"Murzilka" vs "BUSINESS Online": The Arbitration Court of Tatarstan explained why Ilya Varlamov's lawsuit against our newspaper fell apart
The decision of the Arbitration Court of the Republic of Tatarstan, which rejected the claim of blogger Ilya Varlamov against BUSINESS Online for 1.23 million rubles, took up 12 pages. The court came to the obvious, but significant for the freedom of the press conclusions: photographs can be quoted for informational and polemical purposes, which was directly pointed out by the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation back in 2003. If the decision stands in higher instances, the enterprising blogger will also have to pay legal costs.
WILL VARLAMOV HAVE TO PAY?
On the website of the Arbitration Court of the Republic of Tatarstan, the motivational part of the decision to refuse the claim to the blogger was published Ilya Varlamov to the newspaper "BUSINESS Online". As our publication already, the judge Varlamov Svetlana Korotenko gave a full turn from the gate. This is not Varlamov's first loss in court. However, it is in the case against BUSINESS Online that the decision may become a precedent. As the general director of the Artpatent agency, who represented the interests of our publication in the Tatarstan arbitration, said: Grigory Busarev, "the court in its decision gave a detailed assessment of all the actual circumstances of the case and the conditions for using the photographs of Ilya Varlamov." The Arbitration Court of the Republic of Tatarstan confirmed the point of view of all the media included in the public committee #StopVarlamov that in such cases, priority should be on the side of freedom of information dissemination.
By the way, an interesting detail: the court not only denied the blogger his unsubstantiated demands for the payment of 1.23 million rubles, but also ruled: “By virtue of Article 110 of the Arbitration Procedure Code of the Russian Federation, court costs are to be attributed to the plaintiff.” Thus, "Murzilka" not only failed to earn anything, but will also have to fork out for legal costs.
"Plaintiff's Argument Is Invalid"
So, let's take it in order. First, Judge Korotenko ruled that BUSINESS Online, as a news publication, has the right to inform its readers about all significant events in the region, country and world. Such events that attract a certain interest, of course, include Varlamov's visits to the Russian regions, as a result of which, as a rule, he publishes photo reports in the public domain. These reports sometimes cause sharp controversy and no less sharp reaction from the authorities and the public of this or that city or region.
Second, the court confirmed our position that Varlamov is "a public and political figure, an active participant in the political process." The court referred to the socio-political initiatives launched by Varlamov, in particular, the establishment of the City Projects Foundation and Agency by him. Accordingly, the Varlamov blog and all its contents, including photographs, should be equated with the statements of politicians, which, according to paragraph 1 of Article 1274 of the Civil Code of the Russian Federation, are subject to free quotation in the press. The arbitral award explicitly stated: “The court concluded that the plaintiff’s information resources in this dispute are subject to Article 1274 of the Civil Code of the Russian Federation.” The judge recalls the content of paragraph 1 of this article, which sets out the conditions for lawful citation. All of them were completed by BUSINESS Online.
Third: judge Korotenko did not leave a stone unturned from the attempts of representative Varlamov Igor Parkhachev during the process, present the case as if the photographs themselves do not carry a semantic load, but only illustrate the text. An attempt to pass off white as black failed - the court determined that it was the photographs that were the "main content and information carrier" of Varlamov's photo reports. On the contrary, according to the decision of the arbitration in Kazan, the blogger’s verbal comments “to the photographs in isolation from them are devoid of independent semantic meaning.” As for the arguments of the representative of Varlamov, then, according to the court, “the plaintiff’s argument that the photographs themselves<...>do not contain any information, is untenable”.
All these are the cornerstones on which the line of defense was built. Busarev states: “The court assessed the activities of the plaintiff himself, as well as the nature and content of his publications. These are not just random photos borrowed by the defendant, but socially directed photo reports of a public figure and well-known media personality Ilya Varlamov after a visit to the cities of Kazan and Ufa with a corresponding assessment of these cities. The photographs themselves are a key carrier of information and an integral part of Varlamov's publications.
Since all more than three dozen lawsuits filed by the blogger against Russian media to date are carbon copies, the decision made in Kazan is significant. All publications affected by Varlamov's blackmail can refer to the fact that the arguments of the litigator do not correspond to the letter and spirit of the law, as well as modern judicial practice.
