Choosing these or other arguments, you need to take care that they affect not only the mind of the listeners, but also their feelings - duty, responsibility, camaraderie, etc., because such a speech is better remembered.
- 1. The use of humor, irony and sarcasm. These tools enhance the polemical tone of speech, its emotional impact on listeners, help to defuse a tense situation and achieve success in a dispute.
- 2. Often there is such a technique as “bringing to absurdity”, “reduction to absurdity”. The essence of this technique is to show the falsity of the thesis or argument, since the consequences arising from it contradict reality.
- 3. Receiving a "return strike", or the so-called "boomerang reception". Its essence lies in the fact that the thesis or argument is turned against those who expressed them, while the force of the blow increases many times over.
- 4. A variation of the “return strike” technique is considered to be the “pick up cue” technique. This technique is often used when speaking at conferences and rallies.
- 5. Sometimes, instead of discussing the issue on the merits, they begin to evaluate the merits and demerits of the person who put it forward. Such a technique in polemics is called "an argument to a person." It has a strong psychological impact.
- 6. A variation of the “argument to a person” technique is the “appeal to the public” technique. The purpose of this technique is to influence the feelings of listeners, their opinions, interests, to incline the audience to the side of the speaker.
- 7. Polemical technique "attack with questions". The German philosopher I. Kant wrote: "The ability to raise reasonable questions is already an important and necessary sign of intelligence or insight."
Question types:
Questions are considered correct (correctly posed) if their premises are true judgments.
Questions are considered incorrect (incorrectly posed) if they are based on false or vague judgments.
By nature, questions are neutral, benevolent and unfavorable (hostile, provocative).
In the course of the discussion of problems, acute questions are often posed, that is, questions of current, vital, and fundamental importance.
Answer types:
In a dispute, witty answers are always appreciated. Distinguish between correct and incorrect answers. If the answer contains judgments that are true and logically related to the question, then it is considered correct. Incorrect, erroneous answers include answers that incorrectly reflect reality.
In addition, positive answers (containing the desire to understand the questions posed) and negative ones (expressing a refusal to answer the question posed) are distinguished.
Regardless of the type and nature of the questions, the polemicist should strictly adhere to the principle - to answer the question only if its essence is completely clear and when you know the correct answer.
Four rules for successful controversy, dispute:
- 1. Understand the essence of the statement;
- 2. Create a favorable atmosphere;
- 3. Do not humiliate, do not hurt pride;
- 4. Elevate your opponent.
- 1. Avoid "confusing" emotions.
- 2. Keep it simple.
- 3. Get your way.
- 4. Don't let yourself get sidetracked.
- 5. Don't be afraid to make mistakes.
- 6. Focus on mutual victory.
- 4. Dishonest methods of conducting controversy
They are used to confuse the enemy.
- 1. A trick called the “many questions fallacy.” The opponent is simultaneously asked several different questions under the guise of one and requires an immediate yes or no answer. The essence of the technique lies in the fact that the sub-questions included in this question are directly opposite to each other: one of them requires the answer "yes", and the other - "no". The respondent, without noticing this, gives an answer to only one of the questions.
- 2. Dodging questions. Sometimes polemicists simply let the answer pass, as they say, past their ears, as if not noticing it.
- 3. Often in a dispute, opponents sneer at the questions posed by the other side: “Do you consider your question serious?”
- 4. Often a negative assessment is given to the question itself: “This is an immature question,” etc.
- 5. The most common method in a dispute is considered to be “answering a question with a question”. Not wanting to answer the question posed or having difficulty in finding an answer, the polemicist poses a counter question to the opponent's question.
- 6. Experiencing difficulties in discussing a problem, polemicists resort to the “answer on credit” method: referring to the complexity of the issue, they transfer the answer to the future.
- 5. Permissible and impermissible tricks in the conduct of a dispute
During the discussion, the disputants often find themselves in difficult situations and try to find some way out of them.
