How to Win Arguments. Robert Allen
Читать онлайн книгу.
the death of Christianity to the existence of God, something interesting had happened. A final vote about religious beliefs showed that, as you might expect, none of the atheists and Christians had changed their view. However, among the agnostics Richard’s speech had convinced about ten to change their mind, while Jim had persuaded none. Thus, although Jim won the debate on a show of hands, the true lesson for me was that a powerful belief in what you are saying is one of the biggest assets you can have in an argument.
Arguments can seem like a verbal free-for-all in which the participants simply hurl at each other whatever missiles come to hand. However, there are a number of elements that always contribute to the making of any argument and the way in which these elements combine will tell you much about the form the argument may be expected to take. What are these elements? Here’s a list.
Concern for Truth
It is always worth considering to what extent the parties are trying to reach the truth. Of course, your opponent’s ‘truth’ may not be yours but, if you feel that he is trying, by his own lights, to get at a rational analysis of the situation then you will have more confidence in his arguments and be willing to give them a more sympathetic hearing. If, on the other hand, you are pretty sure that your opponent is only concerned to get his own way, to score a victory for the body he represents, or to inflict a humiliating defeat on you, then you will be suspicious of any arguments he may use.
Unfortunately, concern for truth is usually one of the rarest elements in any argument. Even among scientists and academics who spend their whole lives trying to deepen their understanding of their chosen field, it is common to find a degree of partisanship that does not do the truth any favours at all. Evidence that supports their own view is put forward while contrary findings are belittled or ignored.
The stories of this happening are too many to tell here but, as just one illustration, let’s take the example of the Wright brothers and their experiments with a heavier-than-air flying machine. Although their efforts were widely reported, the experts persisted in dismissing them as poppycock. Heavier-than-air flight was impossible and so it followed that what these two charlatans were doing must be a fraud. The early tests took place in a field that lay beside a railroad track and were witnessed by many rail passengers as they passed by, but that counted for nothing in the eyes of the experts. You will quickly realize that if you get involved in an argument where a genuine quest for the truth is involved you will be extremely fortunate. When both parties struggle to reach a deeper level of truth by engaging in constructive argument they are experiencing one of the mental processes that sets us apart from our fellow primates. We rightly regard this phenomenon with great respect. So much so that we do not normally refer to it as ‘argument’ at all, but as discussion.
Self-interest
Another important element to be aware of is the extent to which the participants in an argument stand to gain from the outcome. The most obvious example is where there is some material gain in money or goods that is eagerly sought by the parties. There is also the question of a gain in status that comes from winning an argument but this is such an important element in arguments that it deserves, and will get, a section all to itself.
When getting involved in an argument it is as well to consider just what is at stake financially. Ask yourself what, if anything, your opponent stands to gain. This will give you great insight into the lengths to which he may go to defeat you. An argument over whose turn it is to buy the next round in the pub is likely to be fought less tenaciously than one over the ownership of, say, a champion racehorse or a valuable building site. This should not be taken as an infallible guide (see the sections on Status and Emotional Content), but it must be urgently considered.
There is another important consideration. People involved in arguments may not always tell the truth. They may either lie deliberately to deceive you about their true motives or they may even mislead themselves about what those motives are. It can be very hard indeed to unmask a good liar. The idea that liars look shifty or give themselves away with special body-language signs is laughably naive. When you are confused about who is telling the truth it is as well to consider what each participant has to gain. This may not be an infallible guide but it is often the only clue you will get.
What of your own motives? It is in the nature of argument that sometimes you will merely be trying to get your own way. Truth, Justice or the Greater Good will simply not enter your thoughts. This is human nature. However, if you are aware that that is what you are doing then you will be in a much better position to handle the argument. Naturally you will rationalize your position so that you feel justified in getting your own way (this is a psychological trick we all use as a matter of course). But if you can retain some vestige of impartiality you will be able to construct an argument that at least appears to be based on a desire to get at a just solution.
You should also weigh your advantage very carefully against the possible costs of getting what you want. For example, if you do battle with A over this matter and win you may feel very pleased with yourself. On the other hand, suppose your relationship with A is ongoing and you know that soon you will have to argue over matters that are even more important to you. What do you do? Perhaps by giving him a fair deal this time you will soften him up for a hard argument when it really matters. On the other hand you may reason that if you thrash the pants off A right now you will be able to use your psychological advantage to overcome him again in the future. Your actions in this situation will depend mainly on your reading of A’s character, but an accurate assessment of the material gains to be made will tell just how far it is worth going with your argument. Would you, for example, be wise to offend someone mortally over a matter that was only worth a few pounds? Arguments quickly get out of hand, tempers become inflamed, pride suffers and before you know where you are you may find yourself engaged in a major war over something that is worth only a trifle.
Status
Anyone who has read this far will be in no doubt that I do not have much faith in human beings as rational creatures. A glance at today’s news headlines (any day, any country) will bear me out. That is why the issue of status assumes such importance in the realm of argument. It is utterly irrational, a throwback to our animal ancestors, and yet it still exerts an iron control over our behaviour. One can readily understand why baboons may depend for their success on organising their family groups on the basis of status. But people? The thinking apes? Unfortunately it is all too true.
Status in arguments is seen best within a business environment or in some highly structured organization such as the army or police. Anyone who has ever worked in an office or factory will have seen a boss who is always right, no matter how wrong he may be. Bosses like this don’t argue about the facts of a case (they may well be ignorant of them and, in any case, they regard them as largely irrelevant). No, their chief concern will be that by pursuing a particular course successfully (getting their own way), and putting down any opposition they may encounter, they get to stay Chief Baboon.
Subordinates will often play along with this game by deliberately deferring to the boss and letting his opinions hold sway even when they know he is wrong. In that way they help to confirm his status and thus bolster their own position in the pecking order. One of the features of a pecking order is that people do not mind it as long as it remains unchanged. In fact they will engage in regular rituals that are designed specifically to reconfirm the order. However, someone who dares to try to upset the status quo will spark off the bitterest of status arguments.
Another interesting feature of status is that the people who concern themselves with it do not have to be ‘important’. It is not only officers and gentlemen who worry about their pecking orders. Think for a moment of the stock comedy figures of the mild-mannered gentlefolk who organize the church flower rota. Anyone who has experienced the intrigues and political chicanery attendant upon a church flower rota will know that the issue of status is just as important to the meek and humble as to the high and mighty.