"GRAPHIC WORKS CAN BE QUOTED"
The most, perhaps, most important thing is that the Arbitration Court of the Republic of Tatarstan referred in its decision in the BUSINESS Online case to the clarifications of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation of 2003, confirming their relevance. In these clarifications, in particular, it is said that “a graphic reproduction of a part of a work of fine art should be considered as a quote”, which includes a photo essay. “The Supreme Court of the Russian Federation has formed a legal position according to which graphic works can be quoted by other persons precisely to illustrate, confirm or refute the author’s statements,” Judge Korotenko writes in his decision. Varlamov's criticism of the state of the urban environment is precisely such a statement, in order to confirm or refute it, it is necessary to reproduce the photo facts presented by the blogger. The ruling of the Tatarstan Arbitration Court also contains the ruling of the Intellectual Property Rights Court dated September 7 this year, which also confirms the possibility of using photographs (as part of articles on political, social and similar topics) without the consent of the author and the payment of a fee to him.
Judge Korotenko also refers to the expert opinion of a well-known lawyer and philologist presented by the lawyers of BUSINESS Online Tamara Gubaeva. According to the expert, we recall that the use of photographs as quotations is allowed by paragraph 1 of Article 1274 of the Civil Code of the Russian Federation. Based on the foregoing, the court ruled: “A photograph may be included in another work, including a text, while becoming its integral part, in connection with which such inclusion can be recognized as a citation ... The disputed photographs were used by the defendant in full in accordance with ... the provisions of Article 1274 of the Civil Code of the Russian Federation”.
It is noteworthy that Varlamov’s demands were also rejected with regard to several images reproduced in the publications of BUSINESS Online, in respect of which the conditions for legal citation were not formally met - Varlamov’s authorship was not indicated (for example, these are photographs taken from Ukrainian sites in the midst of the Maidan). Even in this case, it turned out that the lawyers representing the interests of the blogger in Moscow, Ekon-Profi, do not seem to shine with deep knowledge in the field of laws. The court pointed out that if there is doubt about the authorship of the works, evidence must be provided that they were created by the specified person, that is, in this case, Varlamov, and not by anyone else. Meanwhile, no such evidence was presented by the plaintiff in relation to the pictures published in the publications of BUSINESS Online without attribution. The judge considered our doubts that Varlamov was the author of them well-founded.
The decisions of the Arbitration Court of the Republic of Tatarstan can be appealed within a month in the 11th Appeal Arbitration Court in Samara. As lawyer Varlamova Parkhachev suggested earlier in an interview with our correspondent, the blogger will most likely appeal the decision of the Kazan court.
As the saying goes, free - will. However, according to Busarev, the decision of the Tatarstan arbitration "is absolutely legal and justified." According to a lawyer representing BUSINESS Online, the arbitration "specially noted the position of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation, indicating that these legal norms are aimed at protecting the interests of the media and freedom of information dissemination." There is no doubt that these values, including those enshrined in the Russian Constitution, should prevail over the narrowly selfish interests of individual entrepreneurial bloggers. And let's hope that the courts of subsequent instances will confirm this.
Strong Arguments
They do not cause criticism, they cannot be refuted, destroyed, not taken into account. This is first of all
ü precisely established and interconnected facts and judgments arising from them;
ü laws, statutes, governing documents, if they are implemented and correspond to real life;
ü experimentally verified facts;
ü expert opinions;
ü quotes from public statements and books recognized in a particular area of authority, testimonies of witnesses and eyewitnesses of events;
ü statistical information, if its collection, processing and generalization are carried out by professional statisticians.
Weak Arguments
They cause doubts of opponents. These arguments include.
ü inferences based on two or more facts, the connection between which is unclear without a third;
ü tricks and judgments built on alogisms;
ü analogies and indicative examples;
ü arguments of a personal nature, dictated by motivation, desire;
ü tendentiously selected examples, aphorisms;
ü arguments, versions or generalizations made on the basis of conjectures, assumptions, sensations;
conclusions from incomplete statistical data.
Failed Arguments
ü judgments based on rigged facts, references to dubious, unverified sources;
ü invalid decisions;
ü conjectures, conjectures, assumptions, fabrications;
ü false statements and testimony;
ü advance promises and promises;
ü arguments calculated on ignorance, etc.