- 1. Often they try to "put off the objection" imperceptibly for the opponent. To this end, they begin the answer from afar, with something not directly related to this issue; refute secondary arguments, and then, having gathered strength, break the main arguments of the opponent.
- 2. When the polemicist does not want to admit his mistakes openly, he resorts to speech turns that allow him to soften and correct the situation: “I didn’t mean to say that”; "These words inaccurately expressed my thought"; "Let me clarify my position", etc.
Unscrupulous polemicists resort to impermissible tricks, wishing to facilitate the dispute for themselves and make it more difficult for the enemy.
As a rule, these tricks contain elements of cunning and outright deception. They show a rude, disrespectful attitude towards the opponent.
Such tricks include the following:
"Bet on false shame." For example, citing an unsaid or even false conclusion, the opponent accompanies it with the phrases: “You, of course, know that science has long established ...”; "Do you still not know?"
"Oiling the Argument". A weak argument, which can be easily rebutted, is accompanied by a compliment to the opponent. In such cases, they say the following: “You, as a smart person, will not deny ...”, etc.
Use in disputes as arguments of reference to your age, education, position. Quite often we come across such reasoning: “If you live to my age, then judge,” etc.
Bet on diverting the conversation.
The bet is to turn the conversation into a contradiction between word and deed.
Translating the question into terms of benefit or harm.
In a public dispute, suggestion has a great influence. That is why one should not succumb to such a common trick as a self-confident, peremptory, decisive tone.
Ridicule, the desire to interrupt the speech of the enemy, the expression of distrust of his words, a sharp negative assessment of his statements, an offensive remark, insult and obstruction - all these are negative tricks designed to suggest and psychologically influence the participants in the dispute.
To arouse a desire to start a dispute, to involve all those present in an active exchange of views is the main task of the leader of the discussion, dispute, polemic. He should be quite skillful and flexible, trying, for example, to provoke a discussion on the curriculum, he should not pass by topical issues of reality, one way or another related to the topic. An invitation to theoretically explain certain complex problems of everyday life, i.e. to combine theory with practice most easily cause a dispute, for example, at a seminar.
A dispute in a lesson, a dispute can also arise spontaneously about an erroneous remark, a question from one of the listeners and an incorrect or contradictory answer to it by another, etc. In this case, the leader must skillfully support the discussion that has arisen and direct it in the right direction. It is necessary that the discussion, the dispute should always be focused, i.e. were conducted around the thesis put forward, did not deviate far from the main problem, so that by the end of the discussion its participants would not ask: “And where did we actually start?”. It is important that the disputants patiently listen to the end of the opinion of their opponents, even if they are mistaken, and then tactfully explain their mistake. The atmosphere of the discussion should be such that everyone can honestly, without fear, express their opinion. A business dispute should never turn into a squabble, in exchange for barbs. Ridicule, insulting irony, rudeness in a civilized dispute are unacceptable, and the ethics and culture of the dispute are obligatory.
The correct way to prove one's opinion is not to confuse the opponent and not to demonstrate to him his incompetence in any matter, but to solve an important business issue.
Speaking against the opinion of the opponent it is important:
know when to and when not to defend one's point of view;
know which issues can be discussed and which cannot;
Know how to object without causing irritation, how to prove your opinion and not be unpleasant for your opponent.
If you think it is necessary to object to your interlocutor, try to do it tactfully, while avoiding confrontation and hostility.
The nature of contradictions in a dispute often depends on the issue under discussion, the emotional background during its discussion, the psychological interpersonal compatibility of the two disputants, and the experience of professional relations. If the argument is lost, you should accept it as a fact without losing your "I". Demonstration of dissatisfaction with the results of the discussion can lead to a break in relations and alienation on the part of the opponent. If the dispute is won, one should not rejoice about this. It is better to express gratitude for understanding and accepting your position.
Rules for defending your point of view:
1. Operate with simple, clear and precise concepts.
2. Conduct the argument correctly in relation to the partner:
openly and immediately recognize the correctness of the partner, if he is right;
Continue to operate only with those arguments and concepts that have already been accepted by the partner;
First, answer the partner's arguments, and then only bring your own;
Maintain courtesy in any situation.
