How To Be Calm And Precise In An Argument

There's a phenomenon of Destroy videos on YouTube. It seems that we love to watch people have meltdowns when they're verbally bested. Now, we normally consider the person who did the destroying to be the winner of those interactions. But there is a different take which I want to examine today in this video. And we're gonna be using Jordan Peterson in his recent conversations with Sam Harris as an example. Now here is the problem in his own words.

You're going to have contentious discussions about how to move forward. And it's very frequently the case that your words will be that you'll be straw manned, your words will be taken out of context, the other person and you too will try to win instead of trying to solve the problem.

Winning an argument and even destroying the other person isn't the same as solving the problem. Worse, winning an argument can damage the relationship if it isn't done with tact. So in this video, we're Gonna look at five tips from Dr. Peterson on how you can win arguments without either person having to get destroyed. Now, to be clear, there are times when Jordan is going to be more aggressive or defensive, and maybe I will do another video on those type of point scoring Deb debates, if that is something that you're interested in. But for now, the first tip that you need to know is that you should begin most disagreements by delineating not where you differ, but where you agree, which is where Jordan started in his discussion with Sam Harris in Vancouver.

I thought what I might do is just lay out some places that I think Sam and I agree because there's lots of places we agree.

And in this next clip, you're going to see concretely how calling out areas of agreement can make someone more open to alternate viewpoints for context. The student that's asking the question is pointing out what he perceives to be a potential hole in Jordan Peterson's argument against hate speech laws. Watch how Jordan responds and notice how the student begins to nod. Feel as if they can't really engage in retaliatory, you know, clarificatory discourse against him because they fear the potential repercussions. Even if it doesn't lead to violence. They just fear it so much that it might irrationally or rationally even drive people.

Oh, it happens. Happens all the time. In fact. It's the standard. It's the standard situation, you know, if you look across the world, essentially.

Peterson spends the next two minutes agreeing and expanding on the student's point. Now, the student nods through much of this because Peterson is expanding on the issue that the student himself raised. The more that Jordan elaborates on the student's point, the more that he feels heard and understood. What's interesting is that when Jordan then lays out a perspective that the student hadn't considered before, the nodding continues.

And so the consequences of the regulation become incalculably worse as a problem than the problem that they were designed to deal with. To think otherwise is to think in a sort of utopian manner.

Now, if Jordan had just leapt into what the student had missed, that nodding probably would not have been there. And more importantly, the student would not have been as open to a new idea. But in laying out the points of agreement and expanding on the point of the person that you're speaking with, you actually create more that they're going to open up to other perspectives. And when you're trying to establish your points of commonality or even your differences, you don't actually know for certain if you understand what the other person thinks. So it is best to speak in terms like these.

Okay, so. So then it also seems like we agree that the the core element of tribal alliance, which would have its roots say in the chimpanzee totality of that picture. You're basically stating the I can tell is that there'd be a socio cultural agreement.

To be crystal clear. You can't just say so you're saying and then fill in a straw man argument. We saw how that turned out in the other video that we did on Jordan Peterson. You have to clarify the other person's point in a way that they would agree with. Now, when this is done in good faith. There is a profound difference between using the phrase it seems like and simply saying what you're doing it seems like invites correction and it comes from a desire to engage in a dialogue rather than telling the other person what logical leaps they're making. I also mentioned this phrase it seems like in our last video on tells that you are dealing with an arrogant or a person who is lacking in confidence. So if you want to know more of those, go ahead, click below to check that video out. But you will eventually have to come to contentious points of disagreement in your conversation. It's inevitable and there's a number of ways to make your stance clear without the other person feeling attacked. You can begin, for instance, by establishing your good intentions like this.

What's the and I'm not trying to trap you here. Seriously, not. We're on the same page there now. But what I noticed when you wrote the moral landscape is you you tell it, and I'm not trying to trap you. You tell a story about it's counter.

To instinct, but you need to come back to this feeling of not wanting to trap the other person and you need to do it. Often when you say this congruently, it diffuses the core issue with most arguments, which is that we so easily become identified with our views. After all, they are our views. So when those views are attacked and dismantled, we as individ feel attacked and dismantled. This does sound extreme, but being trapped in an argument can feel like being trapped by a predator. Which brings us to point four. You need to separate your ego and the other person's ego from the views that you had when you entered the discussion. This is hard. It means recognizing that your views aren't really yours. You pick them up somewhere and you can change them without losing an essential part of yourself. Non identification with your opinions is a huge topic that's bigger than this video because it's gonna affect from arguing your general level of life satisfaction and many more things. But for the purpose of this video, make it clear that you are not attacking the person, you are merely disagreeing with a particular perspective. And here is one excellent phrase to help you do that.