The determination of the strength of individual arguments is often carried out according to the situation, i.e. taking into account the nature of the audience, its mood and the conditions in which the dispute takes place. Rational and irrational arguments can be unequal in strength. Undoubtedly, under certain conditions, rational arguments may be more effective for one audience, and irrational ones for another. In practice, there is often a combination of the irrational and the logical in the process of argumentation.
3. Appeal to rational arguments requires the participants in the dispute not only to comply with the basic logical laws, but also to follow the particular recommendations for conducting a dispute that rhetoric has developed over such a long period of its existence. Let us consider sequentially what requirements rhetoric makes in relation to each element of the structure of the proof, as well as what errors and tricks are most regularly observed in the structure of the proof.
Thesis Requirements:
1) certainty, clarity, accuracy of the meaning and formulation of the thesis;
Sometimes people in a written statement, scientific article, report, lecture cannot clearly, clearly, unambiguously formulate a thesis. This is what happens in meetings. The vagueness of the thesis for the speaker himself entails incorrect argumentation. And in the end, the listeners are perplexed: why did the person speak in the debate and what did he want to say? Thus, before putting forward a thesis, think carefully about what exactly you want to prove, and formulate your thesis specifically and concisely.
The vagueness, ambiguity of the formulation of the thesis give great advantages to the opponents: you can always “find fault” with a too general formulation, with an ambiguous or ambiguous thesis containing ambiguous words. For example, a thesis formulated as a statement Taxes should be reduced, easy to dispute and refute: How are all the taxes? What does "reduce" mean? etc.
2) throughout the dispute, the thesis must remain the same;
The most common logical error of disputants (or a trick, if it is done on purpose) is the “substitution of the thesis” (its “narrowing” or, conversely, “expanding”). The speaker is credited with a thesis more convenient for criticism, which is then rejected.
For example, you argue that spouses should reasonably share household chores. “ Eh, no, they tell you. Feminism won't work for us! Here you are not some kind of America". There is an “expansion” of the thesis: after all, you do not at all advocate feminism (the movement for the equality of women), and in your thesis there was neither a statement about the need for equal rights for women in general, nor even a demand for equality in everyday life. There was another, more specific requirement: a reasonable distribution of duties at home.
Another way to refute the same thesis: “ Why should I peel potatoes and wash dishes? These are women's duties.". There is a “narrowing” of the thesis (your thesis was replaced by a more specific, narrow one - about potatoes and dishes - and they are trying to refute it).
Both narrowing and expanding your thesis, i.e. its substitution became possible because the thesis was formulated unsuccessfully: ambiguously and in too general terms. What does "reasonable" mean? What does "share" mean? What kind of household chores are you referring to? All this had to be thought out and put into a concrete form, then it would be impossible to change the thesis.
Argument Requirements:
1) truth;
2) consistency;
3) sufficiency.
Arguments must be true in themselves and not depend on the thesis; they must not contradict each other; they should be enough to make the truth of the thesis obvious.
Mistakes and tricks of debaters related to arguments:
1. The truth of the thesis is proved by the arguments, and the truth of the arguments - by the thesis: "vicious circle". It can't be, because it can never be; A sleeping pill puts you to sleep because it has a hypnotic effect; Glass is transparent, because you can see everything through it - Here are statements built on this model.
2. “Output anticipation". This is an inadvertent or intentional anticipation of events: untenable, unproven arguments are presented as proven, solid, weighty, proven grounds for the thesis. This trick is often reflected in the form of a rhetorical question. For example: Should we continue the destructive course of reform, or is it better to return to the tried, stable state regulation of the economy? The fact that the rate is destructive, and state regulation in the current real situation - the rate is stable - these are arbitrary arguments (they still need to be proven). The listener is “pushed” by the speaker to a conclusion ahead of this proof - yes, it should!
3. "The Falsity of Reasons". Erroneous, unreliable data, false judgments are used as arguments. This, like the previous cases of violation of the logic of the proof, can be both a mistake and a trick of the speaker.
Demonstration Requirements:
Arguments and thesis must be connected according to the laws of logic (recall that these laws are the law of contradiction, the law of identity, the law of the excluded middle and the law of sufficient reason). Violation of these laws leads to errors in the demonstration, and is also used as a special trick, a trick of the debater to mislead the opponent.
