How to Win an Argument
August 31st, 2005 by Steve Pavlina
Email this article to a friend
This is a follow-up to the recent Dealing With Difficult Relatives post. That original post sets the context for this article, so if you haven’t read the original article, you should definitely do that first. Otherwise, you won’t likely understand the context for this post. If you expect this will be an article about how to out-debate your co-workers, you’re coming at it from the wrong context. Read the original post first.
How do you handle the situation where the other person continually sucks you into an argument that you never seem to be able to win?
In a typical argument, each person tries to prove themselves right and the other person wrong. Of course, we all know what happens in the end — each person only ends up more entrenched in their views, regardless of who seems to deliver the most dominant argument.
An argument cannot be won with resistance. You will only strengthen the other person’s resolve. At best you will both leave in a state of stubbornness, but little communication will have actually occurred.
The way to “win” an argument is to aim for a goal other than being right. The other person will be prepared to defend against someone who is trying to prove themselves right. Trying to prove yourself right and the other person wrong is like making a frontal assault on an entrenched enemy position. You’ll need overwhelming force to win, and your victory will come at great cost, if you can even pull it off. Plus you’ll leave your relationship wounded in the end.
So instead of trying to be right, I’ve found that the best way to win an argument is to go for an entirely different goal. This has worked for me every time I’ve applied it, and I’ve used it dozens of times.
If you aren’t trying to win the argument, then what is your goal? I suggest you set the goal of attempting to raise the other person’s awareness while maintaining your own sense of inner peace. By this I mean that you focus on helping the other person become more aware of the full extent of their behavior and how it affects you and others, but without taking ownership of anything the other person says.
This means you keep your focus on the other person and their behavior. Whenever s/he tries to pigeonhole you into a negative role, you simply side-step their comments and then redirect their own energy back upon them. In a way it’s like verbal martial arts. Never defend against any of their comments. Simply redirect the comments back to the person.
In other words, you don’t attack — ever. You merely deflect the other person’s attacks back to them, over and over. You become like a mirror. So the more the other person tries to attack you, the more they weaken themselves. People can’t punch themselves in the face for too long.
If someone were to try to attack me in an argument, I would just say things like, “You seem to be fairly upset about this. Why do you think that is?” or “So you’re saying you’d like to feel free to disregard my requests if you don’t agree with them. Is that correct?” or “Is this how you’d like to continue to feel about this situation?” or “Do you feel your behavior towards me is honorable and respectful?”
Stay focused on the other person and their feelings, not your own. But don’t take ownership of anything they say. Simply allow it to pass through you like a knife through water and come out the other side. And metaphorically speaking, keep asking the person about the knife they’re holding and how they feel about it.
Usually the other person will start by answering all my questions with the words, “Because you…” My goal is to help guide the other person to focus on their own feelings, and I know I’m making progress when their answers begin taking the form of “Because I…” I help them to take ownership of their feelings.
Remember that if someone offers you a gift, and you decline to accept it, the other person still owns that gift. The same is true of insults and verbal attacks. In order for there to be any sting to the attack, you must accept it. Simply decline the “gift” and the other person won’t be able to land a single blow no matter how hard they try. Be like air or water — if they try to attack you, they merely wear themselves out.
This takes practice, but it works extremely well. The key is to put yourself into a state of compassion and empathy and keep reminding yourself that the negativity isn’t about you — it’s an internal issue the other person is dealing with. So whatever the other person says, you simply reflect it back to them. This will have the effect of raising the other person’s awareness. Many times people can’t handle that, so they’ll either blow up emotionally or give up. Either way, it helps put an end to the previous destructive relationship and paves the way for something better to emerge.
A technique I use to keep myself focused on raising the other person’s awareness is that I form a mental image of that person’s “higher self.” I imagine the best possible form of that person — their soul if you will — standing in the room with us like an apparition. Then I put myself in a state where I feel like I’m channeling the thoughts of that higher self, and I allow the higher self to speak through me and to ask all the questions. This is amazingly effective — in fact, it works so well that I wonder if I am indeed channeling some kind of higher self. I’ve learned to simply trust the words that pop into my mind and speak them, even if they don’t seem like the right thing to say from a logical standpoint. Invariably the questions and observations do help guide the other person to be more in tune with their own highest and best self. They begin seeing their behavior and the relationship in a whole new light, and that’s what often leads to some sort of emotional breakdown. Tears are common.