3. Consider the personal characteristics of the partner:
aim the argument at the goals and motives of the partner;
· try to avoid a simple enumeration of facts and arguments, it is better to show the benefits;
Use terminology that your partner understands;
Measure the pace and richness of your argumentation with the peculiarities of your partner's perception.
4. Try to present your ideas, considerations, evidence as clearly as possible, while not forgetting the strategies and modalities of your partner.
5. Remember that overly detailed argumentation, “chewing” an idea, can cause a sharp rejection on the part of a partner, a couple of bright arguments sometimes achieve a greater effect.
6. Use special reasoning techniques.
7. Timely make generalizations and conclusions based on the results of the discussion.
Options for the course of the discussion-dispute:
Heuristic approach
Humor, irony and sarcasm are essential psychological elements of a public debate. They enhance the polemical tone of the speech, its emotional impact on the listeners, helping to defuse a tense situation, create a certain mood when discussing sensitive issues.
Dishonest tricks:
Particularly noteworthy are the numerous psychological tricks in the dispute, based on knowledge of the properties of the human soul and its weaknesses. Since we think and argue worse in a state of excitement, confusion, internal tension, the main part of psychological tricks is designed to unbalance a person, provoke him to rash actions and words. For this, rudeness and insults, mockery, unfair accusations, ridicule, etc. are used. The following psychological techniques are especially often used:
· "Do not let me come to my senses." A person is dumbfounded by something, they say
ryat quickly, confusingly, stupidly, and then, without giving time to come to their senses, victoriously exit the dispute (this trick is perfectly illustrated by V. Shukshin's story "Cut!").
· Distracting maneuver. The main idea is camouflaged by the secondary
topics and thus divert attention from it in the hope that it will be possible to smuggle it in unnoticed (the tricks “False Trail”, “Bait” are especially popular).
· Bet on false shame. Under "sauce" "it's common knowledge
fact, don't you know?!" false or unsubstantiated argument is presented. If a person is afraid to admit that he does not know this, he is in a trap.
· Speculation on moral values. It's the same game on the human
eternal weakness - the desire to seem better. The bet is on the fact that a person will agree with the arguments for fear of appearing conservative, uncultured, etc.
· "Oiling the Argument". A trick that softens the soul with flattery
opponent: “You, as a smart person, will not deny ...” or “Of course, not everyone will understand this argument, but you, with your mind and education ...” This technique works almost flawlessly.
· external credibility. This is a persuasive tone and demeanor.
huddle, representative appearance, unshakable firmness and self-righteousness. All this has great inspiring power and in a dispute is one of the most powerful tricks.
· Work for the public. Based on the exploitation of the previous
· Labels for arguments. A mockery of the words and arguments of
the opponent is easily "swallowed" by the listeners.
The validity of arguments directly depends on the status of the one who supports them.
· "Drumming". The same idea is presented in a different form
and under different "sauces". The effectiveness of such a trick of suggestion can be easily judged by the experience of advertising.
· Argument "to the individual". Discussion of personal characteristics of op-
component, its advantages and disadvantages instead of proving the thesis.
· Arguments for ignorance. Exploited by ignorance
opponent, due to which there is a distortion of facts, "interpretation" of information and events.
· Arguments for Compassion. Reception is designed to excite
feelings of sympathy, empathy.
· Argument for profit. Instead of a rationale for the decision
agitate to be guided by momentary gain, not caring about the consequences.
· Argument "common sense". Often used as an appel
tion to ordinary consciousness instead of real substantiation.
· Argument for loyalty. Instead of logic, argumentation emphasizes
feelings of respect, attachment to a given organization, persons, etc.
· Argument to the public. Expressed in common expressions like
“the people will not understand us” and “according to the numerous wishes of the working people, etc.”
