Win the Argument AND Win Them Over – 4 Techniques

Happy July 4th weekend everybody. I know that for many of you in other parts of the world that won't mean anything, but since I'm living in America, it's important to celebrate these things, I think, and be part of the spirit of it. Obviously we are celebrating the independence of America from. I forget the. The guys who lost, they were probably not that bad. They were probably alright actually. But you know, everyone deserves not to have, you know, someone clinging on if they don't want them. But all I'm saying is whoever they separated from probably was in some ways misunderstood. But anyway, America, good for you. Now we're here and I thought we'd do a video on someone that obviously had an enormous part in the independence of America, Mr. Benjamin Franklin. I was reading Franklin's autobiography in the last couple of months. I don't. It actually wasn't a thought out thing like oh, Independence Day is coming, I should read one of the founding fathers autobiographies. It really was just the case that I was told time and again that this was an important thing to read, even from the point of view of self development. So I read it and amongst many things that were interesting about the book, one of the interesting parts was Franklin's ability to argue a point. And of course since we're talking about Independence Day, a long settled dispute, we should talk about arguments. I realized by the way, as I was planning this video, Jameson reminded me that actually the last July 4th video we did was also about arguments, which is really cool, but we're going to do it from a different point of view this time. So Franklin was a very, very learned man and someone who had a tremendous ability to argue his point of view to the point where he could confound and dazzle others with either his knowledge or his style in a way that could basically trample them. You may know someone like that who has the ability in arguments to be so learned and so forceful in their approach that they are able to trample others in their arguments. In other words, Franklin had a level of intelligence in debating that meant that he almost could do that. He could win arguments without having to win people over. But one of the things that Franklin found was that simply winning an argument didn't necessarily make him effective as a person. Winning an argument often left the other person feeling like their ego was bruised, feeling like they didn't want to help his cause, whatever it was. He might have been right, but no one wanted to help him afterwards. So he began to at first indulge in the Socratic method. He studied Socrates and realized there was a slightly different way of arguing. If he took the position of what he called the humble inquirer, someone who, rather than immediately coming at someone with a dogmatic approach and saying, you think this. Well, let me tell you why that's wrong. Instead of doing that, he would assume the position of questioning that person and saying, well, are you saying that? Blah, blah, blah. And by saying, are you saying that? And getting them to agree a different piece of logic, he could actually get them to step on the logic of their previous argument. In other words, he could tie them up in their own logic to the point where they'd have to admit that their logic didn't always hold, that their argument wasn't always true, and that therefore, in some way they were wrong. Now, the problem I've always had with the Socratic method is that it can quite quickly turn into something that seems patronizing. It can turn into something that can be quite annoying because rather than actually hearing someone's point of view, you just have them question you the whole time. And that can be a very frustrating process. And Franklin realized this also because although he became very artful in the Socratic book method, he actually in some ways evolved past it and began to take on a simpler style of arguing with people. So I'm going to read you a little bit of the biography. I'm just going to read you a very brief part of this. He said, I continued in this method, the Socratic method, for some years, but gradually left it, retaining only the habit of expressing myself into myself in terms of modest diffidence, never using when I advanced anything that may possibly be disputed, the words certainly, undoubtedly, or any others that give the air of positiveness to an opinion. He goes on to say, this habit, I believe, has been of great advantage to me when I have had occasion to inculcate my opinions and persuade men into measures that I have been from time to time engaged in promoting. In other words, if he wanted to get people on board with ideas and causes that he was promoting, he needed to use more modest language to get people on side. Think about it this way. People come to arguments, generally speaking, from an emotional place, even when they're making logical points. There's always emotion behind an argument because there's ego behind an argument. Our ego and our pride is wrapped up in being right. And very often our ego and our pride can prevent us from coming to someone else's side, even when we might see cracks in our own argument. And we may see strengths in their argument. Our ego makes us repulsed by dogma. We become repulsed by someone who is too pointed in their opinions and who comes at us with a prickly or what we deem to be a patronizing or an aggressive approach. They'll say something to you like, no, listen, here's how it is. Or they'll say, listen, what you don't understand is blah, blah, blah, or, that's absurd. That's ridiculous. You know why? That's you know why you're wrong. It's because blah, blah, blah. And then they'll go into their argument. Now you start a phrase with you know why you're wrong or you know why that's ridiculous. You're already starting on the back foot because now, no matter what argument of yours comes next, you've managed to personally attack or insult the person before you've even begun. We all do this, by the way. I do this, too. I can recall, and there are even videos of me many times simply going on either the attack or coming at things from a very dogmatic place. And when I do that, it's not necessarily because it's the most effective way. Sometimes we do it for sport, right? Sometimes we demolish someone in an argument just because it's fun to do so, just because in our minds we know we're right. We know that we