Arguments (reasons) are thoughts, judgments given to confirm the thesis. Facts, references to authoritative sources, examples from life, literature, etc. can be used to reinforce arguments. Argument Requirements:
* There should be exactly as many arguments as needed to prove the thesis;
* Arguments must be true;
* Arguments are formulated clearly and consistently;
* Arguments are combined into a system.
Starting work on the arguments, formulate two or three statements that together prove the validity of the thesis. After that, pick up illustrations for them - specific examples that reinforce the argument. It must be remembered that the argumentation is based on logical arguments, but it must be supported by psychological ones, that is, not only be based on the correspondence of real life and have a clear form from the point of view of logic, but also influence the feelings of the listener.
Arguments
brain teaser
Psychological
Influence the mind, convince through the sphere of the rational:
* facts beyond doubt;
* conclusions of science (including scientific axioms);
* statistical data;
* Nature laws;
* provisions of legal laws, official documents, resolutions and other normative legal acts;
* data obtained experimentally, expert opinions, etc. Influence feelings, convince through the sphere of the emotional:
* personal confidence or uncertainty of the writer or speaker;
* statistical data, if they evoke certain emotions with their impressiveness and significance;
* examples that evoke emotions;
* showing the negative consequences that will come if the antithesis is taken as the truth;
* direct appeal to conscience, feelings, duty, etc.
Arguments strong and weak
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. The same arguments can be perceived differently in different audiences. For example, a reference to the Bible is unlikely to convince an atheist, but it will turn out to be an indisputable authority among believers. However, there are arguments that are almost always strong: facts of reality that cannot be doubted, the laws of nature, data obtained experimentally, expert opinions, statistical data, scientific axioms, etc. Weak arguments include arguments based on the speaker's personal confidence or doubt, the authority of third parties (including references to the opinions of famous people, literary sources, quotations). 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. The best argumentation is based on strong arguments, which are supported by weak ones. For example, you can prove the validity of a thesis based on facts and reinforce these arguments with your own confidence and the statement of a famous person, an aphorism or a proverb. Try to use counter-arguments as well, such as 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.
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 in 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 irritate 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.
Only weak people, constantly in need of compensation for their insufficiency, usually weave intrigues, intrigues, and stealthily strike. Great power is always generous.
The writing
The personality of a person is multifaceted, and, of course, it is difficult and strange to limit people to two categories, but sometimes such a restriction justifies itself and introduces the motive of some kind of confrontation. In this text, B.M. Bim-Bad invites us to think about the question: "What is the strength and weakness of a person?".
Turning to the topic, the author brings us to the idea of what qualities a strong person has, and what qualities a weak one has - and cites as an example a “superstrong man”, a person who is strong not only physically, but also morally and spiritually. He never did harm to anyone in his entire life, although he had the opportunity to do so. This "hero" impresses B.M. Bim-Badu, because it is such individuals who are able to selflessly do good and help people, use their power with honor and dignity. And in contrast to it, the author cites a collective image of a person against whom education and culture as such are aimed. Weak people, due to their "narrowness", greed, cruelty, "mental inferiority" will never think of doing noble deeds - and it is precisely on nobility that strength of mind is based, and vice versa. The author emphasizes that this is precisely why weak people rarely succeed - to create something, other moral guidelines are needed, it is easier for strong people to stay afloat - they are helped in this by "nobility of spirit" - "by mind and honor".
B.M. Bim-Bad believes that human weakness is manifested in aggression, in the desire for destruction, and strength - in generosity and nobility.
I fully 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, no doubt, is the privilege of strong personalities. 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 on a person's condition. Sonya Marmeladova is truly strong - she was ready to sacrifice the last for the sake of her family, go on the "yellow ticket" - and even after that the girl retained the nobility of spirit. The heroine was able to sacrifice herself for the sake of others and instill strength, faith and hope in people - 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 really weak: he is not capable of virtue and even rejects it, in the interests of Svidrigailov 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 by ripping out his flaming heart from his chest in order to light the way for other people through the entire forest. Unfortunately, the crowd of people themselves, for the most part, consisted of weak, insignificant personalities. They, in view of their cowardice and spiritual poverty, were not capable of banal gratitude - at first these people accused Danko of not being able to get them out of the forest, and later, having got out with his help to freedom, they trampled the heart of the hero, frightened of him power and nobility.