Has it ever happened to you that the teacher did not believe you, even though you spoke the law? Or did you really need him to believe, even though you were telling a lie? It's time to unlock the secrets of the psychology of persuasion. Earlier, we already talked about some persuasion life hacks that are used by special services.
The essence of the problem and its duality
What makes us believe or not believe in this or that story? That's right: the logic of the story!
Logic has a direct impact on our mind. But in order to achieve maximum effect, do not forget about the feelings that give credibility to what has been said. That is, it is always worth remembering: you can prove something, but it will not be possible to forcefully convince.
Let's take a look from the other side. If you act on feelings and do not take into account logical justifications, you will be able to convince, but not prove.
Outcome: in order for what is being proved to be convincing, and for what is convincing to be evidentiary, it is necessary to apply both logical and non-logical methods of proof and persuasion.
Justification of the thesis, in which, together with logical methods, methods of non-logical influence are used, is called argumentation.
Types and examples of non-logical tricks
The topic of non-logical techniques is well covered in the subject of "rhetoric" (the science of oratory). Using the methods described there, you can achieve an incredible effect:
- expressive speech,
- brighten what is said
- increasing emotionality,
- active influence on the senses.
To achieve all this, they use metaphors, epithets, repetitions, means that enhance the emotionality and imagery of the process.
There are others simple rhetorical tricks: the pace of speech and its intonation, the masterful use of pauses in speech, gestures, facial expressions, and so on.
It is recommended to use rhetorical methods only in combination with logical techniques. If you overdo it with oratorical tools and neglect logical ones, the argument turns into demagoguery - an outwardly beautiful statement, but empty in content.
Such a speech can convince, but not prove. Therefore, you will have to look for other methods of persuasion.
4 controversial methods of persuasion
- Demagogy . Its goal is to mislead by distorting facts, using flattery, false promises, adjusting to the tastes and mood of people. Demagogy is akin to populism, which is often resorted to by unscrupulous politicians. Their goal is to achieve wide publicity for knowingly false promises. The demagogue seeks to create a certain mood, changing people's feelings with his speech. He actively uses sophistry, deliberately violates the rules of logic by juggling facts, creating the appearance of evidence.
- Suggestion . Like the previous method, suggestion seeks to use the human senses. The speaker tries to infect listeners with his emotional state, feelings and his own attitude towards the ideas being promoted. The intensity of passions and infection with the feelings of the speaker allows the speaker to achieve the creation of a general mental state of people.
- Infection . People are involuntarily subject to certain mental states - massive outbreaks of various mental states that can manifest themselves during the performance of ritual dances, during panic, at the moment of sports excitement. The speaker skillfully uses this susceptibility of people who are in the crowd, the mass, since it is in the accumulation of other people that every feeling or action is contagious. In the course of using this method, the consciousness of the individual disappears in people, the human unconscious prevails. Thoughts and feelings of people move in one direction, and there is also a need to immediately, without delay, implement all the ideas that have just appeared in the head.
- Sophistry . Here there is a deliberate, conscious violation of the rules of logic. The purpose of sophistry is to lead to an implicitly wrong conclusion.
There are clear rules, without which the speech may seem unconvincing or unsubstantiated.
Rules of evidence and refutation
The biggest danger in argumentation or justification is the assumption of logical errors that occur when certain rules are violated.
Be careful and observe the following rules of the basic methods of proof and persuasion.
Thesis rule
Rule #1: Thesis statement should be clear and concise. The concepts that are included in the thesis must be unambiguous, with clarity of judgment and an indication of a quantitative characteristic (you cannot prove that it is part of some, passing off as being part of everything).
Why violation? Firstly, it is not specified who it is - "we". Secondly, it does not say whether they will make all or only some Russians rich. Thirdly, the very concept of "wealth" is too vague and relative - it can be both spiritual and material, a wealth of ideas or knowledge, and in the same spirit.
Rule number 2: the thesis must be stably unchanged throughout the proof. As in the previous rule, the principle of identity plays the main role here. If the thesis is not fully formulated, it is not forbidden to make clarifications in the process of proof. However, its essence and content should not change.
