5 Embarrassing Mistakes You Must Avoid When You Argue

A recent Ben Shapiro interview has gotten a lot of attention. In case you haven't seen it. Ben got into a heated argument with BBC's Andrew Neil and eventually walked out of the interview.

I, you know, I'm not inclined to continue an interview with a person as badly motivated as you as an interviewer. So I think we're done here. I appreciate your time.

All right, well, now, Ben is no stranger to these kinds of arguments, so it was surprising to see how many people felt like he lost or was even, quote, unquote, destroyed. So in this video, we're going to break down what went wrong for Ben and talk about four things that you can do to avoid any embarrassment in an argument like that. So, getting started, we first need to talk about body language and speech patterns. Because even though we don't often think about it, this kind of behavior is one of the most important factors in shaping a conversation. There's two main types that you will see in your argumentative and collaborative behavior. Argumentative is when you're trying to win against the other person. Collaborative, where you're striving towards a common goal. And in the Ben Shapiro interview, we see several examples of this argumentative style.

I just asked you a question.

And I asked you a question. You failed to answer a single one of mine. Frankly, I find this whole thing a waste of time.

Let's start out with Ben's posture. Throughout the interview, he often leans forward and tends to lower his head. Contrast this with Jordan Peterson in the Cathy Newman interview, where he leans back in a more relaxed posture. Now, leaning back appears more collaborative because it signals that you are not in fight or flight mode. You don't perceive yourself as threatened, so the other person can relax because nothing bad is going to happen. Now, leaning forward, especially after things have gotten heated, signals that the other person needs to keep their eye on you. You are on the ready. Now, this isn't always a bad thing. Without all the other signals, just leaning forward conveys that you're interested. But if you're in a conversation that shows these signs of becoming heated, assuming a more relaxed posture can help steer it away from an argument. Another thing that you'll notice about Ben's body language is that he frequently smirks.

New policies, The Medicare for All, $15 minimum wage, Georgia, new abortion laws. Ben Shapiro destroys transgenderism.

In a genuine smile, the eyes will show tension, while just about everything else in the face, with the exception of your mouth, is relaxed. Sometimes your jaw will even be open. And we interpret these genuine smiles positively because first, the Tension around the eyes is hard to fake, so you know it's real. And second, it's incredibly open. You cannot really hide a smile. A smirk, on the other hand, is a partial contraction. And this is something that might happen when you're trying to restrain laughter. It can often be interpreted by other people as if you think that you are superior. And when someone is on the other side of a smirk, they often don't appreciate it.

And you can smirk at me and you can laugh at me.

I'm not smirking. So if you're in a situation where the other person is upset, do not smirk. Try not to restrain any emotion. Show it clearly on your face. If you're going to smile, smile. And if not, keep it really tight. The smirk is likely to upset them. Now, the next thing that can promote more argumentative versus collaborative behavior is the way that you answer questions. You can do it literally or you can be playful. And there's nothing wrong with answering questions literally, especially when things are going well. But when you're in an argument, being playful is often much to your advantage because it shows the other person that you aren't singularly focused on winning points. With every single exchange, you draw focus away from those contentious points, as Russell Brand shows in this next clip.

Gandhi, go. I hope that's not your message to Gandhi and the people of India.

You know, it's funny though, because I travel a lot.

All these people are at work. Are they?

Yeah, they're working.

They're just at work. Work more quietly.

And by the way, based on all of your feedback, we will have a full breakdown of that Russell Brand interview on the channel soon. The higher level point here is that if someone is making a remark at your expense or if things start to get heated, try to go in a joking direction like Russell did. Imagine if Ben had gone with that same attitude in this next exchange.

Why are you picking out random YouTube videos put up by people who are not me? Are you attributing the titles to me?

Ben could have playfully teased Andrew for not really knowing how the Internet works. And if he'd done it in a lighthearted way, with a genuine smile, it would have put some separation between the frustrating points they had and that moment, which is likely to make everything that comes after go more smoothly. Now, continuing, we also see from Ben frequently that he often speaks very quickly.

If you want to read the book and critique the book, why don't you read and critique the book? If you want to read. If you want to critique me, you can think whatever you want of me, Frankly, I don't care. I don't. I don't, frankly, give a damn what you think of me, since I've never heard of you.

There's nothing necessarily wrong with speaking quickly in and of itself. Combined with everything else, though, it might take you in a direction that you don't want to go. The advantage of speaking slowly in contentious situations is that it gives people time to absorb your ideas. They don't feel like they're being foisted upon them. But always speaking fast makes it seem like your ideas are being forced on other people. They don't have time to absorb, reflect, or react. And when they don't have enough time to respond, it can make them feel stupid. As Joe Rogan points out, Ben talks.

