How to Make Someone Actually Listen in an Argument

Jordan Peterson has some of the best debate moments on the Internet.

Why should your right to freedom of speech trump a trans person's right not to be offended?

I mean, look at the conversation we're having right now.

You know, like, you're certainly willing to risk offending me in the pursuit of truth. Why should you have the right to do that? It's been rather uncomfortable.

But his Surrounded video is not at that level, and I know plenty of people are going to discuss the content of what he debated.

The.

The semantic fog.

I just feel like you kind of retreat into the semantic fog.

I'm not retreating at all. I'm advancing, sir. You are retreating.

And how do you define that that filled the conversation?

How do you define the God that you're rejecting?

How do you define worship?

You define God.

Define God, Define it, define it.

We define.

Define that.

Define something. Define worship.

What I want to focus on is the most important part of a debate. If you care about changing the mind of the person across from you. Not semantics or gotchas.

Ha.

Gotcha.

Or even sound logic, but the connection that you form through your rapport and charisma. Because even a sound argument will not move people if you get these pieces wrong. So here's the first key point you want to choose amusement over frustration when someone misrepresents or misunderstands you. To see this in action, let's rewind to Jordan's encounter with Cathy Newman. Notice his reaction to her twisting his words.

So you don't believe in equal vote?

No, I'm not saying that at all.

When she continues doing it, he even goes as far as to comment that he finds it all silly.

I think that's silly.

I do.

I think that's silly.

He finds it funny when she can't represent him accurately, and this allows him to stay calm and centered enough to effectively point out her inconsistencies later on. But in Surrounded video, Jordan did not find misunderstandings amusing. Within just five minutes of starting, one person said the. Instead of. And Jordan replied, like this.

God rewards Moses with a glimpse of the divine. So this is a definition of the God that atheists are hypothetically rejecting.

A possible one.

I said, ah. I didn't say the.

That frustration was also present in other conversations when he felt he wasn't accurately represented.

It's an absurdity to say that the.

Christian God doesn't fit within Christian ethics, that, like the Christian God isn't Christian ethical.

The specific statements that you made don't take the context of the stories into account, and so that your analytical approach is faulty.

Sure.

Don't put words in my mouth.

Sure.

Then let's go through the example. So ask yourself, whose perspective are you more likely to open up to? The one who laughs and finds you amusing, or the one who scolds you? So instead of allowing yourself to get heated, remind yourself that you can choose amusement. If you drop the quest to be perfectly understood, you can actually play with the misunderstandings, and that will make you more persuasive. Check out how a little joke about a misunderstanding will set the stage for a good faith conversation. And I would say that we find genocide in scripture.

I would argue, though, to agree with my claim. Yeah, I think it's in scripture.

Yeah, I mean, I think it's in there.

Okay, well, thanks for watching, everyone.

Yeah, this is good.

Yeah, good stuff.

And of course, if the misunderstandings happen nonstop, you can draw a boundary. I covered this in the original Peterson video and a bunch of others. But for now, let's hop into the second point, which is that most people respond best to a receptive style of listening rather than an interrogative one. So let's pause here to describe these two types, because each does have their place. A receptive style of listening is based around feeling someone's overall vibe. You're not getting hung up on a particular detail. You're trying to feel the big picture. And the body language that naturally flows from this will look like sitting neutrally in your seat, or leaning back, smiling while you're listening, or speaking through a smile when you're responding, opening your eyes wider and letting your peripheral vision come online. And you'll also see extended periods of listening without fact checking every minor detail. Now, the interrogative style of listening is based around listening for inconsistencies. Every detail of what someone says is run through a filter to catch the exact moment that they deviate from truth or logical consistency. And this tends to look like leaning forward in your seat, grimacing or straining to pick up every word they say, narrowing your eyes so you can laser in on the speaker. And you'll tend to have shorter periods of listening as inconsistencies are immediately fact checked. We just don't agree on the justification that God is the only thing that provides morality.

It's not a justification, it's a definition.

Now, there's a time for this style when you suspect someone is lying and you don't want to allow them to sweep things under the rug. Laser in. Details matter. But in any argument that isn't about scoring Internet points, the receptive style is more effective. And even in Internet debates, the receptive style can be incredibly effective. Alex o' Connor modeled this beautifully. In his Surrounded episode, he spent most of the time listening receptively when he wasn't speaking. But on the rare occasion that he drifted into that interrogative style, he immediately caught himself and apologized.

God, actually, his purpose is to make us become as he is.

Yes. Does that include animals as well?

Animals are part of the created order that will be redeemed along with the rest of the created order.

Okay, so what does suffering do for them?

Suffering is part of the inherent nature of the world as a fallen world.

Okay, even for animals?

Yes, even for animals.

Whose fault is that?

Let me break it down.

A lot of questions.

You notice when he switches modes, the body language takes care of itself. He leans back, his gaze and face soften, and he stops interrupting. But if it's not already clear, Jordan spent a solid amount of time in that interrogative mode. He did have sections of more receptive listening, but overall, it was something that hurt him from a rapport building perspective. And I think it led to some of the more friendly conversations turning needlessly contentious. For instance, this guy Greg enters with a playful attitude and respectful demeanor. Aha.

Hi. Nice to meet you.

How are you doing?

Good.

How are you?

What's your name?

I'm Greg. Nice to meet you.

But during the conversation, Jordan got hung up on interrogation style details.

Goes back to what I'm saying initially.

I'm not defining it. Elijah defined it.

Okay, so has Elijah's. As Elijah defines God, it's defined that.

Way in Jonah too.

Okay, so as Cardinal Newman also defined it that way. I'm sure you know many people who've defined it that way. And it's impressive. You're a very knowledgeable person.

