Well, instead of saying “You’re wrong” or “I disagree,” I’ve been saying “You’re right, but,” introduce my objection as an edge case, and then try to generalize it. It really is as simple as that.
This seems to work way better in terms of convincing people of things because the other person remains in “cooperation mode” throughout, and instead of thinking of objections to my points they start thinking of ways to build on what I just said.
My intuitions indicate that as soon as someone hears another person say “you’re wrong” or “I disagree” to them, the verbal combat heuristics load up and they enter full-on motivated cognition mode. This trick dodges that response.
I don’t endorse telling people they are right when I don’t believe they are right. But there are lots of possibilities in between “You’re wrong” and “You’re right.”
For example, wedrifid recently disagreed with something I said. He neither told me I was wrong nor told me I was right; he told me that he couldn’t think of any examples of something I’d described as common. This puts the ball back in my court: if I want to dig up examples, I can (and perhaps discover that I’m wrong); if not, we can leave it there.
I don’t endorse telling people they are right when I don’t believe they are right. But there are lots of possibilities in between “You’re wrong” and “You’re right.”
You’re certainly correct there, but I would consider saying “You’re right, but” (rather than just “you’re right”) to be one of those possibilities.
You’re certainly correct there, but I would consider saying “You’re right, but” (rather than just “you’re right”) to be one of those possibilities.
Unfortunately the word ‘but’ can prompt almost as much defensiveness as ‘you’re wrong’. Replacing “but” with “and” even when it makes no sense to do so is decent social (and persusive) advice all on its own.
I suspect that the practice of using “X, but Y” when the underlying thought is (not X and Y) has contributed to this unfortunate state of affairs by training people to understand “but” as negating whatever preceded it.
I expect “X, and Y” to suffer the same fate if it becomes popular… if people use it when they mean (not X and Y), then their audiences will eventually respond as though it means (not X and Y).
Of course, at that point they can switch to using “that said” or “and also” or “further” or “plus” or other phrases they haven’t yet altered the meaning of.
A lot of this is conveyed via tone and nonverbals. There’s a difference between the conventional rushed/confrontational “You’re right, but” and what I’ve been doing, which is more like (Dark Arts ahead!):
“Good point, I think you’re likely right.” (thoughtful tone)
(look up and to the left, furrow brow)
“Hmm.” (vaguely surprised/”that’s curious” tone, tilt head to the side, signal surprise via facial microexpression cues)
“I think that might also apply in some cases here. I can see situations where would occur—for instance, imagine if happened. In that case I think that model might explain what’s happening here.” (speaking slowly at first, with indecisive body language, then nodding and speaking quicker and more clearly)
“Yeah, that’s right. Now that I think about it that definitely seems like that’s what’s going on here.” (confident/assertive)
When this works correctly, the person essentially tricks themselves into thinking that they came up with/helped develop the idea that I was trying to convince them of, which also has the useful secondary effect of making them a stauncher defender of this belief once they convert.
Note that this is dependent on situational factors and also (obviously) a Dark Arts type technique. Use sparingly.
Cool stuff. Got any tips for improving it? I sort of lucked into this schema and have only been using it for two days or so, so I’m sure there are ways I could refine my techniques. :)
What you have is excellent. I was going to post a brief reply with a few pointers, but I am very bad at limiting myself to something that simple. What ended up happening was that I wrote a ~1000 word guide to the Dark Arts, which is a bit long for a comment.
It’s not one I endorse using when what someone has said isn’t right. To the extent that “X, but Y” is understood to mean (not-X and Y) it’s a broken form of communication; to the extent that “X, but Y” is understood to mean (X and Y) it’s false when X is false; to the extent that “X, but Y” is understood to mean (Y and (X or not X)) it is strictly worse than “Y”.
Then again, I once got the feedback at a meeting that I was the only person the speaker knew who could say “Everything you just said is absolutely correct” in a way that left completely unambiguous the implicit ”...and you’re a moron,” so there may well be a huge gap here between what I endorse and my practice. In my defense, though, everything the speaker had just said was absolutely correct. (It was also entirely irrelevant to the thing I’d been talking about.)
Other strategies that work well: “That’s a good point, I think that [x, y] are true...but I think that [w, z] might also be true...” Basically, focus on the part of their argument that was valid, praise them for it, and then make a point of your own, without necessarily saying directly that your argument invalidates part of their argument.
This may be unpopular, but this sets of my “Dark Arts” detector something fierce. It’s always seemed to me that the respect I owe to my opponent in a debate obligates me to at least say, when I think it’s the case, “You’re wrong. You’re an idiot. Think again.”
This may be unpopular, but this sets of my “Dark Arts” detector something fierce.
It is pure Dark Arts… but that doesn’t necessary mean it is a bad thing. Just that is normal social behavior.