There are two ways this type of conversation ends — 1) the other person can’t handle facing the situation and basically runs away, or 2) the other person has some kind of emotional catharsis which makes it possible to heal the relationship. Most of the time the outcome is #2 if the relationship bond is fairly strong, and #1 if the relationship bond is weak. I find that typically this takes 2-3 hours of conversation to reach the point of #2. If you hit #1, that’s OK too. Just keep using the same strategy on each encounter, and you’ll eventually hit #2 — either that or you’ll permanently scare the person away from trying to argue with you.
Now if you don’t have this kind of time, then you may want to use a short-cut approach to simply delay the confrontation, or the relationship may be so loose that it’s not worth the effort to raise the other person’s awareness. In that case you can simply deflect the arguments with humor, or you can ignore them altogether.
It does take practice and patience to use this type of approach, and it hinges upon your ability to keep yourself in a high state of awareness, focusing on unconditional love and compassion for the other person. I don’t think of it as having a thick skin but rather as having reflective skin or even no skin. You have to put yourself in a state where you are unattackable. This will frustrate the other person to no end, but that’s the point — to let the other person burn off all their negative energy by swinging at air. And as they grow tired, their own shields will begin to collapse. But instead of attacking at that point, you empathize and connect with them and strive to reconnect them with their truest and best self.
For me this has become an ingrained way of communicating. Whenever I get attacked by someone wanting to provoke an argument, I simply see it as a cry for help. The other person is disconnected from their true self, and my role (time permitting) is to help reconnect them. I can’t do that if I step into the ring with them. But I can let them swing at air and exhaust themselves until they’re ready to face the parts of themselves that are causing them this pain, and then they can begin to reconnect and to heal.
If you try this approach, and you can’t seem to keep yourself in a higher state of awareness without being dragged into negativity by the other person, then you’ve got a different situation at hand, one which cannot be solved at the same level of thinking in which this post is written. I’ll write another post on how to handle that situation soon.
August 31st, 2005 at 1:53 am
Your tips are helpful, thank you. I realize that I can apply some of the same “tricks” to myself whenever I am in an argument an want to start fighting (”But you…”). However I often find that very hard, especially if the other person keeps going that way.
Also, I think your article has an inappropriate title because as I see it it’s not about winning: it’s about stopping to arguing and starting to communicate!
August 31st, 2005 at 4:06 am
This is almost exactly the way I argue, and I agree that it’s the most effective. I also, rarely, use rational pont for point argument in the Socratic dialogues sense, but that only works with people who have trained their minds very well and can approach truth with some objectivity. But the vast majority of the time, when dealing with normal people, I use what you suggest.
August 31st, 2005 at 4:06 am
@A: I chose that title because it will attract the people who need to hear the message but not the ones who don’t.
August 31st, 2005 at 4:10 am
Oh, typo correction:
“And metaphorically speaking, keep asking the person about the knife they’re holding and how they feel about it.” — should be “they’re”. It’s my favorite passage in this entry.
August 31st, 2005 at 4:11 am
Er, it’s “their” and should be “they’re”, sorry for the vagueness (I copied and pasted it from my Livejournal entry, in which I fixed the typo for you).
August 31st, 2005 at 4:15 am
@Rinku: Thanks, fixed.
August 31st, 2005 at 6:28 am
“Then I put myself in a state where I feel like I’m channeling the thoughts of that higher self, and I allow the higher self to speak through me and to ask all the questions. This is amazingly effective — in fact, it works so well that I wonder if I am indeed channeling some kind of higher self.”
Yes, I think you could be. The danger of being a medium is that you *could* offer a platform to a deceptive spirit… one who seems to do good.
August 31st, 2005 at 2:36 pm
SD,
“A kingdom divided against itself cannot stand.” If Steve’s managing to spread love and peace through a ‘deceptive spirit’, then how long will deception stand?
August 31st, 2005 at 3:53 pm
The kind of “spirit” (or guidance, or information) you attract depends largely on your own energy level. If your goal is to win the argument at the expense of the other person, you’ll be guided to ask the wrong questions which will only perpetuate the argument. But if you tune yourself into a state of genuine compassion and connection, and your own energy is high, you’ll be guided to ask the right questions that will not only raise the other person’s consciousness, but your own as well.
August 31st, 2005 at 10:01 pm
As A. said Winning is not the right title. Ideally an argument ist not won, but solved.
I used this technique sometimes and it works. The problem is, it works even if i am wrong. But thats the same problem with martial arts. They can be used for good or for evil.
