If Someone Twists Your Words, Say This To Shut Them Down

Several years ago, Malcolm Gladwell faced off in the Monk debates against Douglas Murray and Matt Taibbi. The topic was should you trust the mainstream media? And the outcome was one of the worst debate performances that I have ever seen.

It's so strange hearing you debate Malcolm because you listen to nothing that your opponents say.

This wasn't just Douglas opinion. A poll at the beginning of the debate showed that 52% of people came in agreeing with Gladwell's side that you can trust the mainstream media. But by the end, there had been a huge revers with only 33% of people on his side. He lost one in three people who came in agreeing with him. So let's dive into what happened and help you defend yourself against these frustrating, rude debate tactics as well as avoid using them so you don't destroy your own reputation. The first thing to be aware of are small lapses in kindness that could be viewed as playful jokes or harmless mistakes. In many cases, these are really covert sniping where someone takes shots at another person in an underhanded way. For instance, a Malcolm makes a joke that contains a hint of judgment about Douglas's earlier reference to a Canadian trucker story.

I thought I'd just tell two very simple stories. One of them will not be about the truckers who I think have been well defended by my colleague Mr. Murray.

And then later in the debate, he can't seem to pronounce Matt Taibbi's last name correctly or say Douglas full first name.

Greatly amused by the affection Matt Taibi has for Matt Tiabi's father and grandfather, Matt Tiabes. I just want to hear his voice. Doug is speechless.

I'm never speechless.

Matt and Doug speak about. Doug would like more stories on the Hunter Bidens.

Now, on their own, these lapses could easily be interpreted as accidental. But Malcolm did a podcast after the debate where he says he entered with this perspective.

He is one of those English people, white English people, who objects to the number of non white people who have moved to England in the last 50 years. I walked in thinking he's a piece.

Of this paints that little joke and those mistakes in a whole new light. It's very likely that these were examples of COVID sniping, a good natured front for what was really a veiled attack. And after an hour, Douglas lets him know in his sarcastic tone that that is how he sees it.

Well, Malk.

Now, early in an interaction, you will not be certain what's driving these sorts of mistakes and behavior. So rather than getting accusatory or Immediately firing back. The best approach is to interpret ambiguous communications charitably and respond with warmth. We don't get to see this in this debate, but the show Ted Lasso is full of these examples. And yes, even though this is a fictional show, this strategy is extremely effective at flipping rudeness in real life.

Coaching football mate, you are a legend for doing something so stupid. Well, you know, I've heard that tune before, but here I am still dancing legend.

And of course after repeat offenses, you should escalate. And you can watch my video on Robert Downey Jr. To learn how to do that with charisma. But for now, we're going to move to our second behavior to avoid, which is straw manning that is twisting the other person's position to make it easier for you to attack. For context, Matt Taibbi refers to the 1950s as a time where Americans had more trust in reporters like Walter Cronkite because they had to speak to a broader audience than the niche of the Internet era requires. Gladwell hears this and responds like this.

In that moment, the mainstream media was populated entirely by white men from elite schools. Why you would have had such affection and say that's the gold standard and we should trust the mainstream media precisely at the moment when the mainstream media is least representative is really puzzling to me.

And over the next hour or so he brings this up repeatedly.

I feel like there should be a giant picture of Walter Crow behind Matt, I understand that you do have this wonderful nostalgia for the way things used to be with Matt. The answer is obviously you would like the world resembled 1955. Again, words fail me when somebody comes back and says, oh no, no, no, there's more to my great love of.

This man with this direct and persistent twisting of your words. Subtle responses will not be enough, so you need to directly state that the other person is straw manning. You can say it gently, like, hey, I think you're misinterpreting my position. Or or if it happens as frequently as it does in this debate, you can take Douglas Murray's more confrontational approach.

I'm going to try to take this more seriously than you did in your endless creation of straw men, which just is ceaseless this evening.

When you do this, just remember that if you actually want to reverse the situation, it helps to offer the other person a way to save face. So that gentle approach is your best starting option. Now, Straw manning is frustrating, but it's fairly easy to catch. But that's not as true about our third overloading. That means insisting that the other person defend themselves from an accusation that isn't relevant. And in this case, Malcolm points out that Douglas and Matt don't seem to be in full agreement. And then he says the two of.

You should really get together in the next five minutes and work out your story. These are obsessions of the non mainstream media. Once again, work it out, guys.

The implication that Douglas and Matt need to be in lockstep gets some of the biggest applause of the night for Malcolm. And it's why people use this tactic. It's compelling to an audience and it can confuse the other person into defending an irrelev. But Douglass handles this exactly the right way, the way that you should. He takes pride in not carrying unnecessary burdens.

You got to get your story right, guys. I know it's easy for a cheap laugh line, but I don't see why we do. We're two very different people with very different careers, interests and much more. And we don't need to get our story straight for you or for this audience tonight or be in lockstep. Differences of opinion, including on the same side, used to be cherished.