The errors and tricks of the demonstration are:
1) "do not do it"- creates the appearance of a causal relationship, which is not: "Cucumbers fell in price, - says the economist in his autumn speech, It means the economy is on the rise.”. A particular variation of this error is error on the substitution of a temporal relationship of cause and effect: the preceding event in time is understood as the cause of another, subsequent event, although in fact there is no causal relationship between these phenomena. The anecdote about the cockroach is based on this error. They put the cockroach on the table and knocked - the cockroach ran. They tore off the cockroach's legs and knocked on the table - the cockroach did not run. “Consequently,” the scientists concluded, “the organs of hearing are at the cockroach’s feet.”
2) “from what is said with a condition to what is said unconditionally”. For example, from the fact that one must be truthful, it does not follow that one must always tell the truth;
3) "hasty generalization" is a mistake (or trick) in inductive reasoning: “Student A is not ready for the lesson. Student B is not ready for the lesson. Student C is not ready for the lesson. Well, the whole class didn’t prepare for the lesson.” says the teacher, making an obviously hasty conclusion.
4) analogy errors. It must be remembered that analogies are not strict, i.e. give grounds only for probable conclusions. If the phenomena have few coinciding (analogous) signs, then the analogy can lead to a false conclusion. For example. I. Kepler wrote that the Earth, like a person, has internal heat - volcanic activity convinces of this. Accordingly, the vessels of the living body on Earth are rivers. There are a number of other similarities. But man is animated. Therefore, the Earth also has a soul.
5) errors in deductive reasoning. These are errors in the construction of syllogisms, they are very diverse and are studied in detail in logic. Here is an example of one of these errors. All Koreans eat dogs. Petrov ate a dog at a burglary. Therefore, Petrov is a Korean. This is an error caused by mixing multiple values of the expression “ eat dog” – literal and figurative. This kind of error in logic is called "term quadrupling".
Undoubtedly, this is not a complete list of errors and tricks that take place in logical proof. Referring to textbooks on rhetoric (see the textbooks of E.V. Klyuev, I.N. Kuznetsov, V.P. Sheinova in the list) will allow you to get acquainted with more complete lists of tricks and polemical techniques that are actively used by debaters.
4. Distinguish two main dispute strategies :
a) constructive- the participants in the dispute seek to find the truth, understand the positions and evaluate the evidence of the opponent. They try to act correctly, being interested not in their victory, but in the truth about the subject under discussion;
b) destructive- The main goal is your own victory and the defeat of your opponent. The debaters strive for the desired result using all possible means: correct and incorrect.
Basic dispute tactics .
The main tactics of the dispute are differentiated according to the division of the participants in the dispute into a proponent and an opponent. The proponent is the one who puts forward the thesis, and the opponent is the one who refutes the thesis. Thus, two main dispute tactics are distinguished, namely: the tactics of the proponent and the tactics of the opponent.
Proponent Tactics consists in an “attack” and is carried out by the following methods:
1) direct appeal to the addressee with a thesis, which is confirmed by direct evidence based on facts;
2) "interrogation-interrogation" method- questions to the addressee follow one after another, so that he is forced to accept this model of conducting, imposed on him by the enemy, and, answering questions, reveal his position earlier and brighter than he would like at the initial moment of the dispute;
3) trap questions are questions that need to be answered. Not really, and are used to "catch" the enemy on a mistake and demonstrate the weakness of his position. For example:" Of course you admit that...?” If the opponent agrees, then the attack of the proponent immediately follows: “ Unfortunately, you are wrong!” Against this technique, it is recommended to use tactics ignoring: leave the question unanswered and after a pause ask your own questions.
Opponent Tactics - This is "defense with the transition to attack." The following methods are used:
1) “yes, but…” method. You seem to agree with the statement of the opponent, and then proceed to a refutation: That's right, but you forgot so-and-so...;
2) “chunk method”. The argument of the opponent is evaluated in parts: This is fair, this is accurate, this is banal, this is incomplete, but this, excuse me, is wrong.
3) "summation". You summarize the opponent's position as you see it and begin your rebuttal.
5. Rules of conduct in a dispute .
2) Do not shout or interrupt your opponent.
3) Listen actively, do not allow objections to the enemy, even in your own inner speech, while you are listening - just listen, you will object when you listen to the opponent to the end.
4) Be friendly, do not express disdain.
5) Avoid being too categorical; it is possible to persuade listeners to agree with your point of view only when you express it with conviction, but gently and non-aggressively.