August 31st, 2005 at 10:32 pm
Wow. That sure is a nice way to block yourself from what other people have to say. It is really a kind of a “la-la-la I can not hear you la-la-la” tactic, and while I do not deny that this tactic can be effective, I doubt it should ever be in the arsenal of a person striving for personal improvement.
Whenever you use this kind of tactic, you are effectively saying to yourself “I am right, he is wrong, and this is all there is about it,” and go into the “la-la-la” mode stopping the communication. You can imagine yourself as helping other person cure his mental ills as well as helping yourself all you want, but the fact is, you are probably doing nothing more than feeding your ego of a super-human-never-lose-any-word-battle-(since-I-dont-fight) martial arts master.
I realize that you might have intended this post to only apply to curing failing personal relationships, but it seems to me that the above tactic is, first, too sharp of a knife to use even when curing personal relationships, and, second, a downright dumb tactic to use for anything else.
September 1st, 2005 at 12:57 am
Perhaps I’m missing something, but your strategy seems like a way of ignoring legitimate complaints as well as defusing habitual combativeness.
Has anyone tried that mirroring strategy on you, and if so, how did it work out?
September 1st, 2005 at 3:34 am
Good way of dealing with difficult people. Good for Thanksgiving dinners and other family gatherings where people tend to get a little “opinionated”.
I’d add that if the other person is intoxicated, it’s best to walk away.
September 1st, 2005 at 4:13 am
Hi Steve ,
Great article above.
Got anymore tips on martial art techniques for using with people?
Ina
September 1st, 2005 at 4:23 am
The purpose of this technique is to gain a fuller understanding of the other person as you help them gain a fuller understanding of themselves. You aren’t dismissing or manipulating them — what you’re doing is letting them knock down their own blocks to communication until you reach the point where real communication can finally occur. Within the martial arts analogy, you are declining to fight, allowing the other person to swing and swing until they are ready to really talk AND listen instead of merely argue.
I’ve taught my wife to use this same strategy on me, and it works both ways. There are parts of our lives that others can see more clearly than we can, so it’s incredibly helpful for us to raise each other’s awareness of our blind spots. This allows us to eventually resolve and move past them.
I’ve also tries using this method with several people at once, but the more people in the room, the worse it seems to work, and the longer it takes. It’s best for one-to-one communication where no one else is in the room. With more people I find that it just doesn’t have the power to reach the point of resolution.
September 1st, 2005 at 5:34 am
Steve, there are many different types of arguments and ways of thinking about them.
For example when I was a student and I tried to start my own company I had daily arguments with my father. He wanted me to drop the foolish idea of starting a company and to concentrate on my studies.
In the end I both got my degree and ended up with a profitable company, so we no longer fight about this. But back then we had daily fights.
And I couldn’t just leave home, because I had very little income at that time.
One of the things he did was to come in the morning and start shouting at me while I was still asleep. Effective technique: just turn on the other side in bed, and show him that I didn’t care that he yelled at me.
Another effective technique: don’t try to use logic when arguing. The other person may overpower you. My father always overpowered me with this.
So.. I just adopted an illogical approach. I kept telling him illogical things, and when he called me on this, I told him that I loved to be illogical, that I am NOT a rational person, and that I didn’t care about logic, and that there is no way he can convince me because my convictions were not logical.
Also, when fighting, I discovered that it’s best to figure out what the other person considers a large problem with himself. If you can understand this intuitively and hit exactly the weak spot, then you usually win.
September 1st, 2005 at 12:28 pm
My s.o. used a similar technique on me once, early on in our relationship. It was brutal. I was very verbally self-abusing at the time, and one day, instead of arguing with me, trying to convince me of my own self worth, he just agreed with everything I said. It totally caught me by surprise. Nobody had ever said such things to me. And I had never realized that I had been saying all those horrible things about myself. I realized how much it hurt him when I did it… and after crying for a day or so, I was cured.
But it hurt. A lot.
Thanks for this, Steve. You must meditate a lot to be able to keep that kind of level of calm, peace, and clarity during an emotionally heated argument. I have to figure out how to do this. Lately, I feel like my brain died, leaving nothing but rotten emotions behind.
September 1st, 2005 at 1:34 pm
@Elaine: Yes, this will definitely hurt — emotionally that is. It usually ends in tears. But those tears lead to healing and a better relationship, not only with the other person but also with oneself.
I’ve been meditating for about 14 years, but I tend to favor mentally active visualization-style meditations as opposed to more passive listening-style meditations. I find the active visualizations work much better for me.