Thus, we can conclude that the strength of a person is manifested in the wealth of his soul, and weakness - in his moral poverty. Of course, it is important to strive all your life to be a strong personality - otherwise life turns into an insignificant existence.
Interlocutor Persuasion Rules
Arguments differ in their degree of influence on the mind and feelings of people: strong, weak and 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. This is first of all:
2. Weak arguments
They cause doubts of your opponents, clients, employees. These arguments include:
3. Failed Arguments
They allow you to expose, discredit the opponent who used them. They are:
So:
1. When arguing, use only those arguments that you and your opponent understand the same way.
2. If the argument is not accepted, find the reason for this and then do not insist on it in the conversation.
3. Do not underestimate the importance of strong arguments of the opponent. Better, on the contrary, emphasize their importance and your correct understanding.
4. Give your arguments that are not related to what the opponent or partner said after you have answered his arguments.
5. More precisely measure the pace of argumentation with the characteristics of the partner's temperament.
6. Excessive persuasiveness always causes a rebuff, since the superiority of a partner in a dispute is always insulting.
7. Give one or two striking arguments and, if the desired effect is achieved, limit yourself to them.
Laws of argumentation and persuasion
1. The law of embedding (embedding) . Arguments should be built into the logic of the partner's reasoning, and not hammered in (breaking it), not stated in parallel.
2. 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.
3. 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.
4. The law of objectivity and evidence . Use as arguments only those accepted by your opponent. Do not confuse facts and opinions.
5. 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".
7. 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.
8. The law of gradualness . Do not try to quickly convince your opponent, it is better to go in gradual but consistent steps.
9. Law of Feedback . 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.
10. 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.
Classic rules of persuasion
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 “yes” without difficulty. The interlocutor subconsciously tunes in benevolently 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", to preserve dignity. Nothing is more disarming than the terms of an honorable surrender.
Be aware of non-verbal cues
To increase the effectiveness of interaction and understanding of interlocutors, it is important to be able to notice and take into account body signals in a timely manner for typical situations and negotiations:
1. Involvement, interest .Basic rule: the more the body “opens up” and the more the partner’s head and torso lean towards you, the more he is involved, and vice versa:
2. Distraction due to waning interest . The basic rule is that the more the partner “covers” or “hides” parts of his body, the more he leans back or turns away, the greater the distraction, if not the refusal or defense.Aimless, passive state : movement backwards, deviation of the upper body, as well as the head, “closed” posture of the arms and hands, slow pace of movements, change of active participation in the conversation by some kind of rhythmic play of the arms, legs, feet, the same - in a defiantly lazy pose, for example, the partner drums his fingers on the table, tilting the head and/or upper body to the side, vague, vague underlining of words or accents; slowing speed of speech and gestures.
3. Inner restlessness, uncertainty, doubt, mistrust . Internal restlessness, onset of nervousness, nervous tension: continued rhythmic movements of the fingers, legs, feet or hands, often with a very small amplitude (then anxiety and tension are still of a negative kind), rhythmically disturbed movements of a repetitive nature (fidgeting back and forth on the seat, uneven tapping finger, rotating a cigarette pack, etc., squinting).
4. Reflection, reflection, detailed reflection . Looking into the distance with a certain relaxation, hands laid behind the back, slowly rubbing the forehead with an erasing movement, parted fingers touch the mouth, while looking into an indefinite space, eyes closed for a few moments, the tongue is drawn along the edge of the lips, inactive, but relatively rich facial expressions with inactive installation.
5. Increasing distraction, disgust, active or passive defense . General: turning the face away from the partner, tilting the body back, while stretching the arms with the palms forward.Surprise, reluctance, excitement, anger : more or less strong tension, strong blows with the palm or knuckles on the table, vertical wrinkles on the forehead, exposure of teeth, clenching of the jaws, inappropriate strong and monotonous movements, redness, increased voice volume.
Various arguments, judgments, arguments have a direct impact on the human brain: its mind and perception. However, the degree of impact of arguments, and equally, counterarguments on a person is different and depends on the validity of the arguments. They are strong, weak, or completely untenable. Their persuasiveness is also affected by the sequence of their presentation. The most convincing sequence of arguments is the following: strong argument - medium - strongest / strongest. In this article, we will consider in detail all types of arguments, as well as the basic laws and rules that help to convince the interlocutor.