The key insight here is that if you slow down and you don't knee jerk react when you're in an argument, you will see that much of what the opposing side says actually argues in your favor, even if the person says it with a tone of superiority. For instance, if someone at your workplace says, well, you disagreed with my last idea, why don't you show me your perfect idea? You could simply reply, that's exactly why I'm bringing my disagreement to you. I don't have a perfect solution and I wanted to talk through our options. I now, to do this, you're going to have to agree with someone who is attacking you. That takes a lot of composure and I'll teach you how to maintain that under pressure in the last point. For now though, I want to give you a test to see if you can catch these opportunities now that you know what to look for. So see if you can catch what Malcolm could have said to this attack from Douglas. For context, Malcolm has been making comments about fact checking.

I think that you need to fact check some of your nostalgic notions about the wonderful world of the 1950s.

And then Douglass attacks him like this. Given the topic of the debate and the agree and reframe tool we're discussing, what would a powerful response be?

I read your book David and Goliath. The chapter on Northern Ireland is more filled with inaccuracies than any other chapter in a nonfiction book I have read.

Did you catch that? Douglass is actually making Malcolm's point? Because Malcolm's book is not a mainstream news publication. It's a great example of non corporate media that does not have the same standards of fact checking that Malcolm contends editorial rooms do. So the factual inaccuracies in Malcolm's novels actually prove his point in this debate. Malcolm almost gets this, but can't quite see that the point is not just irrelevant, but actually supports his position and he misses a great opportunity.

I didn't know that the function of this debate. Let me just rehash the accuracy of a chapter in a book. Well, you were the one that started.

Talking about fact checkers. I'm simply saying, why don't you employ some.

I suspect. I suspect. Or your publishers?

Now, admittedly, catching these in real time is very tough. And that's why the final point of this video is about how to calm your nervous system so that you're actually getting these insights from more and more effortlessly. But for now, we need to dive into one last destructive behavior, and that is projecting bad faith when someone accuses someone else as having biases that they are actually harboring. For instance, Malcolm closes with this summation of his opponents.

They're concerned that the mainstream media, to the extent that they have told us what it is, is filled with people who don't think like they do, and that fact makes them uncomfortable.

Essentially, he's accusing Douglas and Matt of writing off other perspectives without listening deeply because it threatens their ego. But in that podcast from earlier, Malcolm says that he entered the debate with this.

To be honest, it began with a certain degree of arrogance that I thought. I just couldn't imagine how anyone could legitimately argue that the mainstream media was worse than the alternative.

This is what I mean by projecting bad faith. It's Malcolm who didn't enter this debate with an open mind or the belief that he might encounter reasonable humans with a opinion. But rather than acknowledge and own his prejudice, he blames his opponents for not engaging in good faith dialogue. His projection causes him to see the source of the problem outside of himself, which makes it impossible for him to effectively address. And this takes us to the most important takeaway, because this is not about dunking on Malcolm in your own life, in debates, arguments, and in all social interactions. Things will go better when you can listen both to the other person so that you're able to respond to their points and to your own feelings in real time. Malcolm can't listen to Douglas or even to himself, because he's gotten triggered, especially after that fact checking exchange. And you can see it in his body language. He crosses his arms and his legs in defense, he covers his face with his hands, he stares off blankly for a long, long time. And he writes continuously while others are speaking. He's left the room and he is really arguing with people who aren't there. He's arguing with the threats of his past in a fearful and defensive way, which to his credit, he actually acknowledges in that podcast.

That dude is one of. You know, people used to shout the N word at my mom when she walked down the street in England in 1950. Whatever. And I'm in my mind, I'm imagining he's one of those people.

These counterproductive instincts occur in all of us when we get triggered. We shut down, close off, and move into behaviors that kept us safe in the past, usually fight, flight, freeze, or fawn. So the most important thing that I want you to take from this video is to notice when you lose your capacity to listen. That means noticing when you go into defensive postures, crossed arms, legs, or covering your face. It means noticing when you're in your head planning a response rather than comfortably listening to the other person. It means noticing when you've lost track of your own upset feelings, saying that you're fine even even when your heart and your mind are racing. All of those are signs that you can't listen clearly, which is a sign that you've been triggered out of the present moment. And you might be thinking, oh well, those things happen to me all the time in social situations. That's great. Nothing is wrong with you. It happens with me too. It just means that the part of you focused on keeping you safe from those past threats has taken control. So when this occurs, the best way to get back to your confident self isn't any tactic at all. It's simply to first, notice that you're in safety seeking mode. No need for shame, just notice it. Second, check if you're actually okay. Chances are that you're in a social scenario that might feel threatening, but your physical body isn't under attack. And then third, ask yourself what would feel really good right now? Maybe it's stretching, apologizing for spacing out, asking a genuine question, or just letting out a big sigh. Sometimes it's realizing that you want to rip that other person's head off and then laughing at yourself for your own toxicity. Regardless of what it is, when you shift your focus to feeling good rather than defending yourself, you can come back to the present moment where you're able to effectively address whatever is happening in a cool, calm, collected way. And if feeling that confidence is important to you, you might be interested in our program 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 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.

Very different people with very different careers, interests, and much more. And we don't need to get our story straight for you or for this audience tonight, or be in lockstep. Differences of opinion, including on the same side, used to be cherished.

