If You Have These Habits, You're Accidentally Making People Dislike You

Recently, Steven Crowder and Ethan Klein got together to discuss the pros and cons of listening to the cdc. Somehow, that conversation turned into this.

Ethan, how can you respect yourself as a man, brother? Something so strongly that you're not willing to fade showing your little leprechaun right right now? Ethan. Ethan. Come on. Ethan.

Yikes. So, in today's video, we're going to break down how that conversation got so heated and what you can learn from it. Specifically, we'll go over five common habits you may have to that are making friends dislike you when you argue. We'll also go over some positive ways you can be more persuasive and make people like you even during a disagreement. As always, this is not a criticism of Steven or Ethan as people. It's just a teachable moment to help you in arguments you may have in the future. Okay, so how did things get to that point? The conversation actually starts out surprisingly cordial.

Hey, Ethan. How you doing, brother? Hey. I just want to say on a serious note, that I'm glad you're. Your wife is okay. I heard you had a little bit of a issue with your wife. Well, she's. She's pregnant with twins, so it's like. Well, by the way, congratulations, too. I know you guys are in the same process.

It's only after Stephen launches into his first question about trusting the CDC that things go south. Check it out.

I think people should think about it. I believe. And we talked about this through playful ribbing and an aggregation of medical authorities and scientific voices to. To make an informed and rational decision. So where do you think that I was. That I'm wrong on that?

Ethan's response doesn't really make sense without context. So here's some quick background for you. Stephen has a sponsorship with Spartan Armor Systems. Ethan's opinion of Stephen is that he dislikes gay people and is ducking a debate with a guy named Sam Cedar. Now, given that info, watch how Ethan responds to that question about the cdc.

Steven, do you know that the Spartans are did. They are like practice man love with children. Oh, geez. Okay, so this is what's gonna happen. What did I tell you he was gonna do anything he could to avoid.

Oh.

Oh, there he is. Oh, no. Sam Cedar. Whoa. What a nightmare.

The mistake Ethan makes here, if you care to persuade the person you're talking with, is aiming for a gotcha moment.

Ha.

Gotcha.

You have got me.

You have got me.

Gotcha moments are attempts to make someone look stupid. When you try to make someone look stupid, you're no longer working together to examine the truth of a claim. Instead, you make the argument a game of social dominance. Watch Ethan and Sam's reaction once the conversation with Steven ends. Do you get the sense that their goal was to explore whether or not listening to the CDC makes sense, or do you get the sense that this was about social dominance?

We got him. We got him, dude. We played him so hard.

They're celebrating. But as you'll see in a minute, the conversation was very unproductive. No one learned anything new. No one changed their mind. No audience members are better informed about the cdc. In your own life, it will be very tempting when discussing something in front of other people to go for gotcha moments or make the other person look stupid. This feeds your ego in the moment because it makes you feel superior, but it doesn't make friends or change anyone's mind. That's why the Socratic method is so powerful. Rather than try to convince someone of something, you respectfully guide them with questions and let them convince themselves. The difference between a gotcha question and a respectful question comes through in tone and pacing. You want a slow cadence and a non aggressive tone with genuine upward inflection. Here's a good example with Trevor Noah after the 2016 election. Now, I would like to know from.

Your side, genuinely, as someone who's won, do you believe that Donald Trump will follow through on his promises?

Getting back to learning from Stephen and Ethan, Stephen actually had a great opportunity here. He could have called out Ethan and Sam for bringing Sam without telling him ahead of time, but then done the debate anyway, despite feeling lied to. If his argument holds up under scrutiny, he comes off great and gets to educate all three of their audiences. Instead, we quickly see the next two common mistakes people make in arguments. I don't know if this was the case with Stephen, but these two mistakes in particular come out in most people when their emotions get the best of them. The first is incredibly common. It's to repeatedly talk over someone.

Okay, it's about issues. It's about issues. Yeah. That's what you're doing here. Valid points. You're so clever. I had no idea.

