. When someone bites their nails.
7. When someone laughs out of place.
8. When someone tries to teach you what and how to do.

1. When your beloved girl (boy) is constantly late.
2. When in a cinema the person sitting in front of you is constantly spinning and commenting on the plot of the film.
3. When they try to retell to you the plot of an interesting novel that you are just about to read.
4. When you are given unnecessary items.
5. Loud conversation on public transport.
6. The smell of perfume is too strong.
7. A person who gestures too much when talking.
8. A colleague who uses foreign words too often.

Evaluation of answers

• 3 points – option “a”
• 1 point – option “b”
• 0 points – option “c”

Interpretation of results

If in total you have scored 30 or more points, then this means that you are not one of the patient and calm people. Everything annoys you, even small things. You are quick-tempered and easily lose your temper, which your competitors can take advantage of. In addition, it weakens your nervous system too much, as a result of which the people around you also suffer. You should learn to control yourself.

12 – 29 points. You can be classified as one of the most common group of people. Only the most unpleasant things irritate you, but you do not make drama out of ordinary adversity. You know how to “turn your back” on troubles; you forget about them quite easily.

11 or less points. You are a very calm person, you look at life realistically. At least we can say about you with complete confidence: you are not a person who can be easily thrown off balance.

Cheat Sheet "Types of Arguments"
Arguments

Arguments vary in their degree of impact on people's minds and feelings as follows: 1) strong arguments, 2) weak and 3) invalid. Counter arguments (counterarguments) have the same gradation.

1. Strong arguments.

They do not cause criticism; they cannot be refuted, destroyed, or ignored. Among them are the following:

precisely established and interrelated facts and judgments that follow from them;

laws, charters, governing documents, if they are implemented and correspond to real life;

experimentally verified conclusions;

expert opinions;

quotes from public statements, books by recognized authorities in this field;

testimony of witnesses and eyewitnesses of events;

statistical information, if its collection, processing and generalization are made by professional statisticians.

2. Weak arguments.

They raise doubts among your opponents, clients and employees. Similar arguments include:

inferences based on two or more separate facts, the relationship between which is unclear without a third;

tricks and judgments built on alogisms (alogism is a technique for destroying the logic of thinking, which is most often used in humor. For example: “Water? I drank it once. It does not quench my thirst”);

techniques based on analogy and non-indicative examples;

personal arguments arising from circumstances or dictated by motivation, desire;

tendentiously selected digressions, aphorisms and sayings;

arguments, versions or generalizations made on the basis of guesses, (assumptions) and feelings;

conclusions from incomplete statistical data.

3. Untenable arguments.

By using them, you can expose and discredit the opponent who used them. Similar arguments include the following:

judgments based on falsified facts;

invalid decisions;

conjectures, conjectures, assumptions and fabrications;

arguments designed to appeal to prejudice, ignorance;

conclusions drawn from fictitious documents;

advance promises and advances;

false statements and testimony;

forgery and falsification of what is said.

Four rules of V.L. Levi

Rules that help neutralize the egoist’s arguments with pleasant emotions for him and for himself.

1. Get to the heart of the statements.

Hide, suppress your emotions or weaken them as much as possible and look at the person you are dealing with. Understand his point of view, his circumstances and put yourself in his shoes. Find out everything you can about it in advance, study it discreetly. Remember the names and dates that concern him, as well as tastes, interests and views.

2. Create a positive atmosphere.

Smile wider, start contact with the word “yes”. If your opponent accuses you, then make him “break into an open door,” tell him: “Yes, I’m wrong.” Express your sympathy to him, and as sincerely as possible. Talk to him about what he wants, or about himself, and just start from there. Never start by talking about yourself. Appeal to his personal interest – “carrot first”. And give, give, give everything that will please him. Starting with words-gifts.

3. Don’t humiliate or hurt your pride.

Don't accuse, threaten or command. Don't express distrust. Don't interrupt your opponent's speech. Don't boast about your deeds. Don't show that he is uninteresting or disgusting. When refusing, apologize and thank.

4. Elevate your opponent.

Listen and praise, praise and praise. Give your opponent the opportunity to feel significant, let him boast, feel superior, consult with him as with an elder. Lead him to your idea, desire, goal gradually, so that it seems to him that this is his idea. Make him a friend. An egoistic enemy is much more dangerous than an egoistic friend.

