How to win disputes?
How many exists people, exactly as much are available own points of view on, apparently, same facts for these people. Not without reason old wisdom says: “At everyone the truth“. It is natural that distinction of views of things leads to confrontation, the conflicts and disputes between people from time to time.
In general, people like to argue. In this occupation many catch the special drive, a way to show power of the intelligence. Dispute allows to feel primitive spirit of fight, probably, the most harmless, simple and public of all possible ways. However often at the same time “ecstasy fight“ the main sense of any discussion is forgotten - to incline the interlocutor on the party in the discussed question. Here also it turns out that, it seems, the person thoroughly understands a subject, actually completely proved the position, and his vis-a-vis all the same kept the own opinion and does not want to listen to arguments of the first more at all. On this soil there can often be serious conflicts and quarrels.
But how competently to convince the person so that the interlocutor completely accepted the arguments and arguments stated by you, having made them the? Various thinkers and philosophers asked this question since the most ancient times.
In Ancient Greece ability to win dispute was brought to the art level. In the same place there was a whole science called by sophistry which studied ways of a competent statement of a certain material for belief of both one opponent, and a large number of people. Wise men - sophists trained large statesmen in art of eloquence and skills of conducting political debates.
In spite of the fact that there passed not one thousand years, did not begin to argue less (rather on the contrary) and these skills kept the relevance. During our era “the person - the car“ when the suppressing number of people work, has a good time and even eat food and sleep in front of the computer monitor, often without finding time for full real-life communication, art of competent conducting dialogue (and dispute in particular) became at all worth its weight in gold.
In general, to win against the best option dispute is it to avoid. This thought, by its deep consideration, is deprived of visible at first sight excessive pacifism. The matter is that the human nature is so arranged that any conflict is perceived by us as a call, and the this conflict is more harmless, the it is more temptation this call to accept, without being afraid of consequences. If discussion of a problem turned into dispute, then it is worth expecting that the vis-a-vis will look for very much at himself in the head (and often and to think out) confirmations of the point of view, trying to destroy your arguments by all means. If initially to try to convince the interlocutor in the form of soft conversation, then in most cases it is possible to avoid similar confrontation. At such form of belief happens it is useful to adhere to an induction method (from the particular to the general), that is at first to state all arguments which are available for you in favor of this point of view but only then to state her. In this case the interlocutor or will agree with your opinion, or, getting into dispute, will be forced to disprove at first at once several your arguments declared in the beginning that much more difficult, than to disprove them in turn (in process of receipt).
At this tactics it is useful to use Socrates`s rule: “At first ask the person two simple questions which he will be forced to answer o U-00AByes“; and only then set to it the third, important for you, a question“. This rule will work with considerably bigger force if the questions assuming an affirmative answer are your arguments. Their quantity not necessarily has to equal to two - the more the better (reasonably). If you conform to this simple rule, then when you introduce the main idea, the interlocutor should agree as he just reasoned this thought with the affirmative answers on the questions making it.
When conducting dialogue in the form of dispute (if it all - happened) very important as well ability to listen to arguments of the vis-a-vis. If smoothly to shout, without listening to the interlocutor, then your thoughts what true they would not be, will be perceived by the opponent as something alien and imposed to him against will and, as a result, will cause conscious (and it is frequent also subconscious) a protest. But if it is attentive to listen to arguments of the person in the beginning, then it is possible to construct for them a competent denial, thereby having disarmed him. After that it is necessary to introduce the ideas and to prove the vision of a problem.
However at such tactics it is only necessary to listen patiently to one, at most three arguments (depending on their volume) then to turn into counterattack, disproving them. Otherwise, you can appear in a situation when the interlocutor just showers you with the thoughts. Trying to spread out on regiments and to disprove at once several statements, you can just become puzzled.
Consistently to disprove statements of the vis-a-vis, try to look on a problem at him with eyes. At the same time you will be able to understand better all components a problem elements and, having analysed others position, it is simple to sort it on bricks.
At creation of own position try that strong arguments were stated at the beginning and at the very end of dialogue . The consciousness is arranged so that the person well remembers generally only those words and statements which he heard at the beginning and at the end of conversation, what was in the middle, is often swept aside as garbage. Therefore if you want to incline for a long time the person on the party in any problem, it is necessary to remember this regularity of human mentality.
You remember also that bigger value for the interlocutor has how we speak and as at the same time we look, than what we tell (it is caused by work of our subconsciousness which on several million years is more senior than our thinking). Actively use nonverbal means of conducting dialogue (open gestures, a friendly mimicry) and you speak by a quiet and equal voice. In general competently is able to use nonverbal communication (game by voice) not so many people. To learn this art, once you observe, public figures behave (stars of cinema and show - business, policy etc.) . For independent studying of nonverbal elements directly when conducting dispute it is useful to watch carrying out political debate.
And at last, the most important rule of any discussion - try to treat with sincere respect both for the opponent, and for his point of view. If you put pressure and put too actively rigid psychological pressure, then the interlocutor can even agree for the sake of appearance (that you lagged behind it) with you, however actually will not accept your opinion, having kept the own opinion. It can cause lack of mutual understanding further. Remember that how many people - are so much also opinions.