Super fast because when he talks fast, it's really hard to keep up with him. And he sounds smarter than you. Like, he's very smart and articulate and he talks fast.

It's like, woo.

It's hard to handle.

And it should go without saying that when somebody feels stupid in your presence, they're more likely to not want to work with you. Now, in addition to speaking fast, Ben's voice also remains fairly flat in terms of its intonation.

Yes, I would vote for Mr. Trump if there were a race between Biden and Trump, because I think that the damage that President Trump has done to the country on a character and rhetorical level.

Again, this is a very common habit of Ben's. There's nothing wrong with it, but it does serve the purpose that he is normally doing, which is he's in an argument going back and forth. He's not using softening inflections to change his pitch. Now, we do those softening inflections when we're enthusiastic or when we're joking or when we want others to feel comfortable around us, like you might have felt in that last sentence. A pitch change can also be used at the end of a statement to completely change the feeling. Listen to how Jordan Peterson responds to Kathy's question here.

You don't believe in equal point? No, I'm not saying that at all.

Imagine if he had said the same thing like this instead. No, that's not what I'm saying at all. That would have come across as much more argumentative because that downward inflection at the end indicates that it's a command. You're telling someone how you're feeling, and you're probably not feeling too good about it. When we use an upward inflection instead, it sounds more like a question or an invitation kind of like this. The problem here is that you don't want to just go with one or the other. There are of course times to use the upward and the downward. Most of the time it's going to be instinctual. But when you are in an argumentative situation, there is an advantage to using that upward inflection if you're trying to de escalate things. All that said, it is important to note that Andrew Neil was also displaying a lot of the same argumentative body language and tonalities throughout this interview.

Is this so hard for you? Why can't you just be honest? Seriously, it's a serious question, Mrs. Shapiro.

If you only knew how ridiculous that statement is, you wouldn't have said it.

Both men pushed the conversation forward in a way that predictably escalated into what you might call call a heated discussion. And when you're on tv, this can be advantageous. It might give you a chance to humiliate your opponent and get famous on YouTube. But for most of us, the best way to resolve an argument is to find common ground before it gets too heated. So lean towards that collaborative style and dismantle it before you get to where we're headed. Now, what determines if something that gets heated winds up as a full blown verbal fight is the mindset that is going into it. Namely whether both parties feel like they are on the same or different teams. When you have the mindset that you're on the same team as the person you're talking to, your goal is to try to find common ground. It doesn't matter necessarily how you get there. But when you perceive that you're on different teams, the goal is to win. They have to be destroyed or come to your original position. And if you're not sure of someone else's mindset, I recommend that you assume for as long as you can that you are on the same team. Part of that means that you need to be charitable when you're trying to assume their motivations. Don't read their mind and insist that you know why they're doing what they're doing, as Ben does here with Andrew.

Why don't you just say that you're on the left? Is this so hard for you? Why can't you just be honest?

Because Ben won't take Andrew at his word. He gets frustrated perceiving this as another example of the media being biased against his positions, which is something he feels like happens frequently. But this host has actually had a long history with conservative news. And if you look at other Interviews, you see that he uses the same type of prodding, questioning with those on the left. Ben was actually wrong. And this is a good reason why you shouldn't assume mal intent or read minds. You will very frequently, as certain as you are, be wrong. Now, one downside of this is that it alienates people regardless, as we saw in the video that we did with Brie Larson. Is that like a personal attack or something? Worse. Assuming mal intent when you're dealing with someone else in an argumentative style reinforces the frame that you're on different teams. You're perceiving it that way, you're putting them in that bucket and it moves the discussion towards a full blown verbal throwdown, which often leads to insults. Now, the difference between an insult and an argument is that the insult is about the individual instead of their content. And it's aimed at proving superiority rather than finding common ground, as you see here.

Fact that I'm popular and no one has ever heard of you.

In addition to just offending people, insults actually make things worse for you because they don't give other people a way to save face if they've actually had their mind changed to your side. You are much benefited by creating a path back to civil conversation, a path to seeing things in your own way without the other person feeling ashamed. Now, Russell Brand does this by not calling the host out directly in his interview with msnbc, at least not at first. He talks instead about people who purposely misinterpret him in the third person, firing a warning shot. That gives the host a chance to change their tact while not overtly feeling shamed.