For my part I do tend to notice this move and cooperation mode gets shut down far more completely than if they simply disagree. But that doesn’t mean I’ll come out and tell them that I’ve stopped cooperation or even act less cooperative. The mode being shut down is ‘cooperation with an intellectual peer’. They have taken the role of persuader with some sort of social agenda. There are all sorts of ways to handle that sort of situation and relatively few involve giving them free access to any more honest expressions of your own beliefs. Pretending to go along with them and so giving them no target to ‘persuade’ against is probably a better default.
It’s always seemed to me that the respect I owe to my opponent in a debate obligates me to at least say, when I think it’s the case, “You’re wrong. You’re an idiot. Think again.”
I like the way you have framed that. You describe direct blunt disagreement as something you are giving the opponent out of (a certain kind of) respect. This allows for far more freedom when dealing with people who (at that particular instant) do not warrant that kind of respect.
I like the way you have framed that. You describe direct blunt disagreement as something you are giving the opponent out of (a certain kind of) respect.
Well. yeah. It is strange. A great many people think you show respect by patting someone else on the head and saying “great idea, but...” I think that’s the height of condescension and disrespect.
This kind of attitude is common among my friends who are more technical, but it can really damage communications with most people. “You’re an idiot” doesn’t just communicate “you’re wrong” it says that you lack the ability to think at all, so all of your conclusions, whether related to this subject at all, are worthless. A good friend might take that in the way you intend, but there’s no reason anyone else should.
What is being called a Dark Art is something that Hermione would use; something that shows that you care about the other person’s feelings, that you want to avoid causing pain where you can. It’s a kindness. Sure, most of us can handle rough sports like intellectual boxing when we know what we’re getting into, but most people aren’t expecting to be sparring in a conversation.
This kind of attitude is common among my friends who are more technical, but it can really damage communications with most people.
You seem to have misread what I said. In fact you have it approximately backwards. The opening of”but that doesn’t necessary mean it is a bad thing. Just that is normal social behavior.” makes it rather clear that the disagreement you present here is not with me.
I think you may be right. I’m used to arguments as just-short-of-bar-fights, so my perception here might be a bit warped. I’ve said most of what I want to say in my reply to katydee, and it may just be the case that I value telling morons what I think of them (and I rely on morons to tell me what they think of me) more than you do.
I agree with you, and I would certainly never use this technique with someone who is operating under Crocker’s Rules. By the same token, though, I expect people using those rules to have the discipline required to not shift into motivated cognition mode if I tell them they’re wrong, operating under a bad paradigm, etc.
I basically consider this technique to be “advanced politeness—” while it obscures my true meaning at first, it seems to ultimately help that meaning take hold in conversations with people who are inclined to become combative or argumentative at perceived insults (which is really most people).
That being said, I haven’t exactly tested this for a long period of time, so it’s possible that I’ve just lucked out thus far or that there are hidden downsides to this that aren’t immediately apparent. I’ll keep y’all posted and maybe turn this into a top-level post in a bit.
I basically consider this technique to be “advanced politeness—” while it obscures my true meaning at first, it seems to ultimately help that meaning take hold in conversations with people who are inclined to become combative or argumentative at perceived insults (which is really most people).
I absolutely agree with this—being one of those people who “are inclined to become combative or argumentative at perceived insults” myself (by chance, I suppose, I have spent most of my time when debating, debating in the bar-fighter way, rather than as part of a true dialectic). Part of what governs my conduct is having nurtured my image as “that guy who will damn-well tell you what he thinks of you, whether or not it makes you cry” IRL, for several years. I think it probably really is the case that, by being polite and kind, you’re more likely to change other peoples’ minds. However, I’m wary that a certain kind of honesty may be undervalued here—if I thought that someone thought I’m an idiot, and they weren’t telling me, but instead being nice in order to change my mind, I would be livid. I would hunt you down, and I would make you weep, and then I would make your parents weep for what became of their child. I would not be happy at all. Advancing that same respect to the idiots I disagree with is really important to me—whether or not it is the most effective method of changing their minds.
You’re right, but occasionally you’ll find yourself debating with someone who sees all opposing arguments as soldiers to be killed. If making her see the truth is more important for you than abiding by the laws and customs of war, dressing as the enemy is definitely a useful trick.
If making her see the truth is more important for you than abiding by the laws and customs of war, dressing as the enemy is definitely a useful trick.
I think you’re basically right—I’m just not sure that I do consider that more important for certain values of “the laws and customs of war”. I’ve certainly been in arguments like this, and not least because I’m perhaps a prime example of someone “who sees all opposing arguments as soldiers to be killed”—something I’m trying to fix.
Immediate approximation of how I’d do it (warning: Dark Arts ahead):
“You may be right—I myself have certainly felt like I’ve been being watched over by dead relatives before. But one thing that I realized is that this effect might not actually be supernatural.