September 1st, 2005 at 8:20 pm
> Another effective technique: don’t try to use logic
> when arguing. The other person may overpower you.
> My father always overpowered me with this.
Look, Steve, here is what I was referring to in an earlier comment. No matter what you *think* this technique is about, in the end, it is just about saying to yourself “I am right and I don’t care what my father says,” and feeling comfortable about it. Is that what you are advocating?
September 1st, 2005 at 8:39 pm
And, by the way, talking about others who might try the same technique on you: I can envision another five-page long article in this blog on how to deal with this kind of unreasonable people.
Let me try:
“There is very little you can do about such people. They are not willing to communicate rationally and thus effectively deprive themselves from the wisdom accumulated by others. They allow their egos to consume their minds and bodies and cage themselves in small habitual cells in which they can feel safe. People like this do not accept logic. When pressed to use logic, they will frequently attempt to move the talk away from the topic at hand, and are very likely to go defensive asking why you are attacking them in response to everything you say.”
And so on…
September 2nd, 2005 at 7:33 am
Steve – your post is one of the best descriptions I have ever seen of what Eric Berne, the guru of Transactional Analysys, once called a “crossed transaction.” The other person is expecting/wanting you to respond in a predictable way–argumentation or whatever. When people are responding to one another in ways that both can predict, they are participating in a parallel transaction. There are only two ways to stop parallel transactions when they are unhealthy: withdrawal or a crossed transaction.
It is easy though to fall into the traps described above by Nancy and by CRN when your own ego is invloved. When that is true, this or any method becomes merely a more sophisticated form of manipulation. Any technique–any–is ineffective at best and destructive at worst when approached without the spirit of the technique.
September 2nd, 2005 at 8:03 am
This is very psychological advice, and I think I’ve used this a couple of times in the past. By not attacking what people say, people soon let off all their steam…
September 2nd, 2005 at 4:43 pm
Steve,
I tried this technique out last night. My significant other came home and was in a mood. Apparently he’d had a fight with his dad on the phone. Normally in instances like this, he wouldn’t talk to me, he’d slam things around, I’d get upset, he’d be upset that I was upset, and it would end several hours later, quite horribly. This time I verbalized his words and actions to him, which allowed him to open up, get the thing about his dad off his chest, and move on with the night — all in less than half an hour! I also felt more immune to everything and was able not to get as upset because I knew I could do something about it. Of course, I wasn’t totally calm inside, but I managed to act it, and express love and concern instead of “I’m upset” vibes.
Thanks.
September 5th, 2005 at 6:57 am
This is an excellent article.
I’m just a little worried that people reading it might be lured into becoming detached from the emotions being played out in an argument.
Detachment is a bad thing. If someone says something hurtful and you don’t feel hurt by what they have said then you are detached from what is going on. Bad thing.
If someone says something hurtful to you but you have the self-control not to escalate the cycle of hurt then you are not detached. Good thing.
It’s important to remember that when you have had something hurtful said to you in an argument then you will still need to deal with your hurt in an approriate manner , at a later time.
September 5th, 2005 at 7:04 am
yay.. now i can win against myself
September 5th, 2005 at 7:44 am
interesting read, but ignorance is not always the best defence in an argument.
many times i have argued, been completely sure i was right, got right pissed off that the other person couldn’t see things my way..and a few of these times i have had a bombshell explode in my face, been completely put in my place and shown that i was AT LEAST PARTIALLY WRONG.
i think, or rather, i know, that this has made me a much smarter, stronger, better person
although i don’t enjoy arguing, i am sure glad for some of the argunents i have had in the past. if i had used some psychological tactic to break these people down, as opposed to hearing out their views, i would be a much more ignorant person today.
not to mention that fact that I have several friends who I end up arguing with semi-regularly, who would loose all respect for me if i didn’t have the dignity to stand up for what i believe in, or, more importantly, for acting like i am above them all of the time, which i am clearly not
in some cases, your advice is great. a couple, arguing about something stupid, something that both sides would agree is stupid, may benefit greatly from your diffusion techniques, but as a generalized rule about winning arguments, i don’t think it’s healthy
ignorance may be bliss to the ignorant, but that bliss is at the expensive of those gone ignored.
September 5th, 2005 at 8:03 am
Interesting article, i handle arguments in similar ways. The key factor is in avoiding an argument altogether which is all about harmony of communication. If there is no harmony of communication the other person will always disagree to try and save face.
The best thing to do in these circumstances is to restore harmony of communication by agreeing and redirecting the conversation.