Challenges in all of those different disciplines. The thing I enjoy most is stand up comedy. Because you're direct with your audience, you can't be misinterpreted. People can't get confused. You know what happens if you work in media. People like to change the information so that it suits a particular agenda. If you're in a room of people, then what you're saying is clear. If you say something that people that people are confused about, you can explain it to them. Then if you say something as a joke, people can't pretend that you're saying it seriously. So I like having direct communication with people because I believe people are very, very intelligent. But the information gets manipulated a lot and people like to cause like, you know, false fake stirs and stuff.

Contrast that with Ben, who does start using insults and try to imagine someone coming around to your side of things after you say this.

You know, honestly, this is a Giant waste of time.

All that to say, even if you feel like you have a real zinger, don't use insults. They don't benefit you. But let's say it's too late. Insults have already been thrown around. Now we're in a verbal fight. And this is where Ben really lost. This is why people feel like he was destroyed. And it actually has nothing to do with the merit of the points being debated. Because when you are in a verbal fight, schoolyard wisdom prevails. The quality of the argument doesn't matter. What matters is who acts like they are winning. And there are several traits that we look for as audience to judge this. First off, we're trying to see who is least emotionally affected. Typically speaking, the winner of any altercation is going to be calmer because he's happy with the position that he's in. So when we see someone who's upset, we assume that what was said against them must have some merit. They must be losing. Ben reveals how much Andrew is affecting him with his emotional outbursts.

I don't frankly give a damn what you think of me, since I've never heard of you.

Now, some people use emotional outbursts to actually control a situation. Kind of like Conor McGregor who seems to switch from calm to very upset back to calm, but that's actually part of it. He's not genuinely upset. And the ability to get heated and then quickly calm down is incredibly valuable if you want to look like you're winning in an argument. Quentin Tarantino displays it really well in an older interview, first getting into a heated argument over a question about violence in his movies.

But it's my job to try and.

Ask you to, and I'm shutting your butt down.

And that's, that's entirely your.

But then when the host gives up and moves on to a new topic, he moves on as well. Doesn't seem to bring it up again or be affected by it. Well, I think I'm still in the sweet spot. Well, I hope you know that's up to everyone to decide. So keep your emotions in check or at the very least, bring them back to baseline as fast as you can. Now, the second thing we look for when deciding who is actually winning is who doesn't resort to attacking or taking things off subject. When you pull away from the current topic of conversation, it appears to an audience as if you don't have a solid answer. And when Ben dodges questions and turn the back on Andrew, we get that same impression.

You're lecturing me on Judeo Christian culture After you call the pro life position.

Barbaric, we're also looking to see who is fidgeting less now. Ben actually does a pretty good job here of steadying himself. He takes a deep breath, but we do see some hints of discomfort come through at the end. Compared to Andrew, though, he is far more uncomfortable with stillness to produce.

That's my point that you write about Judeo Christian culture and so on, but so much of what you've said in the past would seem to turn its back on Judeo Christian culture.

In a contentious Robert Downey Jr. Interview, the host is extremely fidgety and Robert even calls him out on it. Your foot's starting to jump a little bit. You better get to your next question. The fourth thing that we're looking for is to see who comfortably talks more over the other person who is ceding power willingly now. Ben allows himself to speak and then continually be interrupted by Andrew while he plows over him with his words.

Turning back on Judeo Christian values yeah.

This is what are considering what what.

Are the values it's turning its back on.

It's not a rational rule of thumb, but when we see someone dominate conversation like that, we assume that they're winning. So a good rule of thumb for you is to only speak when you fully intend on finishing your sentence. Otherwise stay quiet and wait for the right opportunity to come in strongly. So I hope that helps you to understand what kind of went down in the Ben Shapiro interview and how you might avoid a similar fate in your own life. There's also a number of related videos that we have to this topic. The first one covers that Robert Downey Jr. Interview in depth, if you want to check that out. The second one, that recent Brie Larson interview which covers mal intent interpreting. And the third are Ben's tactics when they're at their best. Because at least in the eyes of the Internet, he's often on the other side of the destroying. Also, we have that Russell Brand video with MSNBC and SMBC coming, so if you want to make sure that you do not miss it it go ahead and click subscribe now. You can also hit that notification bell because even when you're subscribed to any YouTube channel, they don't always show you. And if this one is of interest, you will not want to miss it. So I hope that you guys enjoyed this. I hope that you click subscribe if you haven't yet done so and I look forward to seeing you in the next video.