The problem I have with your argument, and this isn't I don't mean that you're wrong. I see what you're doing and I see why you're doing it. And as far as I can tell, it's laudable. But the problem is that as far as I can tell, there's problems it doesn't solve and there's other problems it leaves unaddressed that don't have to be unsolved or unaddressed.

This is especially effective because deep down people are terrified of being wrong. The existential feeling of being wrong for the world is one of the deepest and most common human insecurities. And that's why we cling to our stuff, our identities and our arguments. If they are right, we feel like we must be right. So in saying that I have an issue with the argument. And by the way, saying the argument as opposed to your argument is wise because in saying that you make it clear that you don't think the individual is tied to that argument. When you do that, you're saying that the individual themselves isn't wrong. You avoid triggering their ego and its defense mechanisms and you hopefully keep things calm and productive. This is a pattern of validating the individual. And the same pattern is going to play out with specific objections that they might raise against your Points like this.

Then there must be a deeper level of reality that explains why they both work that can't be reducible to Christianity being true or Hinduism being true. Yeah, that's a look, Sam. That's a. There's. There's absolutely nothing wrong with that objection.

Like, and you'll make the other person feel understood and open to change by noting your own willingness to reconsider your opinions like this.

One of the things that I've been reconsidering since we talked last night is, is the nature of our dispute about the relationship between fact.

But rather than belabor these points, let me make one larger distinction that ties them all together. In order to win in any argument, the best thing that you can do is not identify with, quote, unquote, your perspective. Instead, realize that you are improved when your deeply held perspectives are challenged to the point of breaking and even when the person who you're talking to isn't so nice about it.

And so one of the things you have to remember when you're discussing things with people, even if they're out to defeat you, let's say, is that there is some glimmering of the possibility that you can walk away with more knowledge than you walked in with. And that's worth. That can be worth paying quite a price for.

Actually, internalizing this mindset is a massive undertaking. Meditation helps. Even so, you're likely to slip back into defending your ego attachments. It's part of being human. But if you can manage to have a conversation with a truly curious mentality, the relationship will go better. You're gonna be more likely to be persuasive if you raise valid points, and you just might learn something. So if you take only one thing from this video before enduring your next argument, discussion, debate, whatever you like to call it, I'd advise it to be this. Ask yourself, do I want to be right or do I want to do what it takes to get it right? You might not destroy anyone with that mentality, but you're going to win the argument because you will walk away with a clearer understanding of the truth. Now, I think a huge reason that Jordan is capable of being so calm during these interactions is because of his time as a clinician. He learned to listen and help people who often feel attacked. And if you feel like you often don't get the chance to speak to people who genuinely just listen without an agenda to defeat, trap, or impose their view of how you should live on you, you might find our sponsor betterhelp useful. Now, this is something that I've recommended to friends. I've actually used it myself. And I think that the opportunity to speak with a professional counselor can be very useful, which is what I betterhelp does. So if you have issues that you think it would be useful to discuss with a professional, with BetterHelp, you can actually do that from home. You don't have to drive to an office. You don't have to worry about the other people who are hanging out in the lobby. You can just chat with someone from your home or work and begin to make progress in an area where you may be stuck. So if that sounds something that would be useful to you, you can use the link betterhelp.com Charisma to begin today, you're gonna go through a questionnaire that is meant to pair you with someone who is specifically equipped to help you with whatever it is that you are facing, whether that' family issues, addiction, you name it. So I know that a lot of people have some stigma associated with counseling, but this is something that I truly believe can be valuable for people who are stuck at some point in their life or just really would like a professional to listen and help them work through any particular problem. So I hope that you enjoyed this video. If you're interested in BetterHelp, go ahead, click below, check that link out and I look forward to seeing you in the next one. Actually, I forgot one other thing. If you want to see that video on debates that might be more point scoring televised, feel free to let me know in the comments. I'm not definitely going to do it because it's not a situation that we often find ourselves in, but if it's one that you're interested in, go ahead and let me know in the comments and maybe I can do it. Take care of.