September 5th, 2005 at 9:50 am
This seems to be sugar-coating passive-aggressive behaviour.
How is this different from ad hominem? http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/ad-hominem.html
What about arguing for a draw?
September 5th, 2005 at 10:09 am
Well done. After reading your article, I discussed it with my dad, who is a psychologist, and he agreed with your findings. He also pointed out that lawyers use a method similar to this, in that they attempt to take down a defendent’s argument, and if that fails, they then attempt to take down the defendent themselves.
September 5th, 2005 at 10:32 am
Yes this method works for when a real debate is not possible. Where it really doesn’t work is when the other person states they believe in fairy tails (example: the earth is flat and only 10,000 yrs old). Everyone is entitled to their own opinion but not their own facts. To dodge or argue such topics is a waste of everyone’s time, just refuse to feed the topic and/or walk away. Why contribute when it’s obvious they’ve been fed ignorance and believe it as truth. Their logic functions in a different realm of reality to follow them down that path even in deflection is a folly.
September 5th, 2005 at 1:57 pm
This is shady and deceitful. I am in agreement with CRN. If your goal is to “win” this is about your ego. That’s what comes across here more than anything: blindingly huge ego that refuses to engage in legitimate back-and-forth.
September 5th, 2005 at 3:09 pm
I tend to agree with Shawn, this does seem like passive-aggressive behaviour. What would you further suggest for people who cannot argue on the merits of their convictions? Urinating in their coffee? Perhaps spreading rumors behind their back? More classic passive-aggressive behaviour?
The purpose of argument is to resolve conflict and I can’t see how this resolves anything. Moreso, now that you’ve enlightened the unwashed masses to this “technique”, I wonder how many people will instantly feel like their antagtonist is engaging in manipulative behaviour against them?
Mongoose relates that such a tactic is employed by lawyers. It is common knowledge what high regard the general public holds towards individuals of that profession.
September 5th, 2005 at 4:55 pm
Do you EVER own anything?
I mean, if you actually do something wrong do you own it?
September 5th, 2005 at 6:29 pm
Man, if I were to get into arguments with people (which rarely happens), and I were to try to “deflect” all of their points by saying things like, “Hmm, okay, you seem quite emotionally attached to this issue…” I think I would just end up coming off as a flake every single time. Depending on your profession, this might not be so bad, but if you work in an environment where your image is directly related to your success, this is the last thing you want.
Most of the arguments that I get into are straight point-for-point debates with my co-workers. Most of the time, these go well because we’re always open to the other person’s idea as long as it’s presented in a calm manner. Whoever’s solution is technically the best (or appears to be the best) is implemented. I would imagine that a lot of I.T. shops around the world function this way.
You’re right when you say that highly emotional arguments are a dead-end no matter who’s right and who’s wrong. My best defense against these (to prevent them from blowing up any bigger and also to keep them from wasting my time) is to simply reply with a series of well-placed smart-aleck quips or even better, just tell them to come back after they’ve cooled down. If they don’t leave, give them the silent treatment. Either way, the other person will almost never approach you again screaming and hollering because they know that the tactic simply won’t work on you. (The latter doesn’t work too well with bosses, though, FYI.
)
September 5th, 2005 at 7:55 pm
I think those who believe that this is passive-aggressive or sticking-fingers-in-ears are missing the point, and that may be because the article’s title is somewhat misleading. To me, the difference between a discussion and an argument is that a discussion is a calm back-and-forth that tries to establish common ground, whilst an argument is an emotionally charged slanging match that’s more about winning and losing than coming to a consensus. Discussions are useful; arguments are often not, because they often don’t involve respecting the other side’s opinions nor end up with one side capitulating or admitting fault.
The aim of this (excellent) article, as I saw it, was showing how to defuse an argument so that a discussion could ensue at a later time. The calm discussion is the time to consider the other person’s views, not when they are red in the face and shouting at you.
September 5th, 2005 at 8:14 pm
@James: I agree — it seems many people missed the point of this article entirely. The article isn’t about debasing or evading the other person or playing chin-rubbing psychologist. It’s about bypassing resistance and getting to the real heart of a matter where deeper communication can occur.
I think it’s also possible the (intentionally provocative) title is throwing people off. Perhaps that was an error in judgment on my part. The article succeeding in attracting quite a bit of traffic (great), but I think the title probably hurts the message somewhat (bad).