have the better cause, the better argument. And we're going to demolish them, we're going to trample them, we're going to hurt someone's ego in the process. Terrible as it sounds, sometimes it's fun to do that, especially when we think that the other person holds a really horrible belief. Other times we do it because we're lazy. You know, I've done it many times because I'm lazy, because I'm not really trying to be pragmatic and figure out an elegant solution for us to come together. I'm just being lazy, and I'm thinking, right, I'm just gonna. I know I have the knowledge here, or I have the upper hand in terms of how much I know I'm gonna be lazy and just trample over this person. But the effective route is to come at it slightly more humbly. There are many times in life where actually the pragmatic approach is the one that's gonna serve us the best. I mean, think about it this way. At a dinner table, you can have a group of people sitting around and you can have two sides of the table. They're both going at it. Now, these two people at the end of this conversation are not going to want to cooperate. They're not going to want to come to each other's side of the argument, they're not going to want to work together. All they're doing is dividing the person in the middle of the table. If they can take a more humble approach to this and find a way to empathize with both points of view, even if they end up coming down more on one side, they are far more likely to have the cooperation of the other side, the side that they disagree with, because they're going to seem like the most reasonable person at the table, even if they end up coming down on one side. So what are some more effective ways of doing this? Firstly, wherever possible in an argument, separate your opponent from the idea that they're expressing. If you start an argument with you're wrong because you're lumping them in with their idea and their argument, and whatever is an attack on their argument now becomes an attack on them. If instead you start with the phrase the issue that I have with that idea. And by the way, cleverly, you don't even say your idea, you say that idea. So the issue, when they speak, you go, the issue I have with that idea is that. And then you carry on. Now you're still disagreeing with something they're saying, and that will put their guard up slightly, but not nearly as much as if you say you're wrong because. Or that's you're being ridiculous because you're saying, here's the issue I have with that idea. In other words, that idea is not you. I'm separating the two. So now an attack on the idea is not an attack on you. Second technique, start with the part that you agree with. Let's say someone makes the statement, social media has been the best thing to happen to our social lives in our time. If you start with, you know what, I really understand where you're coming from. Because the reality is that social media has allowed me to connect with people from my past that I never would have found, I never would have found these people again if it wasn't to do. If it wasn't social media, that social media has allowed me to connect with all these people. And you know what? Social media has allowed me to connect with people I never would have met in the first place, people from places and countries that I never would have met had I not had the chance to connect with these people through these vehicles. So. So I really do agree with that. And then you say, my issue is that I have also found that it has brought Me further away from certain people because now instead of actually going for a drink with them or meeting them for coffee, it's always easier just to speak to them on social media so that my interactions are much more superficial. So you're able then to get in what you agree with, find that point of common ground, but then you take them to your issue. The third technique is to actually pose a question to them humbly. Now, this is a slight return to the Socratic method, but we really want to come across as humble and genuine when we say this. So let's take the previous example. Someone might say that about social media and you say, but don't you find. And in fact, you know what, I would even take out the word but because as soon as you use the word but you're creating friction there. So you could change it to I do understand what you're saying. Have you found though, that in connecting with people through social media now it's too easy to take the path of just speaking to them through messaging instead of actually going out to meet with them? You know, there was a time in our lives where we actually, in order to speak to someone, someone, we'd have to go and meet with them. So have you found that it's affected you in that way? And let them answer the fact that you're posing the question to them and showing that you actually value their opinion on that and their experience makes it far more likely that they will come around to agree with you. And one crucial thing about arguments is that don't assume that just because someone is not conceiving in the moment verbally that they're not conceding gradually in their minds, because someone can outwardly be, they're still in the process of defending their argument. So when you pose that question, they might say, well, actually, no, not really, because blah, blah, blah, in their minds, they might be conceding more than they're letting on outwardly. So don't always let external appearances fool you. It's more important to win the battle in their mind. Because then you might find five minutes later, 10 minutes later, two weeks later, they come back to you and start agreeing with you. The key thing is people want to agree on their terms. They don't want to look, they never want to seem like it was you who made them agree. They want to feel like it was them who came to that conclusion. So if you offer the perspective or the question that makes them question their own perspective, and then they start selling themselves on a new idea, that's far more Effective. The last technique I'll give you, technique number four is to show concern for a situation. One thing to disagree and be aggressive with someone and say you're wrong. It looks much more altruistic and humble and noble to show concern. So sticking with the social media debate, you might say, my concern is that I see my little brother, and he's grown up in a social media generation far more than I ever did. You know, I