It is also necessary to ensure that there is no substitution of the thesis - when the proof of a new thesis is put forward to prove the originally put forward thesis. This is a big logical fallacy.
Substitution of the thesis is of two types:
- Partial substitution of the thesis- strengthening or weakening of the thesis, changing its quantitative characteristics or replacing the concept of one volume with a new concept of another volume. Example: the softer thesis “this act is an offense” is replaced by the stronger one “this act is a crime” (or vice versa) . Why is this a mistake? Because an offense is not always a crime, but can be an administrative or disciplinary offense.
- Complete substitution of the thesis- putting forward a new thesis, similar to the original, but not equal to it. Logical diversion is one of the subtypes of this logical fallacy. In this case, the opponent, unable to find the proper arguments to prove the thesis, tries to change the subject, switch his attention to another issue.
Argument rule
Rule #1: An argument must be true and proven by propositions. A false argument will not be able to prove or disprove the thesis put forward.
The use of false grounds leads to the appearance of a logical error, which is called the main fallacy. An argument is only an argument when it is not only true, but proven.
Therefore, if an argument cannot be proved, then it is no argument at all. If this requirement is not met, then logical error, as an anticipation of the foundation .
For example, in the past, no other arguments were required if a person admitted his guilt . It was believed that this is the best evidence. Therefore, in practice, completely different methods of influence were used, among which were physical ones. But we know that our own confession can be both true and false. So, it cannot be a sufficient basis for admitting guilt.
Modern law states that a personal confession of guilt can only be a primary charge if there is cumulative evidence in a case to support the confession.
Rule #2: An argument must be based on judgments whose truth is independent of the thesis. Sometimes, to avoid making the logical fallacy of anticipating a reason, people refer to a thesis. This is also logical fallacy "circle of evidence" - when arguments are substantiated by theses, and theses - by an argument.
A great example of a circle of evidence is when people try to prove that a person is a rational animal by the fact that he can reason. And the ability to reason is proved by the fact that man is a rational animal.
Rule number 3: the argument must be sufficient for the thesis. A logical fallacy can be a speech that has too few or too many arguments. Thus, if there are too few of them, the argument seems irrelevant to justify the falsity or truth of the thesis. If there are too many of them, the process of proof becomes unclear, it is easy to find contradictions and weak links in it.
Demonstration Rule
The rule of demonstration is the rule of inference in the form of which the demonstration is built.
It must always be remembered that there must be a logical connection between theses and arguments. If this rule is violated, such a logical error arises as imaginary following - evidence of the absence of this very connection, i.e. when the thesis does not follow from the argument.
An example of a violation of the rule of inference: the statement “he is healthy” cannot be a consequence of the statement “he has a normal temperature, since we know that many diseases occur without an increase in body temperature.
There are other demo errors:
- from what was said with a condition to what was said unconditionally- when an argument that is true only under certain conditions turns into an argument outside the context of these conditions. For example, when a doctor recommends that a patient take antibiotics, this does not mean that a sick person with any other disease must take these antibiotics;
- from separative to collective- when an argument true for a certain part is used to substantiate a thesis that belongs to the entire set. For example, the statement about the benefits of winter swimming for walruses is not unquestionably true for humans;
- from collective to divisive- when a statement that is true for a collective sense is used for a statement in a divisive sense. For example, a positive characterization of a group of people is not a sufficient basis for a positive characterization of individual members of this group.
Using false arguments
It is also interesting that in rhetoric there are a number of rather convincing techniques that are completely rejected by logic. They are called arguments and are used in various disputes, discussions, debates of the parties in courts.
- Lead to personality. This is the logical basis of the statement, but refers to additional methods of persuasion. It is used in argumentation (for example, in characterizing the offender).
- Lead to the public. The speaker tries to evoke certain feelings in the public in such a way as to change their attitude towards the issue on the agenda. This argument reinforces the existing argument. But it is better not to use it without (or as a substitute for) the main evidence.