Argument types
Types of arguments according to the strength of the impact on the human mind:1) Strong arguments- substantiated, evidence-supported arguments that cannot be criticized, challenged, ignored. Such arguments are determined by the following criteria:
Judgments based on proven, related facts;
existing and actually enforceable laws and other regulatory legal acts to be enforced;
expert assessments and conclusions;
conclusions confirmed by experimental experiments and tests;
professional statistics;
testimonies of participants in the events;
citing books, articles, essays, public statements by scientists and experts in the field.
2) Weak arguments- unsubstantiated, unsubstantiated, dubious arguments. These include:
Judgments based on several unrelated facts;
illogical formulations and arguments (alogism is a deliberate violation of logical connections. It is widely used in poetry, as well as in humorous works: “A village was driving past a peasant. Suddenly, a gate barks from the gateway”);
quoting unfamiliar or unfamiliar experts and specialists;
bringing analogies and not exemplary examples;
personal justifications based on motives, desires, subject to circumstances;
biased statements, judgments, digressions;
conclusions, evidence, theories put forward on the basis of assumptions, conjectures, suspicions, impressions;
conclusions based on insufficient information, such as statistical data.
3) Invalid arguments- these are arguments by which you can expose and put in a bad light the opponent who applied them. These include:
Conclusions based on distorted facts presented in a false light;
reference to unreliable, dubious sources;
unenforceable decisions;
fiction, suspicion, assumption, fiction;
judgments calculated on error, prejudice and illiteracy;
conclusions based on forged documents;
advance promises and assurances;
perjury and false guarantees;
deceit and distortion of spoken facts.
Rules to help convince the interlocutor
So, in order to convince the interlocutor that you are right, you must adhere to the following rules:1) When you give your interlocutor your arguments, make sure that you both understand them in the same way;
2) Do not persist in your judgment if it is categorically rejected by the opponent;
3) Do not refute the strong arguments of the opponent, on the contrary, show him that you understand them correctly, interpret and do not diminish their significance;
4) Give your new arguments that have no connection with the previous statements of the opponent, only after answering all his arguments;
5) Consider the type of temperament of the interlocutor, and, based on it, set the pace of your argument;
6) Remember that the clear superiority of the opponent in the dispute causes a feeling of resentment, therefore, excessive persuasiveness always breeds confrontation;
7) Apply a couple of strong arguments, and if they had an effect on the opponent, be satisfied with this and end the argument.
Psychological rules of persuasion and laws of argumentation
The ability to convince an interlocutor requires knowledge of certain rules and laws that will significantly increase your chances of convincing an interlocutor:1) The law of implementation (embedding)- you seem to be introducing your arguments into the logical chain of reasoning of your opponent, without contradicting his logic and without expressing your arguments in a parallel plane with the arguments of your opponent.
2) The law of the common language of thought- if you really want to be heard by your interlocutor, speak the same language with him, using his information and representational systems.
3) The Law of Argument Minimization- Human perception is limited. The maximum person can learn 5-7 arguments at a time, so if you really want to convince the interlocutor, reduce the number of your arguments to 3-4.
4) The law of objectivity and evidence- Apply only those arguments that are used by your opponent. Do not get confused by facts, opinions and other evidence.
5) The law of demonstration of equality and respect Show respect for your interlocutor and his opinion. A "friend" is more easily convinced than an "enemy".
7) The Law of Reframing- do not discard the interlocutor's arguments, recognize their relevance, deliberately exaggerate their significance and strength. Exaggerate the value of your losses in case of accepting the opinion of the interlocutor, and vice versa, reduce the value of the benefits expected by the interlocutor.
8) The law of gradualness- do not set yourself the goal of convincing the interlocutor as quickly as possible, take gradual and consistent steps in this direction.
9) Feedback Law– take personal responsibility for misunderstanding and misinterpretation of your arguments by your opponent. In the process of conducting a discussion, always make an assessment of the emotional state of the interlocutor, and immediately give feedback if any misunderstandings arise.
10) The Law of Ethics- do not allow yourself aggressive, arrogant behavior during the discussion, do not hurt the opponent "for the living".