The human mind and memory are powerful things. It could simply be that I was so close to my dead grandmother (may she rest in peace) that, in times of peril, my brain subconsciously looks to her memory for advice, since I remember so many times that she had good advice for me in the past.
In this way, I think it’s possible that in some way our dead relatives really do live on with us, even though it’s not really them speaking with us, but merely our memories of them.”
I haven’t tested this yet but I’m moderately confident that it would work, though part of that is of course in the presentation. There may also be a better way—I haven’t thought about this for five minutes yet—but if I had to have that conversation right now that’s the line I would take.
Comes off as transparent and condescending to me. I’m sure I can tell the difference between my dead grandmother signalling me with spoons and my own memories, thank you very much.
Well, instead of saying “You’re wrong” or “I disagree,” I’ve been saying “You’re right, but,” introduce my objection as an edge case, and then try to generalize it. It really is as simple as that.
This seems to work way better in terms of convincing people of things because the other person remains in “cooperation mode” throughout, and instead of thinking of objections to my points they start thinking of ways to build on what I just said.
My intuitions indicate that as soon as someone hears another person say “you’re wrong” or “I disagree” to them, the verbal combat heuristics load up and they enter full-on motivated cognition mode. This trick dodges that response.
I don’t endorse telling people they are right when I don’t believe they are right. But there are lots of possibilities in between “You’re wrong” and “You’re right.”
For example, wedrifid recently disagreed with something I said. He neither told me I was wrong nor told me I was right; he told me that he couldn’t think of any examples of something I’d described as common. This puts the ball back in my court: if I want to dig up examples, I can (and perhaps discover that I’m wrong); if not, we can leave it there.
You’re certainly correct there, but I would consider saying “You’re right, but” (rather than just “you’re right”) to be one of those possibilities.
Unfortunately the word ‘but’ can prompt almost as much defensiveness as ‘you’re wrong’. Replacing “but” with “and” even when it makes no sense to do so is decent social (and persusive) advice all on its own.
Absolutely true, on both counts.
I suspect that the practice of using “X, but Y” when the underlying thought is (not X and Y) has contributed to this unfortunate state of affairs by training people to understand “but” as negating whatever preceded it.
I expect “X, and Y” to suffer the same fate if it becomes popular… if people use it when they mean (not X and Y), then their audiences will eventually respond as though it means (not X and Y).
Of course, at that point they can switch to using “that said” or “and also” or “further” or “plus” or other phrases they haven’t yet altered the meaning of.
A lot of this is conveyed via tone and nonverbals. There’s a difference between the conventional rushed/confrontational “You’re right, but” and what I’ve been doing, which is more like (Dark Arts ahead!):
“Good point, I think you’re likely right.” (thoughtful tone)
(look up and to the left, furrow brow)
“Hmm.” (vaguely surprised/”that’s curious” tone, tilt head to the side, signal surprise via facial microexpression cues)
“I think that might also apply in some cases here. I can see situations where would occur—for instance, imagine if happened. In that case I think that model might explain what’s happening here.” (speaking slowly at first, with indecisive body language, then nodding and speaking quicker and more clearly)
“Yeah, that’s right. Now that I think about it that definitely seems like that’s what’s going on here.” (confident/assertive)
When this works correctly, the person essentially tricks themselves into thinking that they came up with/helped develop the idea that I was trying to convince them of, which also has the useful secondary effect of making them a stauncher defender of this belief once they convert.
Note that this is dependent on situational factors and also (obviously) a Dark Arts type technique. Use sparingly.
I use pretty much this technique, though I was not really conscious of it until you mentioned it.
Cool stuff. Got any tips for improving it? I sort of lucked into this schema and have only been using it for two days or so, so I’m sure there are ways I could refine my techniques. :)
What you have is excellent. I was going to post a brief reply with a few pointers, but I am very bad at limiting myself to something that simple. What ended up happening was that I wrote a ~1000 word guide to the Dark Arts, which is a bit long for a comment.
“As you know,”/”You already know this, of course, but” <thing they’ve shown little sign of knowing but seem to have the prerequisites for>
(nods) Sure, separating the hook from the payload is another way of preventing people from noticing the connection.
It’s not one I endorse using when what someone has said isn’t right.
To the extent that “X, but Y” is understood to mean (not-X and Y) it’s a broken form of communication; to the extent that “X, but Y” is understood to mean (X and Y) it’s false when X is false; to the extent that “X, but Y” is understood to mean (Y and (X or not X)) it is strictly worse than “Y”.
Then again, I once got the feedback at a meeting that I was the only person the speaker knew who could say “Everything you just said is absolutely correct” in a way that left completely unambiguous the implicit ”...and you’re a moron,” so there may well be a huge gap here between what I endorse and my practice. In my defense, though, everything the speaker had just said was absolutely correct. (It was also entirely irrelevant to the thing I’d been talking about.)