6) If you lose, try to turn your defeat into a victory in the following way. Recognize that the interlocutor is right - it will be clear to everyone that you are a competent and objective person.
7) If you won, do not gloat.
8) Don't be too serious. A special role in the dispute is played by a joke, humor, irony. Take Aristotle’s recommendation into your arsenal: “Kill the enemy’s joke with seriousness, and defeat seriousness with a joke.”
9) If you are sure that you are right, but the opponent turned out to be stronger in the skill of arguing, you should not admit defeat. So say: “Although I did not manage to prove that I was right this time, I am still sure of it. I hope that we will return to this problem, and I will be able to provide more solid evidence.”
.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 do not want to restrain yourself?"
In each of the situations of the test, you have to answer the same question: "Does ... annoy you?", while indicating one of the possible answers:
- a) very annoying
- b) not particularly annoying;
- c) in no way annoying.
situations
- The crumpled page of the newspaper you want to read.
- A woman "in years", dressed as a young girl.
- Excessive proximity of the interlocutor (for example, in a tram at rush hour).
- Woman smoking on the street.
- When a person coughs in your direction.
- When someone bites their nails.
- When someone laughs out of place.
- When someone tries to teach you what to do and how to do it.
- When the beloved girl (boy) is constantly late.
- When in the cinema the person sitting in front of you spins all the time and comments on the plot of the film.
- When they try to retell the plot of an interesting novel that you are just about to read.
- When you are given unwanted items.
- Loud conversation on public transport.
- Too strong perfume smell.
- A person who gesticulates too much when speaking.
- A colleague who uses foreign words too often.
Response score
- 3 points - option "a"
- 1 point - option "b"
- 0 points - option "c"
Interpretation of results
If in total you scored 30 points or more then this suggests that you cannot be attributed to the number of patient and calm people. Everything annoys you, even small things. You are quick-tempered, easily lose your temper, which your competitors can take advantage of. In addition, it loosens your nervous system too much, as a result of which the people around you also suffer. You should learn to restrain yourself.
12 - 29 points. You can be attributed to the most common group of people. Only the most unpleasant things annoy you, but you do not make drama out of ordinary adversity. You know how to "turn your back" to troubles, you easily forget about them.
11 points or less. You are a very calm person, you really look at life. At least we can say with complete certainty about you: you are not the kind of person who can be easily unbalanced.
Memo "Types of arguments"
Arguments
Arguments vary in their degree of impact on the mind and feelings of people as follows: 1) strong arguments, 2) weak and 3) untenable. Counter arguments (counterarguments) have the same gradation.
1. Strong arguments.
They do not cause criticism, they cannot be refuted, destroyed, not taken into account. Among them are the following:
well-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;
quotations from public statements, books of recognized authorities in this field;
testimonies of witnesses and eyewitnesses of events;
statistical information, if its collection, processing and generalization are done by professional statisticians.
2. Weak arguments.
They raise doubts among your opponents, customers and employees. Such arguments include:
inferences based on two or more separate facts, the connection 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 indicative examples;
arguments of a personal nature arising from circumstances or dictated by motivation, desire;
tendentiously selected digressions, aphorisms and sayings;
arguments, versions or generalizations made on the basis of conjectures, (assumptions) and sensations;
conclusions from incomplete statistics.
3. Invalid arguments.
Using them, you can expose, discredit the opponent who used them. Such arguments include the following:
judgments based on rigged facts;
invalid decisions;
conjectures, conjectures, assumptions and fabrications;
arguments based on prejudice, ignorance;
conclusions drawn from fictitious documents;
advance promises and promises;
false statements and testimony;
forgery and falsification of what is said.
Four rules of V.L. Levy
Rules that help neutralize the egoist's arguments with pleasant emotions for him and for himself.
1. Understand the essence of the statements.
Hide, suppress your emotions or weaken them as much as possible and look at who you are dealing with. Understand his point of view, his circumstances and put yourself in his place. Learn everything you can about it beforehand, study it discreetly. Remember the names and dates that excite him, as well as tastes, interests and views.
2. Create a favorable atmosphere.
Smile wider, start contact with the word "yes." If the opponent accuses you, then make him "break through the open door", tell him: "Yes, I'm wrong." Express sympathy to him, and as sincerely as possible. Talk to him about what he wants, or about himself, and start only with that. Never start by talking about yourself. Refer to his personal interest - "carrot first." And give, give, give everything that will please him. Starting with words-gifts.