Talking over someone once may just be a sign you're excited to make your point, but. But if you find yourself talking over someone repeatedly, it can be a sign that you're emotionally triggered because you're unwilling to allow the other person to finish their point. Here's another example, Sam.

Why do you feel that anyone owes you airtime when you have a 40th of the audience and you've been doing the show. I don't think you airtime. I think. I think that Ethan has just given it to me. Right. I didn't ask him for it. Right? No, you've been begging for it for a long time. With everyone bigger than yourself. He can't build an audience.

When you feel the urge to cut someone off, or if you. If you feel your heartbeat escalate or your breathing get shallow and rushed, pause and take one deep breath. It sounds cliche, but your nervous system has put you into fight or flight. You need to calm it down so you can respond rationally rather than emotionally. If not, you're very likely to make the next common mistake. An ad hominem attack. An ad hominem is an argument directed against a person rather than their position in the argument. So in this case, it would be anything unrelated to the CDC. Here's a quick example. H3. H3.

Steven, you're wearing a whole suit.

We agreed.

So hold on a second. Yeah.

This is extremely common and often a sign of fear. People turn to ad hominem when they're afraid they'll lose the actual argument. The worst form of this is straight up insults.

That's what you're doing here. You're so clever. I had no idea that you were taking your show off early last time. Coming in today with your pig pen peanuts. I wish everything you take those off. Are they velvet buttons? They're just black eye.

The plan was to talk about the cdc, and now we're talking about his eyes. This may work when you're in front of an audience that already likes you, but it will make the person you're arguing with hate you. It's also likely to lead to them resorting to ad hominem attacks as well. Eventually you just get arguments like this next clip that are awful to be a part of.

How about you get to a 30th of the audience? Steven, show yourself. 30th of the audience. Ethan, you should show yourself.

Ethan.

Ethan. How can you respect yourself as a man, brother? Something so strongly that you're not willing to.

Nothing productive can happen with this much hostility. Contrast that with how Russell Brand begins this disagreement with Bill Maher.

Hillary Clinton would not be pulling out of the Iran deal or the Paris climate deal or.

It's really, you know, I respect you and I admire you very much, and I think you are a courageous man. One of the problems I have in instances such as this.

This is far more persuasive. A genuine compliment before you disagree opens Someone up to be receptive to ideas they didn't hold previously. Here's another example of Russell speaking with Ben Shapiro.

One of the things I like that I admire about you is your deafness and ability to handle confrontational conversations when.

It comes to the disagreement itself. The ideal way to be persuasive in an argument is the exact opposite of an ad hominem attack. Rather than attacking their character, separate the person you're talking to from their viewpoint. This gives them the chance to change their mind without feeling their identity is under attack. Here's a great example from Jordan Peterson. 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. Did you notice how he says the problem I have with your argument and not the problem I have with you? You can take this one step further by saying that argument instead of your argument. Here's a similar example from Russell Brand and Ben Shapiro.

You know, when I hear you criticize power, I agree with you sometimes. When I hear you criticize what, in my view are people that are less powerful. This is where I find myself not in alignment with your perspective. I say this with respect.

No, this is a really important idea and I want to get into it. Russell does two good things in the span of 15 seconds. First, he highlights where he agrees with Ben. Then he keeps Ben's ego unthreatened by saying he disagrees with his perspective rather than him. Again, even better would be that perspective. By using phrases like that argument or that perspective, you separate the position from the person. The rule to remember is if you want someone to be receptive to new ideas, you need to keep their ego feeling unthreatened. This next common mistake is an obvious one, so we'll cover it quickly. But it's important to note because people will hate you when you do it to them. Straw Manning. Here's a quick example with Sam Harris and Ben Affleck. First, watch Sam lay out his point.

The crucial point of confusion is that we have been sold this meme of Islamophobia where every criticism of the doctrine of Islam gets conflated with bigotry toward Muslims as people.