- Lead to authority. Here, the statement of famous personalities (scientists, politicians, philosophers) is used as the main argument. Like the previous methods of persuading a person, this argument is recommended to be used as an additional, and not the main one.
- Leading to Compassion. Often, in order to get a positive assessment or contribute to a satisfactory solution to the issue, a person tries to arouse sympathy or pity for himself or someone.
- Lead to ignorance. The prudent use of arguments known to be unknown to the public.
- Lead to profit. This is based on the assumption that the arguments provided will be positively received by the listeners only because they are beneficial. For example, in the course of an election appeal, people automatically have a better attitude towards someone who promises wage increases without evidence, because the people are interested in this.
- Lead to strength. The use of threats to those who express their disagreement with the theses expressed.
None of these arguments is perceived by logic because the purpose of the proof is to substantiate the truth.
So, in the process of discussion, the interlocutor can use the following manipulation techniques and methods of persuasion and suggestion:
- substitution of theses in the process of evidence;
- the use of a thesis of arguments that prove nothing or are partially true under certain conditions, or the use of deliberately false arguments;
- evidence of the falsity of someone else's thesis and the correctness of their statement.
Imitation as a psychological way of influence and persuasion
There are other secrets on how to convince the interlocutor that you are right against his will. The most important method of persuasion (especially in raising children) is imitation.
Imitation is the reproduction of actions, activities, qualities of other people whom you want to be like.
Conditions under which a person wants to imitate:
- positive attitude, respect or admiration for the object;
- insufficient amount of experience in relation to the object of imitation;
- attractiveness of the sample;
- conscious orientation of will and desire to the object of imitation.
However, when imitation occurs, not only the person himself changes, but also the model. A person likes that someone is trying to imitate him. And on a subconscious level, he tries to start imitating him in response.
You can imitate and quite consciously with one of the following goals:
- The introduction of new information into the attitudes, the system of views of the opponent.
- Making changes to the installation system.
- Changing the attitude of the opponent, that is, the implementation of a shift in motive, a shift in the system of human values.
When making changes to your opponent's setup system, you should know what the main setup functions are:
- fixture function- the need to achieve the most favorable position in society. Hence the innate attitude towards useful, favorable attitudes for oneself and the aversion to sources of negative incentives;
- ego-protective function- the need to maintain our internal stability, as a result of which a negative attitude automatically pops up in us towards those who can be a source of danger to our integrity. We tend to underestimate self-esteem if someone significant evaluates us negatively, so we automatically develop a negative attitude towards this person only on the basis of his attitude towards us, and not the actual presence of bad qualities;
- value-expressive function– our need for personal stability. Positive attitudes are developed in us towards persons of our own personal type. That is, if I am strong and independent, I will have a positive attitude towards the same people;
- worldview organization function- development of attitudes in relation to the existing knowledge about the world around. In our head, all knowledge forms a system, then the system of attitudes is the totality of our knowledge about the world and people with our emotional coloring. But when we encounter facts that contradict our attitudes, we automatically reject them. That is why new ideas, theories, inventions are constantly met with distrust and misunderstanding.
Basic methods of persuasion
Methods of persuasion and influence include:
- Verbal methods, that is, words. Different words can be used for different people, since everyone has only his own level of self-esteem, experience, character traits, intellectual abilities, personality type.
- Non-verbal methods: facial expressions, gestures, intonation, postures, behavior and degree of trust.
- A specially organized activity in which a person is involved. By changing the status in the course of this activity, it is possible to change the behavior of a person, as well as his experiences, behavior, state.
- Regulation of the level and degree of satisfaction of needs. If a person agrees that the other has the right to regulate his level of satisfaction of the need, then changes will occur. Otherwise, there will be no impact.
All these settings are interconnected, so changes do not happen quickly. But if you apply them regularly and purposefully, they will work.
So you and I have considered ways of persuading, influencing, evidence for influencing other people. But here's what you always need to remember: if you are trying to influence a person against their will, do not forget that someone else can do the same to you. You can call it karma if you like.