became accustomed to these things as an adult. But, you know, he came up in the generation of social media who never had to do without it. And I'm concerned that they have never known socializing a different way. And for those people who grew up without it, they at least had to develop a shred of charisma in order to meet people and have this charm about them and build relationships. Nowadays, people can have an entire relationship online, and I find that concerning. I mean, does. Does that ever concern you? Does it ever worry you? You don't even, by the way, you don't even have to ask the question at the end. You could just leave it out there to hang in the air without even asking them a question and let them see that side of you. Because really then it sounds like a generous side of you coming out that my concern, and especially if I evoke that sentiment of my brother and the family, it's a. It shows a concern and a compassionate side instead of a argumentative side. So those are four easy techniques you can use. It's worth writing them down. If you didn't watch that video and actually write those down, it's really worth doing it because you could just practice one or two of them a day in your arguments. Try and catch yourself in your reflex moments, because that's what arguments tend to be, tend to function on reflex response. And it's when we can actually break free of that reflex response that we can become much more effective in arguments. And don't just focus on what you're saying, focus on facial expression as well, because you will find that people will often take more offense to your tone or your expression than they will to what you're saying itself. You could not say a word and offend someone and they say, you know, look, you just. You just don't get it. You're so aggressive with the way that you think. You say, I didn't even say anything. But actually, what happened if you were to play a video, they said something and you went. And it's in that moment that you make them feel stupid. Right? We make people feel like an Idiot. When we give them that expression. Now, as you're listening to all of this, you may say, well, there are certain times in life where I feel so much more passionate than that. There are certain times where I really want to drive my point home because someone is being a complete moron in their beliefs, and I can't bear the thought of not showing them passionately how I feel about what I'm saying. But we always have to weigh up our passion for our argument against the need for pragmatism, the need for being practical in achieving the result we want. Always ask yourself, what's my objective? Is my objective to win this argument, or is my objective to actually help this person see my way of thinking to actually help. Help bring us closer together so that I can affect some sort of change or influence? In other words, is your objective winning, or is your objective influence? Now, if it's winning, it doesn't matter. Trample the person all you like, right? Do your thing. But if it's influence, then we need to be much more strategic about what we do. The second thing you might say is, but isn't this just false modesty in our arguments? Aren't you just suggesting that I pretend to be more modest in my argument than I really am? And yes, that kind of is what I'm saying. There are situations where in order to be pragmatic, in order to get the result you want and influence someone, we might have to exhibit some false modesty in our argument. You know, asking someone a question and saying, but do you think that blah, blah, blah, or I'm concerned that may not truly show how right we think we are about what we already know. We're posing a question as if we don't know the answer, when we already know the answer. Well, if we want to influence people, sometimes we have to employ a little false modesty. The other side of that is that it might just. Just happen that when someone does give you their points and you truly do take a moment to empathize and to consider what they're saying and to slow. Slow down your pace a little bit and see what happens, that modesty might not turn out to be so false after all. In other words, we may end up seeing a shred of truth, a grain of truth in what it is this other person is saying. And when that happens, it's very humbling indeed. You'll know this if you've ever argued something, argue from the bottom of your soul, knowing you were right, knowing that what you were saying was true. Then a year later or five years later or ten years later in your life, you look back and you go, I couldn't have been more wrong. You know how humbling that is. So as much as I'm a big proponent of being certain in life, I think the sexiest people are the ones who are certain in their ideas. The ones who really carry that passion and that certainty about what they believe and what they're all about in life. We also have to account for the fact that some, sometimes we may think we're being modest on a false level, when actually we're entertaining ideas that might influence the way we think and might change us in years to come. And it's nice sometimes to look back and know that we are fluid in our thoughts and that we're not one of those types of people that is so rigid in their beliefs that they cannot see anything outside of them, because those people often are the ones who make fools of themselves. So it's a delicate balance, right? Be passionate, be certain in life. But even, even if at this stage in your life, you know you're right about something, allow for the pragmatism to come in. That allows you to also take Benjamin Franklin's stance, which was that of the humble inquirer, because we'll be far more effective and I think we'll get far more done. So hopefully you enjoyed this 25 minute in depth analysis of Benjamin Franklin's argumentative style from his autobiography. I am now gonna go and eat a cheeseburger and drink beer. We'll see. My money's on this. Having a lower view count than normal. Like how many people, instead of eating barbecue and drinking today, are watching this video? Like, if this video has a high view count, it will be the greatest compliment to our channel there could possibly be. Me and Jameson, we will have a beer today just based on that. Bring your barbecue to YouTube. Eat your chicken wings and your meat and drink a beer and watch me all day. Now, we can't leave that in. That just sounds really arrogant, doesn't it? Keep that out.