Probably, these are not indisputable rules, but remember and check them, maybe the egoistic partner will believe and accept your arguments that protect not him, but you.

1. Avoid confusing emotions.

If you are angry, offended, or emotionally hurt, your opponents and co-workers will also react to your emotions rather than to your suggestions and thoughts. Your emotional state will “confuse” the issue and lead its solution astray.

2. Keep it simple.

Sometimes the meaning of what you want to convey to others is lost due to excessive complexity or trying to solve several issues at once. Express your thoughts in a way that even children can understand.

3. Get your way.

Don't back down, even if you have to explain your intentions and proposals for a long time.

4. Don't let yourself be led astray.

Be clear about your end goals, choose a strategy to achieve them, and don't let yourself be swayed by something else.

5. Don't be afraid of mistakes.

If they happen and do not weaken your position, then acknowledge them and flexibly adapt to a different path to solving the problem. Don’t feel complex about mistakes: they activate a new search.

6. Focus on mutual victory.

As a result of your efforts, an option should be developed that is accepted by both parties.

Seven rules for disputants

1. When arguing, use only those arguments that you and your opponent understand equally.
2. If your argument is not accepted, then find the reason for this and do not insist on it further in the conversation.
3. Do not downplay the importance of your opponent’s strong arguments; on the contrary, emphasize their importance and thereby your correct understanding.
4. Present your arguments that are not related to what your opponent or partner said after you have responded to his arguments.
5. More precisely measure the pace of argumentation with the characteristics of your partner’s temperament.
6. Keep in mind that excessive persuasiveness always causes resistance, since the superiority of a partner in a dispute is always offensive.
7. Give one or two compelling arguments and, if the desired effect is achieved, limit yourself to them.

Reaction equals action

Action 2. Your solution is rejected (“It still won’t work”). To counter, ask what other solution your partner has?

Action 3. You are accused: “This is a pure theory.” As a countermeasure: determine what real goals (means, solutions) are offered by the one who accuses you?

Action 4. You are confused by unconstructive questions, such as about organizational details when discussing a strategic problem.

As a countermeasure, you must determine how it relates to the problem.

Action 5. They put forward demands before you (financial, material, number of employees).

Understanding your solution as a countermeasure, how would you satisfy these demands?

Action 6. You have been accused of verbosity (“too much water, not enough arguments”).

As a countermeasure, you can tell your opponent that you did not understand the meaning of his statement (let him decipher it).

Memo "How to neutralize your opponent?"

This is especially true if facts are falsified against you, and lies and fabrications, as well as erroneous opinions, are addressed to you. Your friends are confused, and your “enemies” begin to make tricky remarks and ask unpleasant questions. The neutralization procedure consists of four operations.

1. Localization.

Limit the scope of your answer. Establish the relationship of the comment and question to the subject of your speech or problem, classify your opponent’s doubts and evaluate the opportunity to give a clear answer.

2. Analysis.

Clarify the purpose of the opponent’s objection or other reaction, his thought behind the question or remark, identify the reasons (grounds) and the value of doubt.

3. Choice of tactics.

a) Don't contradict

If your opponent is trying to impose an irrelevant confrontation, throw you off balance, or direct the conversation along the wrong path, then it is better to remain silent, ignore his comments, or get away with meaningless phrases like: “Maybe this is interesting, but I’m worried about something else.”

b) Make an excuse

If the real case does not coincide with your opinion, and the enemy presses you, forcing you to admit your inability to substantiate your position right away, then you can avoid a direct answer. And you shouldn’t always react to provocations; it’s better to step aside. You can say this: “Although you have the right to ask everything that interests you, I have the right not to answer all the questions.”

c) Make excuses

Admit that your arguments are not always flawless. Cover up your weaknesses with good reasons. You can also apologize, although this is ineffective.

d) Protect yourself

The opponent powerfully opposes, decisively attacks to discredit and (or) ruin your idea at the stage of its birth. In this case, you need to act. You should defend yourself without delay and give battle to your opponents.