September 5th, 2005 at 8:54 pm
I have to agree with those who say this technique is “unfair”. I think it’s a bit arrogant, even dishonest. You’re imagining yourself as a kind of guru who is there to enlighten the person you are disagreeing with. However, I don’t think you can be considered that enlightened when you don’t bother to suggest listening to what the other person has to say, and consider that they may have a point. If you don’t do that, you have no place posing as some kind of spiritual guide for the person you’re disagreeing with.
September 5th, 2005 at 11:28 pm
My sister uses these exact techniques on me during arguments, and just for the record, I can start an argument trying to say something I feel strongly about, and leave it feeling hurt and frustrated that she doesn’t even have the decency to address what it is we’re arguing about. My opinions are not founded on some deep psychological scars, you can cure me of whatever, and I’ll still fight the same battles. All this technique had ever done to me is build a barrier between me and my sister and left me feeling patronised and upset.
Maybe all the people who have used this on other people should consider who your enforced “patients” feel about it….
September 6th, 2005 at 12:11 am
Although I have used this “method” I now consider it dangerous.
I had a business partner who used this way non-stop when talking business with me. This guy was a lawyer and he definitively thought himself overseeing the situation by applying this method to “difficult meetings”. Like this, he never had to admit to anything (guilt, workshare,… you name it). It was easily recognizable as a method he had trained – maybe from a “win-every-argument-and-be-rich-in-10-easy-steps” book
. I couldn’t talk him out of using it.
That’s how I keep myself from using the method:
1 – Don’t use this tactic to “win”. Because you won’t.
) An argument might also all be about taking a stand and making your feelings clear.
It’s like applying Karate outside the gym. There is practically never a reason to do it. And you won’t be loved for it, but come across as a – slimy lawyer
2 – Don’t use this tactic to defuse an argument.
The “deflected” person will recognize the scheme after a while. If he really has an issue he wants to bring to you, he will get angry at a very profound level. And will resort to other measures of communication, which might be equally horrid.
(I admit that this might work as an anger containment method in spouse communication, where people know and trust each other really deeply anyway)
3 – Don’t use this to get “to a deeper communication”
After applying this method myself for a while and being worked on with this myself, in *NOT ONE CASE* this has lead to better level of understanding. But in a few cases, everything had become about clever tactics.
Somebody else tries to make a distinction between a discussion and an argument. As always, the lines here are very blurred. An argument might not be useful from a fact-point of view, but it is important from an emotional one.
This little hattrick in interpersonal communication will only bypass the emotional level of connection that is so essential for discussion of important issues.
The author argues that this article is not about evading other people. But in my experience this is exactly what this method has been used for: trying to evade a standpoint.
September 6th, 2005 at 12:15 am
For anybody wanting to improve his communication skills in “argument” situations I recommend “Nonviolent Communication” by Marshal Rosenberg.
Amazon link: http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/1892005034/104-6615716-6820747
September 6th, 2005 at 4:01 am
lol this rocks
September 6th, 2005 at 4:21 am
There’s a technique my wife taught me for dealing with our v. strong-willed young daughter; it’s called Active Listening, and it sounds at first blush very much like what you’re talking about. The couple of people referring to your post as “sugar-coated passive-aggression” or claiming it’s a way of NOT listening to someone are, thankfully, wrong. It’s actually a way of listening MORE — listening to the person, not to the person’s argument. If your entire purpose were to argue then this would indeed be the Wrong Thing, but if you’re trying instead to communicate then Active Listening is a serious win. Our daughter is much more relaxed and secure in herself because we’ve been doing this for the last couple of years, and we’ve used the technique with grown-up but sometimes childlike friends with similar effect.
Really, if you want to head off silly ill-informed criticism from the commenters here who just Don’t Get It, you can summarise thus: Listening Is More Important Than Talking, and Thinking Is More Intelligent Than Reacting. All else is froth — informative, illustrative, worthwhile, but ultimately froth.
September 6th, 2005 at 5:01 am
Anyone that would use these passive-aggressive tactics is showing no respect for either the argument or its advocate. You might deflect the argument talking like this, but everyone within earshot will think you’re dishonest and a weasel for doing so. You’re not actually raising anyone’s awareness – as you say – by using these lines. What you WILL do is piss them off, and rightly so.
The best and most honorable way to avoid getting sucked into an argument is to just flat-out say, “I can see we’re both passionate about our opinions on this subject. Maybe it’s best we just agree to disagree.” I guarantee, this will immediately end your unpleasant conversation and is much more satisfying than using obfuscatory language to frustrate your opponent.