Classic rules of persuasion
Great philosophers and scientists, in their vast legacy, have also left us rules on how to convince an interlocutor:1) Homer's Rule says that the persuasiveness of your arguments directly depends on their order. The best order for persuasion is the following order of presentation of arguments: strong - medium - one strongest. Do not use weak arguments, with their help you will not convince the interlocutor, but will only harm your entire argument. Remember that the strength/weakness of an argument is determined not by the person who brings it up, but by the one who makes the decision. That is, arguments that seem strong to you will not necessarily seem so to your opponent, so be as objective as possible when choosing evidence.
2) Rule of Socrates is that if you want to receive a positive answer on an important question for you, put it third in line, preceded by two easy-to-understand interlocutor and short questions to which he will easily give you a positive answer. Thus, you prepare the ground by setting up your interlocutor in a positive way, and at the moment when you ask the third important question for you, he is psychologically set to answer you “yes”.
3) Pascal's rule urges us not to “finish off the enemy”, driving him into a corner with his arguments. Give him a chance to "save face" and preserve his self-esteem. Believe me, the opportunity you give your interlocutor to “surrender” with dignity will disarm him.
Non-verbal signals as a means to convince the interlocutor that you are right
Non-verbal cues are an auxiliary tool that helps to increase the effectiveness of communication and the level of understanding between interlocutors. If you want to learn how to convince the interlocutor, then it is absolutely necessary for you to study the body language in order to understand the position of the interlocutor, his degree of involvement in the discussion, his attitude to your arguments, as well as to identify misunderstandings in a timely manner, and be able to bypass "sharp corners".Below, we will give you a number of signs and distinctive features of sign language that will allow you to "read" the interlocutor, and, use this information in order to convince the interlocutor that you are right:
1) Interest, involvement of the interlocutor. The main sign of the partner's interest and involvement in the conversation is manifested in the turn of his body in your direction, the inclination of the head and torso towards you. The more he turns your side and tilts, the higher his interest in the conversation, and, accordingly, vice versa:
Increased attention to the interlocutor: inclination of the head and upper body towards the interlocutor, face turned towards the interlocutor and direct gaze with a straight head, increased speed of movement, brisk landing on the edge of a chair/sofa, sudden cessation of rhythmic movements of the arms, feet or legs, active and open gesticulation of the arms and hands, accelerating speech;
Solidarity with the interlocutor, trust, respect, lack of criticism: the head is relaxed, it can be slightly thrown back or tilted to the side, a wide, relaxed posture, planting legs on the leg, a calm and open look directly into the eyes of the interlocutor, barely noticeable nods of the head, a calm, free smile, eyes closed for a split second.
“combat readiness” for work and vigorous activity: the body becomes tense, there is a sharp throwing of the head, the upper part of the body takes a free, direct landing.
2) Decreasing interest. Abstraction. In this case, the rule says that the more the interlocutor leans back, turns away from his opponent, "hides" his body parts, the stronger his distraction. Such a posture may also indicate his rejection of the words of the interlocutor or be regarded as a manifestation of protection:
Passive state: backward deviation of the head and upper body, defiantly lazy posture, expressed in the tilt of the head and upper body to the side, active participation in the discussion is replaced by some rhythmic movements of the hands or feet, slowing down gestures and speed of speech.
3) Distrust, uncertainty, doubt and internal anxiety: incessant movements of the hands, toes or feet with a small amplitude are interpreted as negative nervous tension; repetitive movements with a broken rhythm, such as uneven tapping with a finger, fidgeting back and forth in a chair, etc.
4) Deep thought, reflections are characterized by a relaxed gaze, looking into the distance, hands clasped behind the back, rubbing the forehead with slow erasing movements, touching the mouth with fingers while looking as if through space, eyes closed for a few seconds, active, but at the same time inactive facial expressions.
5) Aversion, active and/or passive defense, increasing distraction: deviation of the whole body back with palms extended forward, turning the face away from the interlocutor. With anger, excitement, reluctance and surprise, strong tension, the appearance of vertical wrinkles on the forehead, clenching of teeth or vice versa, their exposure, increased voice volume, reddening of the face, strong inappropriate movements, clapping the palm or knuckles on the table are characteristic.
The ability to convince the interlocutor developed and honed over years of practice. Someone learns to convince the interlocutor faster, someone slower. But knowing certain principles and laws of influence on the interlocutor, being able to classify arguments according to the degree of their strength and influence, reading non-verbal signals, and applying other tips given in this article, you are guaranteed to be able to convince the interlocutor of your point of view.