3. Do not humiliate, do not hurt pride.
Don't blame, don't threaten, don't order. Don't express disbelief. Do not interrupt your opponent's speech. Don't brag about your work. Do not show that he is uninteresting or disgusting. When you say no, apologize and give thanks.
4. Elevate your opponent.
Listen and praise, praise and praise. Give the opponent the opportunity to feel significant, let him brag, feel his superiority, consult with him as with a senior. Bring your idea, desire, goal gradually, so that it seems to him that this is his idea. Make him a friend. A selfish enemy is much more dangerous than a selfish friend.
Probably, these are not indisputable rules, but remember and check them, maybe the egoist 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, then both your opponents and co-workers will also respond to your emotions rather than suggestions and thoughts. Your emotional state will "confuse" the issue and divert its solution.
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.
Do not back down, even if it takes a long time to explain your intentions and proposals.
4. Don't let yourself get sidetracked.
Clearly define your end goals, choose a strategy to achieve them, and don't let yourself be led astray.
5. Don't be afraid of mistakes.
If they happened and do not weaken your position, then acknowledge them and flexibly reorganize to a different way of solving the problem. Do not complex about errors: they activate a new search.
6. Focus on mutual victory.
As a result of your efforts, an option accepted by both parties should be developed.
Seven Rules for Participants in a Dispute
- When arguing, use only those arguments that you and your opponent understand the same way.
- If your argument is not accepted, then find the reason for this and do not insist on it further in the conversation.
- Do not underestimate the importance of the strong arguments of the opponent, on the contrary, emphasize their importance and thereby your correct understanding.
- Bring your arguments that are not related to what your opponent or partner said after you have answered his arguments.
- More precisely measure the pace of argumentation with the characteristics of the partner's temperament.
- Keep in mind that being too persuasive always provokes a rebuff, since the superiority of a partner in a dispute is always offensive.
- Give one or two striking arguments and, if the desired effect is achieved, limit yourself to them.
Reaction equals action
Action 2. Your decision was rejected ("It still won't work"). As a countermeasure, ask what other solution does the partner have?
Action 3. You are accused: "This is pure theory." As a countermeasure: determine what real goals (means, solutions) are offered by the one who accuses you?
Action 4. You are thrown off by non-constructive questions, such as organizational details when discussing a strategic issue.
As a countermeasure, you must determine how this is related to the problem.
Action 5. You are put forward requirements (financial, material, by the number of employees).
Understanding your decision as a reaction, how would you meet these demands?
Action 6. You were accused of verbosity ("a lot of water - few 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 the opponent?"
This is especially true if facts are being falsified about you, and lies and fabrications, as well as erroneous opinions, are being addressed to you. Your friends are delusional, and "enemies" start to give tricky remarks and ask unpleasant questions. The neutralization procedure consists of four steps.
1. Localization.
Limit the scope of your answer. Establish the relationship of the remark and the question to the subject of your speech or problem, classify the opponent's doubts and appreciate the opportunity to give a clear answer.
2. Analysis.
Specify the purpose of the objection or other reaction of the opponent, his thought behind the question or remark, identify the "reasons (foundations) and the value of the doubt.
3. Choice of tactics.
a) Don't disagree
If the opponent is trying to impose a confrontation that is not on the merits, to unbalance you, to direct the conversation along the wrong path, then it is better to remain silent, ignore his remarks or get off with meaningless phrases like: "Maybe this is interesting, but I'm worried about something else."
b) give up
If the real case does not coincide with your opinion, and the opponent presses on, forces him to admit his inability to justify his position right now, then a direct answer can be avoided. And it is not always necessary to react to provocations, it is 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 questions."
c) justify
Admit that your arguments are not always perfect. "Cover up" your weaknesses with good reasons. In addition, you can apologize, although this is ineffective.
d) protect yourself
The opponent powerfully counteracts, resolutely attacks in order 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, give battle to opponents.