However, innocent pranks in communication with a teacher are so innocent that it is hardly worth experiencing pangs of conscience. After all, it is likely that the use of logical errors will help you pass the exam or even defend your diploma! If these measures do not help, you can always contact the student service, which can handle this task.
Possession of persuasion techniques in a dispute is one of the important components of oratory. But, you see, sometimes an ardent desire to prove some thing prevents us from hearing and feeling the interlocutor, who also has his own point of view and confidence in his rightness. About what polemical techniques can be useful for persuasion, and how to argue, you will learn from this article.
Practical methods of persuasion in a dispute:
"Positive Answers". This method is one of the most common in the psychology of persuasion. It consists in building a conversation in the key of initial agreement. Start persuasion with questions and statements that will cause an affirmative answer from the interlocutor. A person who is set up to accept your ideas is easier to agree with subsequent arguments.
There is a similar technique - "salami". Initially, you need to get agreement on the most important thesis. After that, you can proceed to particulars in order to reach a full consensus.
One of the classic logical methods of persuasion is "rhetoric". It begins with agreement with the statements of the partner, but then the interlocutor abruptly presents the main trump card - a strong refuting argument.
"Bilateral Argument". This technique is perfect for persuading an intellectual partner. In order to win the interlocutor's trust, you point out to him not only the strengths, but also the weaknesses of your assumptions. The strong, naturally, should dominate.
"Dismemberment". You need to isolate dubious arguments from the interlocutor's speech in order to prove the inconsistency of his position as a whole.
One of the psychological methods of persuasion in an argument is the deliberate pronunciation of the weakest arguments that your partner presented to you. Focusing on them makes it easier for you to question his general theory.
You can gradually bring your partner to the opposite conclusions if you follow the procedure for solving the problem that has arisen with him. Thus, you, as it were, choose the path of the solution together.
The main rule of persuasion: do not make fun of your partner and show your superiority, otherwise the person will never meet you. And remember the words of Epicurus: "in philosophical disputes, the vanquished wins, for he acquires new wisdom."
26. The concept of conflict and its social role
Conflict(from Lat. - clash) is the lack of agreement between two or more parties, the result of a clash of their interests or needs.
In this situation, more often than not, each side does everything to ensure that its point of view and goal are accepted, and prevents the other side from doing the same. When people think about conflict, they most often associate it with aggression, hostility, arguments, etc. As a result, there is an opinion that conflict is always an undesirable phenomenon, that it should be avoided in every possible way. However, in some cases, the conflict provides additional information, helps to reveal a variety of points of view and a greater number of alternatives or problems. If conflicts contribute to the adoption of informed decisions and the development of relationships, then they are called constructive. Conflicts that prevent effective interaction and decision-making are called destructive. The positive role of the conflict may also lie in the growth of the self-awareness of the participants in the conflict, if the latter pursues a socially significant goal; in many cases, the conflict forms and affirms certain values, unites like-minded people, plays the role of a safety valve for a safe and even constructive release of emotions. The emergence of a conflict depends on three parameters: the essence of the contradiction, the accompanying circumstances, and the external reason for the conflict.
The essence of the contradiction is the true reason for the conflict, its deep cause, and not always conscious. Such negative feelings as envy, rivalry, personal dislike, greed, etc., can underlie the clash of people. At the same time, the reason may be more conscious, for example, the desire to capture a sales market, squeeze out a competitor, or earn more money. In any case, the contradictions accumulate gradually, reaching at a certain moment a “critical mass”, which can already lead to an emotional explosion.
Related circumstances can modify the start time and nature of the conflict without affecting its essence. For example, two workers who feel mutual dislike for each other may hold back their emotions in the presence of a boss or a third party and start a conflict when they are alone.
The external reason for the conflict is the combination of circumstances that triggers the conflict mechanism (most often - a sharp phrase, insult, ridicule, etc.). In Western psychology, this moment is often referred to as trigger(trigger).