I'm not trying to be impressive. I'm just pointing out to you how God is defined in the Old Testament.

All right.

And the interaction wound up turning by the end.

I made a specific point that God was associated with conscience.

I just feel like you kind of retreat into this semantic fog.

I'm not retreating at all. I'm advancing, sir. You are retreating.

Oh, it was very nice to meet you. I appreciate the conversation.

So only do interrogative style when the details really matter, like in Catching a Liar. Otherwise it'll feel like you're being overly aggressive or like you're trying to deflect from the incompleteness of your own argument. And that brings us to the next point, which I am calling the anti NBA role. Instead of dunking on people when you've got them cornered, extend a helping hand. Now, dunking in this context is when you take a moment of confusion in the other person whether it's substantial to the argument or it's just semantics.

And.

And you use it to declare victory. You say that you respect the second Amendment and you know, I brought this here for you so that you can read it. It's the Constitution energetically. It's you reveling in the other person being wrong. Now, Jordan had a few light dunks in the Jubilee interview.

Can we stay on what we were talking about?

We are.

Okay.

You're just uncomfortable with the question.

Require some level of morality or into what.

I'm not disagreeing.

Sure.

Why do they require that?

Because it's the only way that social.

Groups can actually survive.

Right.

That's my point with regards to science. Thank you very much.

And he has his famous light tonk at the end of the Kathy Newman interview.

I'm just trying to work that out. I mean. Ha.

Gotcha.

You have got me. You have got me. I'm trying to.

But generally Jordan is good about not dunking. And that was mostly true in his Surrounded episode. Some of the other participants though, did not do a great job of avoiding dunks.

Because you're a Christian.

You say that. I haven't claimed that.

Oh, what is this? Is this Christians versus Atheists?

I don't know.

You don't know where you are right now.

Don't be a smart ass.

I think everyone should look at the title of the YouTube channel. You're probably in the wrong YouTube video.

You're really quite something.

You.

Aren't I? But you're really quite nothing.

Right.

You're not a Christian.

I'm done with him.

Even though this behavior makes for viral shorts content, my advice is not to lean into dunking. It gets you a temporary high, but it comes at the cost of the relationship. What you want to do instead in these situations is extend a hand. And this is essential if you care at all about people growing from the debate. Because it's in these moments of kindness where somebody's point has been defeated that you let them integrate new information rather than defend their ego from someone who's attacking them. Jordan handled this exceedingly well in the Cathy Newman interview. Listen for how many extensions of kindness are included in his communication after he stumped her.

Why should you have the right to do that? It's been rather uncomfortable.

Well, I'm very glad I put you on the spot.

Well.

But you get my point.

You get my point. It's like you're doing what you should do, which is digging a bit to see what the hell's going on, and that is what you should do. But you're exercising your freedom of speech to certainly risk offending me, and that's fine.

And even the light dunk of the gotcha was quickly followed up with a playful joke that implied Kathy was a tough debater. And then he even laughs.

Just trying. I'm just trying to work that out. I mean.

Ha.

Gotcha.

You have got me. You have got me. I'm trying to work that through my head.

Yeah, yeah.

It took a while. Took a while.

It did.

It did.

Yeah.

Took a while.

Another great thing to do in moments where you have debunked someone's claim is to shift to inclusive language, meaning you talk about who you also once thought the same thing as them. This helps them feel like they're not wrong. You can also speak in we sentences. You can watch Alex o' Connor do it after he counters a theist's point in his surrounded episode and he puts himself on her side in the quest for truth.

Same thing for a woman giving birth, right? It's suffering. Like, it sucks.

It hurts, sure.

But imagine you could have the giving birth without the pain of giving birth. Would you prefer that?

Of course. Yeah.

You would prefer that.

So then, if God can bring about the good stuff without the bad stuff, then there's no reason to bring about the bad stuff. So what we have to show is why the bad stuff is necessary to bring about the good stuff. Otherwise, it's not justice.

Everything that we've talked about in this video will become much easier with one simple realization. You have very little to lose in a debate or an argument. You're not bound to serve anyone who gets you semantically trapped or logically cornered. You don't become anything different if someone defines you as a Christian or an atheist, or a good person or a bad person. Yes, you are exploring and attacking ideas, but you are safe. An opinion, even if it's presented as objective truth and everyone who disagrees with it is wrong, is just an opinion. You don't need to fight with these. So while there is nothing to lose, there are things that you can gain in an argument. There's the enjoyment of a fun spar, there's the opportunity to expand your understanding of the world, and most importantly, there's deeper connection with another person. And if that's something that you really want to master outside of just debates and and arguments you may be interested in Our course, Charisma University. It's a step by step 30 day program that tells you exactly what to do every day so that by the end of it, you are radiating confidence and charisma without even thinking about it. Here's just a few things that our past members have said. I had confidence in some areas, but not in others. Then Charisma University changed that for me. Since beginning the program, I have seen noticeable changes in my life. It has helped me unlock the confidence that comes with knowing that I can go into any any social situation and crush it, another member wrote. I've always been bad at expressing myself in situations that weren't one on one. In conversations, I'd find myself hesitant to speak or I'd get caught in my own head overthinking things. After cu, I am now way more confident in saying what I think. I feel much happier all the time. I was even able to talk to a woman I've had a crush on for about a year and made a great first impression. Overall, I love this course and I keep going back to it when I need a refresher on the Daily Action modules. This program is literally guaranteed to change your life, which means that you can take the entire course and if you don't think it's worth every penny, you can give yourself a full refund right from inside the program. So if you want to see if this course is right for you, click the link on the screen now or in the description below. Either way, I hope that you've enjoyed today's video and I hope to see you in the next one.