4. Your answer.

a) Proactive

If you know that they want to put you in a difficult position, then already at the argumentation stage, present the proposed remark as an alternative and give an answer to it before your opponent has the opportunity to speak.

As a result, you will avoid a sharp confrontation, reduce the risk of a sharp fight, choose your opponent’s remark yourself and reduce its severity. The enemy will only have to repeat the remark, but, most likely, he will not do this, since the severity of the doubt will already be removed.

b) Immediate

In all cases, you should respond immediately after the “enemy” remark in a calm tone, perceiving the opponent as an interested party. An immediate response is justified only to prevent further conversation in a direction that is unacceptable to you, to stop the opponent’s incorrect actions.

c) Deferred

The answer should be postponed when an immediate answer from a psychological point of view would jeopardize the normal course of the discussion, i.e. an uncontrollable emotional explosion with undesirable consequences may follow, or when there is an opportunity to strike a neutralizing blow at another moment, when the remark loses importance and the strength of the refutation increases. In addition, a response should also be postponed if there is no need to respond to trifles and the remark is beyond the scope of the discussion.

d) Silent answer

If you see a psychological trick, if the opponent's remark is dictated by his hostility, he creates a deliberate obstacle that is obvious to everyone present, and does not affect the essence of the matter, then it is better to ignore such behavior. If he is right in his actions, then you have no choice but silence.

P.S.

It is not always necessary to strive for comprehensive answers and immediately respond to the comments, remarks and objections of your opponents.

Memo "Five Misconceptions in Argument"

1. Overestimation of the interlocutor’s awareness.

You are closed in on yourself and it seems to you that your partner knows and understands everything. As a result, the validity of your arguments is not ensured.

2. Identification of emotions.

You think that your proposal will evoke in your opponent the same emotions that you yourself experience. Emotions and feelings are connected and depend primarily on motives. They may be completely different for you than for your opponent.

You overestimate your capabilities and abilities, and underestimate the strength of your opponent.

4. False motivation.

You attribute to your interlocutor a motive for behavior that is not characteristic of him, and waste time and energy in the wrong direction

5. Excessive appeal to the opponent's mind.

Emotional impact could speed things up. Remember Cicero: “An orator must have two main virtues: firstly, the ability to persuade with precise arguments, and secondly, to move the souls of his listeners with an impressive and effective speech.”

*
Vlasova N. And you will wake up as a boss... – Handbook on management psychology. – M.: INFRA-M, 1994. – P. 28–50.

First rule (Homer's rule)

The order of the arguments presented affects their persuasiveness. The most convincing order of arguments is: strong - medium - one is the strongest (do not use weak arguments at all, they do harm, not good). The strength (weakness) of arguments should not be determined from the point of view of the speaker, A from point of view decision maker.

Arguments vary in the degree to which they influence people's minds and feelings: 1) strong, 2) weak and 3) untenable. Counter arguments (counterarguments) have the same gradation.

Strong arguments

They do not cause criticism; they cannot be refuted, destroyed, or ignored. This is first of all:

• - precisely established and interrelated facts and judgments arising from them;
• - laws, charters, governing documents, if they are implemented and correspond to real life;
• - experimentally verified conclusions;
• - expert opinions;
• - quotes from public statements, books by recognized authorities in this field;
• - testimony of witnesses and eyewitnesses of events;
• - statistical information, if its collection, processing and generalization are made by professional statisticians.

Weak Arguments

They raise doubts among opponents, clients, and employees. Such arguments include:

• - inferences based on two or more separate facts, the relationship between which is unclear without a third;
• - tricks and judgments built on alogisms (alogism is a technique for destroying the logic of thinking, used most often in humor. For example: “Water? I drank it once. It does not quench my thirst”);
• - references (quotes) to authorities unknown or little known to listeners;
• - analogies and non-indicative examples;
• - personal arguments arising from circumstances or dictated by motivation, desire;
• - tendentiously selected digressions, aphorisms, sayings;
• - arguments, versions or generalizations made on the basis of guesses, assumptions, feelings;
• - conclusions from incomplete statistical data. 3. Untenable Arguments

They allow you to expose and discredit the opponent who used them. They are:

• - judgments based on manipulated facts;
• - links to dubious, unverified sources;
• - invalid decisions;
• - conjectures, conjectures, assumptions, fabrications;
• - arguments designed to appeal to prejudices and ignorance;
• - conclusions drawn from fictitious documents;
• - advance promises and advances;
• - false statements and testimony;
• - forgery and falsification of what is said. So, here are some tips to help make your speech more convincing:
  • 1. When arguing, use only those arguments that you and your opponent understand equally.
  • 2. If the argument is not accepted, find the reason for this and do not insist on it further in the conversation.
  • 3. Do not downplay the importance of the opponent’s strong arguments; on the contrary, emphasize their importance and your correct understanding.
  • 4. Present your arguments that are not related to what your opponent or partner said after you have responded to his arguments.

• 5. More precisely measure the pace of argumentation with the characteristics of your partner’s temperament.
• 6. Excessive persuasiveness always causes resistance, since the superiority of a partner in a dispute is always offensive.
• 7. Give one or two compelling arguments and, if the desired effect is achieved, limit yourself to this.

Only weak people, constantly in need of compensation for their insufficiency, usually weave intrigues, build intrigues, and secretly strike. Great power is always generous.

Composition

Human personality is multifaceted, and, of course, limiting people to two categories is difficult and strange, but sometimes such a limitation justifies itself and introduces a motive for some kind of confrontation. In this text B.M. Bim-Bad invites us to think about the question: “What is the manifestation of a person’s strength and weakness?”

Turning to the topic, the author brings us to the idea of ​​what qualities a strong person has and what qualities a weak person has - and gives the example of a “super strongman”, a person who is strong not only physically, but also morally and spiritually. He never harmed anyone in his entire life, although he had the opportunity to do so. This “hero” impresses B.M. Bim-Badu, because it is precisely such individuals who are capable of selflessly doing good and helping people, using their power with honor and dignity. And in contrast to him, the author gives a collective image of a person against whom education and culture as such are aimed. Weak people, due to their “narrow-mindedness,” selfishness, cruelty, and “spiritual defectiveness,” will never think of doing noble deeds - but it is on nobility that strength of spirit is based, and vice versa. The author emphasizes that this is why weak people rarely achieve success - to create something, different moral guidelines are needed, it is easier for strong people to stay afloat - “nobility of spirit” helps them in this - “in intelligence and honor.”

B.M. Bim-Bad believes that human weakness is manifested in aggression, in the desire for destruction, and strength is in generosity and nobility.

I completely agree with the author’s opinion and also believe that it is much more difficult to create something good, to help people, to maintain honor and dignity under any circumstances - this, undoubtedly, is the privilege of strong individuals. Everything else aimed at destruction and negativity is a sign of spiritually inferior, weak people.

Roman F.M. Dostoevsky's “Crime and Punishment” clearly and accurately shows how strength and weakness are reflected in the human condition. Sonya Marmeladova is truly strong - she was ready to sacrifice everything for the sake of her family, to take the “yellow ticket” - and even after that the girl retained her nobility of spirit. The heroine was able to sacrifice herself for the sake of others and instill in people strength, faith and hope - it was she who saved Rodion Raskolnikov from complete spiritual death and led him to enlightenment. In contrast to the girl, Svidrigailov is presented: he mocks morality, proudly admits his sins and, in general, is a low, vile, selfish and cynical person. This hero is truly weak: he is incapable of virtue and even rejects it; in Svidrigailov’s interests there is only constant idleness and complacency.

The problem of human strength and weakness is also presented in M. Gorky’s story “Old Woman Izergil”. Danko is a strong and courageous altruist, whose goal and purpose is selfless, sincere help to people. He killed himself, tearing out a flaming heart from his chest in order to light the way for other people through the entire forest. Unfortunately, the crowd of people themselves mostly consisted of weak, insignificant individuals. Due to their cowardice and spiritual poverty, they were not capable of banal gratitude - at first these people accused Danko of not being able to lead them out of the forest, and later, having got out with his help to freedom, they trampled on the hero’s heart, being afraid of him power and nobility.

Thus, we can conclude that a person’s strength is manifested in the wealth of his soul, and weakness - in his moral poverty. Of course, throughout your life it is important to strive to be a strong personality - otherwise life turns into an insignificant existence.