Example: two employees from the accounting department and the sales department collided at the copier. The conflict flared up because each of them wanted to be the first to photocopy the Documents. However, as the conflict escalated, the mutual unfriendly attitude of the workers of these units became apparent. In this case, the components of the conflict could be as follows:
The essence of the contradiction: mutual envy of employees of the sales and accounting departments.
Sales managers believed that it was they who “by the sweat of their brow” earn money for the company, ran around customers, and accountants sit idle, received almost the same salary. Accounting employees, on the contrary, believed that managers were in a privileged position, they got more, but in fact they solved their problems during working hours.
Related circumstances: the simultaneous need to make copies of documents.
External cause for conflict: insulting phrase of the manager that they feed the accountants, which means that they must yield to the sales department in everything.
The conflict can be completely resolved only if the essence of the contradictions is settled on a conscious or unconscious level. Quite often, entrepreneurs shy away from resolving the conflict as long as it remains possible, letting things take their course. However, an unresolved conflict can turn into a big problem for the organization, hindering its effective work. An additional problem is the impact of emotions on conflict dynamics. On the one hand, the emotional component can significantly increase the confrontation (“make an elephant out of a fly”), and on the other hand, it can mask its essence. Such human feelings as anger, envy, resentment, the desire for revenge, etc., lead to the fact that a person stops hearing the interlocutor and begins to perceive even a minor conflict as an insoluble contradiction.
Persuasive influence directly depends on. Argumentation is the most difficult phase of a conversation. It will require from you general erudition and professional skills, endurance, concentration, correctness and determination.
Thesis- an expression of your position.
Arguments- these are arguments, evidence, provisions that you are trying to cite in order to substantiate a point of view. The arguments themselves answer the question.
Demonstration- this is the relationship of argument and thesis. To achieve success in a conversation, you should adhere to certain rules:
It is necessary to use clear, simple, convincing and precise terms;
Tell the truth if you are not sure about something, in which case you should not resort to such information;
Choose the methods and pace of argumentation taking into account the nature of the interlocutor;
Argumentation should always be extremely correct in relation to your interlocutor. Don't resort to personal attacks.
Avoid non-business expressions that make it difficult to understand what has been said.
Let's take a closer look interlocutor persuasion techniques.
1. Fundamental way
The basis of this psychological reception- in a direct appeal directly to the interlocutor, followed by an acquaintance with the facts and this is the basis of your evidence. Statistical data and digital examples play an important role in this psychological technique. This is a wonderful and consistent backdrop that supports your thesis.2. Method of contradiction
This psychological technique is inherently protective. It is based on the discovery of certain contradictions in reasoning. Reception of persuasion of the interlocutor by means of contradiction is not always effective.3. Method of comparison
A very effective psychological technique, and also of exceptional importance. Gives speech an unusual richness, as well as a significant power of suggestion. Psychological methods of persuasion in a dispute are very effective when it comes to the method of comparison.4. The “yes, but…” method
This is best used when your interlocutor treats the conversation with a biased attitude. Since any process has both negative points and positive ones, the “yes .... but ...” method will allow you to consider other options for solving a particular issue.5. Method of "pieces"
It is used quite often, especially in our life there are more dialogues than monologues. The essence of this method of persuading the interlocutor lies in the division of the interlocutor's monologue into specifics and clarity.6. Boomerang Method
Use the tool of the interlocutor against him. Has an exceptional impact on any audience, especially if you include a bit of common sense.7. Method of ignoring
Often used in disputes, conversations, disputes. Its essence is quite simple: the fact stated by the interlocutor cannot be refuted.8. Derivation method
It is based on a constructive construction and a change in the essence of the matter.9. Visible support method
It is most advisable to use this method, namely when you take the side of your opponent. The essence of this method is that at the beginning of the conversation, when the interlocutor expresses his idea, you absolutely do not contradict.Arm yourself 9 Psychological Persuasion Techniques in an Argument, and you can easily defend your point of view.