Now watch Ben Affleck completely mischaracterize that point. Just a few seconds later, you're saying that Islamophobia is not a real thing. If you want to persuade the person you're speaking with and make Them like you more do the exact opposite of this. Ask yourself, what is the most intelligent, charitable way I can make their point for them? Then reiterate that point back, confirming they feel it accurately represents their point of view before you argue against it. Ultimately, all of these points come down to one dangerous yet common habit most people have when disagreeing with someone. They're unwilling to consider that they may in fact be on the wrong side. You want to trade your I want to win mindset for an I want to learn if I'm wrong mindset immediately. You'll find you don't do any of these bad habits because you'll interpret arguments as opportunities to test ideas and and see which one stands up best under scrutiny. Your goal is no longer to show you were right coming into the discussion. It's to leave believing something that's true. And there's an added persuasive benefit to this mindset. By not positioning the person who came in with the right idea as the winner, you allow people to change their minds without feeling like they lost. Persuasion happens when people feel like they're both on the same team in search of finding the truth together. Not that he's perfect, but this is the mindset that allows Russell to have multiple incredibly cordial conversations with Ben Shapiro, despite their political differences. He describes it well here, you know.

But I'm in a sort of an open space where I feel that what I want to do is understand you and be giving. Giving to you and generous to you, even though as we have both listed and are both surely aware, there are loads of stuff that we would disagree on.

Okay, so what do you do if you do accidentally get into a social dominance game? It's happened to all of us. You went in trying to have a thoughtful discussion, but it devolved into an argument that went nowhere. You probably walked away frustrated thinking the other person is an idiot. Now what? It's time for projection. Reflection. This is something the average person struggles with, but it's also one of the greatest levers of personal development and self improvement. First, sit down and write out all your criticisms of the person you just argued with. Maybe they were stubborn or rude or shouted over you. Then reflect on the ways that you were guilty of the same behavior. For example, remember that Ethan agreed to debate Stephen and then tagged out without mentioning it beforehand. You may see some irony in what he says to Steven after Steven won't debate Sam Seder.

Stephen, you are such a coward. Stop showing your little leprechaun co host who comes out dressed like Your sidekick.

Steven similarly calls Ethan a coward for not debating him while denying to debate Sam. So if you find yourself complaining about the other side, pause and reflect on if this critique really only describes the other side. Often the things that aggravate us the most about other people are are the things we don't like about ourselves that we are pretending aren't there. Here's one more quick example with Stephen and Ethan.

Right now I'm trying to talk with you. You're interrupting Sam. Do you want to respond to anything he said now that he's not talking over you?

It's easy to criticize and demonize the other side. What's harder is to recognize that you may be guilty of similar behavior. One of the best things you can do for your personal growth and happiness is take your critiques of other people and and use them to investigate if there's an area in yourself you'd benefit from changing. There's one last weird psychology observation from all this drama that's worth touching on. Fans from both sides watch the same video and each is wholly convinced that their guy came away looking great and the other guy looks like an idiot. How can they come away with such different impressions from the same video? If you ever find yourself in a position where you and someone else watch the same video or read the same article but come away with strong yet opposite opinions, it's a good potential warning sign that your view may be compromised by pre existing bias or tribalism. Just something to be aware of in yourself. If you want to learn more about how to argue while actually being likable and persuasive, you should check out how to Win Friends and Influence People by Dale Carnegie. It is easily one of the best resources ever created for Charisma. Dale gives great, actionable advice for a variety of social and professional situations and you can get the audiobook for free today. Thanks to our sponsor for this video, Audible. If you want to check it out, go to audible.com charisma or text charisma to 500 500. Audible is my favorite audiobook platform. It's a great way to take downtime like driving or doing errands and transform it into productive time where you're learning and improving yourself. By joining Audible, you get a credit every month to use on any title in their premium selection, regardless of price. You also get access to their PLUS catalog with thousands of audiobooks, podcasts, and guided meditations that you can listen to for free with your membership. Again, if you want to try it out, you can go to audible.com charisma or text Charisma to 500500 and get a free 30 day trial including any audiobook you want. I recommend how to Win Friends and Influence People. Either way, I hope you liked this video. I want to thank our video editing team of Andre, Therese and Ivan for working so hard to edit it. Thank you so much for watching it and hopefully we'll see you in the next one.

Sam.