By the way, if your intent is to burn the communications bridge, then you might as well blow up the dam along with it. Try this — no matter what someone is telling you, just respond by saying, “I know you say that now, but you’ll come around eventually…..sooner or later, they all come around.” Don’t forget to smirk and nod knowingly. Then sit back and watch the fireworks!
September 6th, 2005 at 5:52 am
This isn’t a way of winning an argument. It’s a way of refusing to argue. The whole thing is one gigantic logical fallacy. And anyone who has done any genuine argumentation knows that logical fallacies are two-edged swords. When used like they are here, they’re a list of inordinately effective rhetorical cheap shots. But if you’re dealing with someone who knows what they’re doing, they’ll recognize that you’re refusing to deal with what they say. This “method” is the logical equivalent of “I know you are but what am I?” It’s juvenile, irrational, frustrating, and counterproductive.
September 6th, 2005 at 6:01 am
Hello!
Please forgive me my incompetent English.
How would you deal with a type of person sometiems called ‘energy vampire’? The characteristic behaviuor of such people is, in brief, whining. They often engage you into a kind of consolidation, with a phrases like “I’m bad. I’m a broke. I’m loser. I feel terrible. I will fail.” Then, when you try to comfort them, they develop the frustration, and whatever you say they find yet another negative point. This may be targeted on a person’s own self, or an event, or whaterver else they’d imagine.
The problem with this is that you spend your own energy on giving relief, but don’t get anything valuable in return. I see three possible ways out of this situation:
– just terminate the relationship altogeather
– learn to give what they want without any harm for yourself
– learn to quickly (or permanently) shift the person’s view to positive.
What would you advise?
Thank you,
please cc: the reply to email if you’re interested in the topic,
Bohdan.
September 6th, 2005 at 6:34 am
I figured out the cause of the confusion.
This article was linked on digg.com and received hundreds of diggs there, which consequently sent some new traffic to this page (over 10,000 extra visitors and counting). However, it wasn’t clear to many of those visitors that this was a follow-up article to a previous post (as noted in the first sentence of the article). It’s clear from some of the comments that many people didn’t read the first part of the article, which is pretty important to understand the context of this article. If you read this article on its own without the context of the first article, I can see how it might convey a very different meaning.
For clarity… this article was only written within the context of dealing with difficult relatives (as explained in detail in the original article). The concepts were never intended to be extended outside that context, such as to having arguments with co-workers or proving who has the best facts.
Perhaps I’ll add some extra text to the opening of the article to help clarify that it’s a follow-up and not a stand-alone post.
September 6th, 2005 at 6:45 am
Ok, I added some extra text to the intro paragraph to help make it clear that this is a follow-up to a previous post. Hopefully that will help prevent people from erroneously thinking it’s a post about how to out-debate their co-workers.
September 6th, 2005 at 9:48 am
Hi,
I read some of the above comments with great interest (didn’t have time to read all of them). I practice NVC (nonviolent communiation, Rosenberg) as oft as I am able. For me, the practice above is something that would have been a first step to a change in consciousness. This “tactic,” if you will, would have been very helpful for me while I was making the shift in philosophy/consciousness to NVC. The whole “I am right and you are wrong” paradigm is difficult to ditch and finding away to let go of it is very liberating. In doing so, I think one is not allowing oneself to be held hostage by another’s anger. His method does not signify anywhere close to an endpoint of where I want to be energetically, but it’s a step in the “more connected” direction. I am feeling thankful for this article regardless of the fact that it’s far from my ideal for communication. There always has to be some kind of starting point when one travels down a new road.
September 6th, 2005 at 11:20 am
Even for the purpose of dealing with angry relatives, I am having a great deal of difficulty understanding how this “technique” is anything other than a flat refusal to address the issues at hand. I have dealt with unreasonable people (as likely we all have), some of them being relatives, and I’ve even been on the receiving end of tactics such as those described here (which usually I include in “dealing with unreasonable people”). Rather than trying to deflect arguments, I’ve found it far more useful to simply rely on facts, along with the principles of logical argument. I agree that it is essential not to let oneself become angry, but I think it is just as essential to view the argument AS an argument (which, by the way, is defined as the process of reaching a conclusion). Arguments need not necessarily be emotional affairs, despite the fact that they can sometimes be. In the case of the angry relatives (and most others), calmly providing provable and relevant facts tends to defuse anger more effectively (in my experience) than any form of deflection. My outlook is not that I am necessarily “right” or that they are necessarily “wrong”, but rather that I seek the truth at the heart of the issue. My purpose is to learn what that truth is. Even if both my beliefs and those of the angry relative (or other person) do not ultimately change, usually I leave with at least the respect of both the one I was arguing with and any who were listening.