4. Your answer.
a) Proactive
If you know that they want to put you in a difficult position, then already at the stage of argument, give the intended remark as an alternative and give an answer to it before the 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 and reduce its severity. The enemy will only have to repeat the remark, but, rather, he will not go for it, since the sharpness of the doubt will already be removed.
b) Immediate
In all cases, answer immediately after the "enemy" remark should be 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) delayed
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 its importance, and the power of the refutation increases. In addition, the answer should be postponed even if there is no need to react on trifles and the remark is beyond the scope of the discussion.
d) Silent answer
If you see a psychological ploy, if the opponent's remark is dictated by his hostility, he creates a deliberate interference that is obvious to everyone present and does not get to the heart of the matter, then it is better to ignore such behavior. If he is right in his actions, then you have nothing else but silence, and there is nothing left.
P.S.
It is far from always necessary to strive for exhaustive answers and immediately respond to the remarks, remarks and objections of the interlocutors-opponents.
Memo "Five fallacies in the dispute"
1. Overestimation of the interlocutor's awareness.
You are closed on yourself and it seems to you that everything is known and understandable to your partner. As a result, your arguments are not supported.
2. Identification of emotions.
You think that your proposal will evoke the same emotions in your opponent 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 your opponent's strengths.
4. False motivation.
You attribute to the interlocutor a motive of behavior that is not characteristic of him, and waste time and effort in the wrong direction
5. Excessive appeal to the mind of the opponent.
Emotional impact could speed things up. Remember Cicero: "The orator must possess two main virtues: firstly, the ability to convince with accurate arguments, and secondly, to excite the souls of listeners with an impressive and effective speech."
*
Vlasova N. And you'll wake up as a boss... - Handbook of management psychology. – M.: INFRA-M, 1994. – S. 28–50.
You have prepared a "persuasive speech". You have 3-4-5-10 reasons to support your idea that you want to promote. But,
- Some of these arguments are strong... some are weak...
- Some arguments are emotional... some appeal to logic...
Questions arise: "In what order should these arguments be placed? Which one should be given first, which one in the middle, which one at the end?"
There are different strategies
Strategy 1: "We put strong arguments at the beginning and at the end"
"The first and the last are remembered ..." - so it seems, said von Stirlitz. There is a grain of truth in this.
- If you start with a weak argument that everyone doubts, then your further argument will be listened to with distrust. Therefore, it is better to start with a strong, undeniable argument.
- If you end with a weak argument, then the ending of your speech will be blurry. And the listeners will have in their hearts exactly the feeling of doubt that your last argument gave rise to.
Therefore, it is quite logical to put your strongest arguments at the beginning and at the end!
***This strategy is good when you have full control over the time of the speech and are sure that you will have time to deliver your strongest argument, which you saved for the very end.
Strategy 2 "The strongest, the strongest, the average..."
If you know that your speech time can be instantly reduced without your knowledge, then it is better to start with the strongest argument and work your way down.
- For example, you came to convince someone who is in a hurry and is not very positive about your idea. If you start with a weak or average argument, then most likely you will immediately stumble upon "thank you, no need." And it will remain in my soul: “Damn! I didn’t have time to pronounce the most important arguments! And if I had time, I could have convinced ...”
In such situations, it is better to start with the strongest argument. Pronounce it. If you see that it was not enough, then in addition, say the second strongest argument. Then the third...
*** But here it is important not to get carried away ... and limit yourself to 3-4 arguments. And then, if no one interrupts you, and you come to your last, weakest argument, then you will rather not convince, but make your listeners doubt.
"Emotional or logical?"
The selection of arguments primarily depends on the audience - to whom are you speaking? But suppose we have a "diverse audience."
- Listeners trust logical arguments better if they have confidence in the speaker, if the speaker evokes a positive emotional response in them. Therefore, it is often worth starting your speech with an emotional argument. If you attracted listeners to your side at the level of emotions, then later logical arguments will find a greater response in the hearts of listeners.
- In the end, listeners often need to be nudged into action. And here, too, an emotional argument can work well, causing the right emotional wave, on which the listeners will be ready to perform the actions we need.
In summary, it is a good idea to put emotional arguments at the beginning and at the end that will create the necessary emotional background. And in the middle, already influence, including the logic of the listeners.
Arguments are divided into strong, with significant persuasive power, and weak. 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; quotations from public statements, books of recognized authorities in this field; testimonies of witnesses and eyewitnesses of events; statistical information, if its collection, processing and generalization are done by professional statisticians.