The key insight here is that if you slow down and you don't knee jerk react when you're in an argument, you will see that much of what the opposing side says actually argues in your favor, even if the person says it with a tone of superiority. For instance, if someone at your workplace says, well, you disagreed with my last idea, why don't you show me your perfect idea? You could simply reply, that's exactly why I'm bringing my disagreement to you. I don't have a perfect solution and I wanted to talk through our options. Now to do this, you're going to have to agree with someone who is attacking you. That takes a lot of composure and I'll teach you how to maintain that under pressure in the last point. For now though, I want to give you a test to see if you can catch these opportunities now that you know what to look for. So see if you can catch what Malcolm could have said to this attack from Douglas. For context, Malcolm has been making comments about fact checking.

I think that you need to fact check some of your nostalgic notions about the wonderful world of the 1950s.

And then Douglass attacks him like this. Given the topic of the debate and the agree and reframe tool we're discussing, what would a powerful response be?

I read your book David and Goliath. The chapter on Northern Ireland is more filled with inaccuracies than any other chapter in a nonfiction book I have read.

Did you catch that Douglass is actually making Malcolm's point? Because Malcolm's book is not a mainstream news publication. It's a great example of non corporate media that does not have the same standards of fact checking that Malcolm contends editorial rooms do. So the factual inaccuracies in Malcolm's novels actually prove his point in this debate. Malcolm almost gets this, but can't quite see that the point is not just irrelevant, but actually supports his position and he misses a great opportunity.

I didn't know that the function of this debate react the accuracy of a chapter in a book. Well, you were the one that started.

Talking about fact checkers. I'm simply saying, why don't you employ.

Some, I suspect I or your publishers.

Now admittedly, catching these in real time is very tough. And that's why the final point of this video is about how to calm your nervous system so that you're actually getting these insights more and more effortlessly. But for now, we need to dive into one last destructive behavior and that is projecting bad faith when someone accuses someone else as having biases that they are actually harboring. For instance, Malcolm closes with this summation of his opponents.

They're concerned that the mainstream media, to the extent that they have told us what it is, is filled with people who don't think like they do and that fact makes them uncomfortable.

Essentially, he's accusing Douglas and Matt of writing off other perspectives without listening deeply because it threatens their ego. But in that podcast from earlier, Malcolm says that he entered the debate with this perspective.

To be honest, it began with a certain degree of arrogance that I thought I just couldn't imagine how anyone could legitimately argue that the mainstream media was worse than the alternative.

This is what I mean by projecting bad faith. It's Malcolm who didn't enter this debate with an open mind or the belief that he might encounter reasonable humans with a different opinion. But rather than acknowledge and own his prejudice, he blames his opponents for not engaging in good faith dialogue. His projection causes him to see the source of the problem outside of himself, which makes it impossible for him to effectively address. And this takes us to the most important takeaway, because this is not about dunking on Malcolm in your own life, in debates, arguments, and in all social interactions. Things will go better when you can listen both to the other person so that you're able to respond to their points and to your own feelings in real time. Malcolm can't listen to Douglas or even to himself because he's gotten triggered, especially after that fact checking exchange. And you can see it in his body language. He crosses his arms and his legs in defense. He covers his face with his hands. He stares off blankly for a long, long time. And he writes continuously while others are speaking. He's left the room and he is really arguing with people who aren't there. He's arguing with the threats of his past in a fearful and defensive way, which, to his credit, he actually acknowledges in that podcast.

That dude is one of. You know, people used to shout the N word at my mom when she walked down the street in England in 1950. Whatever. And I'm in my mind, I'm imagining he's one of those people.

These counterproductive instincts occur in all of us when we get triggered. We shut down, close off, and move into behaviors that kept us safe in the past, usually fight, flight, freeze, or fawn. So the most important thing that I want you to take from this video is to notice when you lose your capacity to listen. That means noticing when you go into defensive postures, crossed arms, legs, or covering your face. It means noticing when you're in your head planning a response rather than comfortably listening to the other person. It means noticing when you've lost track of your own upset feelings, saying that you're fine even when your heart and your mind are racing. All of those are signs that you can't listen clearly, which is a sign that you've been triggered out of the present moment. And you might be thinking, oh, well, those things happen to me all the time in social situations. That's great. Nothing is wrong with you. It happens with me too. It just means that the part of you focused on keeping you safe from those past threats has taken control. So when this occurs, the best way to get back to your confident self isn't any tactic at all. It's simply to first, notice that you're in safety seeking mode. No need for shame, just notice it. Second, check if you're actually okay. Chances are that you're in a social scenario that might feel threatening, but your physical body isn't under attack. And then third, ask yourself what would feel really good right now? Maybe it's stretching, apologizing for spacing out, asking a genuine question, or just letting out a big sigh. Sometimes it's realizing that you want to rip that other person's head off and then laughing at yourself for your own toxicity. Regardless of what it is, when you shift your focus to feeling good rather than defending yourself, you can come back to the present moment where you're able to effectively address whatever is happening in a cool, calm, collected way. And if feeling that confidence is important to you, you might be interested in our program, 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 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. I 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.