The main problem I have with the tactics described in this article is that they fail to address whatever issue(s) the other person is having such strong feelings about, focusing instead on how to deflect those issues back at the person (i.e. “becomming a mirror”). I think a better approach would be to listen, analyze, and understand, and move from there.
September 6th, 2005 at 12:30 pm
Wow, definitely sounds like some family members I’ve dealt with in my life. I can clearly see that it’s not for arguments between two level-headed people with a well defined point-counter point format (this isn’t for debate club). This is for that person who throws constant put downs, irrational reasons, and some emotional force into the mix…someone who will not hear what you have to say anyways.
This is prime for arguments that begin with the word “You”
“You don’t appreciate what I do around here,”
“You don’t trust me with…”
“You didn’t tell me that…”
“Why do you always…”
“You’re not…”
These are arguments where even admitting to be at fault doesn’t always end the yelling, blaming, or stonewalling.
Therapists have given similar advice. By repeating what the other person has said, you’re making it clear that you are listening to them, no matter how insane they seem at the time, and you are making them listen to themselves. I’ve had arguments where I’ve said “Listen to yourself! How can you say that? You don’t know what you’re saying!” when the more appropriate response would have been “you mean to tell me that ….” and repeat what they’ve said.
September 6th, 2005 at 11:23 pm
This technique could also be known as using “empowering questions”, depending on the level that they are used at. “Mirroring” is a very basic [and irritating IMO] form of questioning that will generally work if the person you’re mirroring is easily deflected and doesn’t have the discipline to push for a result/answer to their problem (i.e. you’re having a chat rather than solving a problem). It’s why counsellors have a bad rap.
Empowering questions require you to have insight into what the real problem / driving force is in the other person. A simple one is “Why do you need to do that?”, and many more are above. One of the key things about an EQ is that it is specific to a situation, so if you get it wrong, it will be an irrelevant question : “why do you want to drink?” – obvious answer: “to get drunk”.
I’d like to add a note of warning about this technique (one of the basics of counselling that many [counsellors] do not realise). It is easy to open a wound, but unless you have the insight and truth to be able to help heal, you will do more harm than good.
Catharsis can be helpful in some situations, but often it is just a pressure release and allow opening for healing the underlying issues. Chatharsis in itself is not a goal, and excessive catharsis should start warning bells.
Oh, I re-read my comment and want to add one more think (another counselling basic): you must have permission to ask an empowering question. They can be very powerful, and can receive a very powerful response. An expert in this technique (NOT me), can reduce people to tears within minutes or seconds.
So, don’t be arrogant, listen, and above all, question and evaluate yourself (debrief) after every “session”. If you want to help, you have to help yourself improve.
September 7th, 2005 at 9:30 pm
About allergy:
I used to have several ones and they all moved the way of the dodo by being treated with NAET (see http://www.naet.com/).
It’s really incredible how well it works.
Talking about peanut allergy, a relative who went in shock just by smelling them is now completely OK.
Of course, this is not helping the drug vendors
September 8th, 2005 at 1:14 am
I wholeheartedly agree with the advice given in the article, but I am having problems controlling my own emotions, and sense of incompetence and/or helplessness, so with that I am over sensitive.
I have been told many times that I take things too personally, but I can’t let go of it completely, because I have been proved right as many times as I was wrong. Descerning between criticsm/comment and personal affront is the difficult thing!
Honestly I believe that I am a very intuitive person and many times when people think they have gotten away with passing “personalised” remarks, I catch them on it, and normally they deny, but many times we talk it out and everything comes out into the open…
I have two questions. How do I handle the weakness of my own? And how do I actually get results from aggressive players, who are used to steam rolling the cllient into giving up? (Mirroring may work in the immediate, but over the phone to someone who has no intention of meeting their deadlines can become a hopeless situation for the client)
Great Article!
Thank you,
September 10th, 2005 at 6:31 am
Interesting article and interesting approach, thank you! However I am not rather sure how exactly I can win an argument without bringing any arguments into the discussion. I mean I can be “reflexive” as you wrote, Steve, but it isn’t actually a discussion then – it is just a way to shut up the person I am trying to have a discussion with, isn’t it?
With warm greetings from Saarbruecken, Saarland, Germany,
Vitaly Friedman