Weak arguments include arguments based on: personal confidence or doubt of the speaker; inferences based on two or more separate facts, the connection between which is unclear without a third; tricks and judgments built on alogisms; references (quotations) to authorities unknown or little known to your listeners or not authoritative for them; analogies and indicative examples;
analogies and indicative examples; arguments of a personal nature arising from circumstances or dictated by motivation, desire; tendentiously selected digressions, aphorisms, sayings; arguments, versions or generalizations made on the basis of conjectures, assumptions, sensations; conclusions from incomplete statistics. The strength of these arguments is the higher, the more authoritative in the eyes of the listener looks the speaker or the person whose words are quoted.
Untenable arguments They allow you to expose, discredit the opponent who used them. They are: judgments based on rigged facts; links to dubious, unverified sources; invalid decisions; conjectures, conjectures, assumptions, fabrications; arguments based on prejudice, ignorance; conclusions drawn from fictitious documents; advance promises and promises; false statements and testimony; forgery and falsification of what is said.
You can also use arguments "from the contrary", such that contradict the thesis. However, by temporarily agreeing with the validity of these arguments, you can show that the consequences of accepting their justice will be negative, ridiculous, or even absurd and terrifying.
Excessive persuasiveness always causes a rebuff, since the superiority of a partner in a dispute is always insulting. Give one or two striking arguments and, if the desired effect is achieved, limit yourself to them. The order in which arguments are presented affects their persuasiveness. The most convincing order of arguments is: strong - medium - one strongest.
Argumentation based on strong arguments, which are supported by weak ones, is possible. For example, you can prove the validity of the thesis based on facts and reinforce 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 the same way. If the argument is not accepted, find the reason for this and then do not insist on it in the conversation. Do not underestimate the importance of strong arguments of the opponent. Rather, on the contrary, emphasize their importance and your correct understanding. Bring your arguments that are not related to what the opponent or partner said after you have answered his arguments. More precisely measure the pace of argumentation with the characteristics of the partner's temperament.
The law of embedding (embedding). Arguments should be built into the logic of the partner's reasoning, and not driven in (breaking it), not stated in parallel. The law of the general language of thought. If you want to be heard, speak in the language of your opponent's main informational and representational systems. Law of minimization of 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 accepted by your opponent. Do not confuse facts and opinions. The law of demonstration of equality and respect. Present arguments showing respect for the opponent and his position. Remember that a "friend" is easier to convince than an "enemy".
The law of authority. References to an authority known to your opponent and perceived by him as an authority also increase the impact of your arguments. Seek authoritative backing for them. The law of reframing. Do not reject the partner's arguments, but, recognizing their legitimacy, overestimate their strength and significance. Strengthen the significance of the losses in case of accepting his position or reduce the significance of the benefits expected by the partner (cf. the method of contradiction). Gradual law. Do not try to quickly convince your opponent, it is better to go in gradual but consistent steps. Feedback law. Give feedback in the form of an assessment of the opponent's state, a description of your emotional state. Take personal responsibility for misunderstandings and misunderstandings. The law of ethics. In the process of argumentation, do not allow unethical behavior (aggression, arrogance, etc.), do not touch the "sore spots" of the opponent.
Homer's rule. The order in which arguments are presented affects their persuasiveness. The following order of arguments is most convincing: strong - medium - one 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.
Socratic rule. To get a positive decision on an issue that is important to you, put it in third place, prefixing it with two short, simple questions for the interlocutor, to which he will probably answer you without difficulty "yes". The interlocutor subconsciously tunes in favorably and it is psychologically easier for him to say "yes" than "no".
Pascal's rule Do not drive the interlocutor into a corner. Give him the opportunity to "save face", save dignity. Nothing is more disarming than the terms of an honorable surrender.
The Matthew effect, or the effect of accumulated advantage A social phenomenon in which, as a rule, those who already have them receive advantages, and those who were initially deprived are even more deprived. In other words, those with power and economic or social capital can use those resources to gain even more power and capital. For the first time, the American sociologist Robert Merton began to speak about the Matthew effect: in a publication in the journal Science in 1968, he drew attention to the psychosocial factors that affect 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 lesser-known colleagues. With the same scientific level of two articles, the chances of success in the professional community are higher for one written by a more eminent author (for example, a Nobel laureate). The name of the effect is given according to a quote from the Gospel of Matthew: “To everyone who has it will be given and multiplied, but from the one who does not have, even what he has will be taken away” (Matthew 25:29).