Other strategies that work well: “That’s a good point, I think that [x, y] are true...but I think that [w, z] might also be true...” Basically, focus on the part of their argument that was valid, praise them for it, and then make a point of your own, without necessarily saying directly that your argument invalidates part of their argument.
This may be unpopular, but this sets of my “Dark Arts” detector something fierce. It’s always seemed to me that the respect I owe to my opponent in a debate obligates me to at least say, when I think it’s the case, “You’re wrong. You’re an idiot. Think again.”
It is pure Dark Arts… but that doesn’t necessary mean it is a bad thing. Just that is normal social behavior.
For my part I do tend to notice this move and cooperation mode gets shut down far more completely than if they simply disagree. But that doesn’t mean I’ll come out and tell them that I’ve stopped cooperation or even act less cooperative. The mode being shut down is ‘cooperation with an intellectual peer’. They have taken the role of persuader with some sort of social agenda. There are all sorts of ways to handle that sort of situation and relatively few involve giving them free access to any more honest expressions of your own beliefs. Pretending to go along with them and so giving them no target to ‘persuade’ against is probably a better default.
I like the way you have framed that. You describe direct blunt disagreement as something you are giving the opponent out of (a certain kind of) respect. This allows for far more freedom when dealing with people who (at that particular instant) do not warrant that kind of respect.
Well. yeah. It is strange. A great many people think you show respect by patting someone else on the head and saying “great idea, but...” I think that’s the height of condescension and disrespect.
This kind of attitude is common among my friends who are more technical, but it can really damage communications with most people. “You’re an idiot” doesn’t just communicate “you’re wrong” it says that you lack the ability to think at all, so all of your conclusions, whether related to this subject at all, are worthless. A good friend might take that in the way you intend, but there’s no reason anyone else should. What is being called a Dark Art is something that Hermione would use; something that shows that you care about the other person’s feelings, that you want to avoid causing pain where you can. It’s a kindness. Sure, most of us can handle rough sports like intellectual boxing when we know what we’re getting into, but most people aren’t expecting to be sparring in a conversation.
You seem to have misread what I said. In fact you have it approximately backwards. The opening of”but that doesn’t necessary mean it is a bad thing. Just that is normal social behavior.” makes it rather clear that the disagreement you present here is not with me.
I think you may be right. I’m used to arguments as just-short-of-bar-fights, so my perception here might be a bit warped. I’ve said most of what I want to say in my reply to katydee, and it may just be the case that I value telling morons what I think of them (and I rely on morons to tell me what they think of me) more than you do.
I am sure there are morons out there who would disagree!
Upvoted for, y’know, yes.
I agree with you, and I would certainly never use this technique with someone who is operating under Crocker’s Rules. By the same token, though, I expect people using those rules to have the discipline required to not shift into motivated cognition mode if I tell them they’re wrong, operating under a bad paradigm, etc.
I basically consider this technique to be “advanced politeness—” while it obscures my true meaning at first, it seems to ultimately help that meaning take hold in conversations with people who are inclined to become combative or argumentative at perceived insults (which is really most people).
That being said, I haven’t exactly tested this for a long period of time, so it’s possible that I’ve just lucked out thus far or that there are hidden downsides to this that aren’t immediately apparent. I’ll keep y’all posted and maybe turn this into a top-level post in a bit.
I absolutely agree with this—being one of those people who “are inclined to become combative or argumentative at perceived insults” myself (by chance, I suppose, I have spent most of my time when debating, debating in the bar-fighter way, rather than as part of a true dialectic). Part of what governs my conduct is having nurtured my image as “that guy who will damn-well tell you what he thinks of you, whether or not it makes you cry” IRL, for several years. I think it probably really is the case that, by being polite and kind, you’re more likely to change other peoples’ minds. However, I’m wary that a certain kind of honesty may be undervalued here—if I thought that someone thought I’m an idiot, and they weren’t telling me, but instead being nice in order to change my mind, I would be livid. I would hunt you down, and I would make you weep, and then I would make your parents weep for what became of their child. I would not be happy at all. Advancing that same respect to the idiots I disagree with is really important to me—whether or not it is the most effective method of changing their minds.
I see what you just did there!
You’re right, but occasionally you’ll find yourself debating with someone who sees all opposing arguments as soldiers to be killed. If making her see the truth is more important for you than abiding by the laws and customs of war, dressing as the enemy is definitely a useful trick.
I think you’re basically right—I’m just not sure that I do consider that more important for certain values of “the laws and customs of war”. I’ve certainly been in arguments like this, and not least because I’m perhaps a prime example of someone “who sees all opposing arguments as soldiers to be killed”—something I’m trying to fix.
That’s a neat little bit of psyops. I’ll have to think about it and maybe test it.
I’m not quite sure how you would go about executing it for something like “n-dimensional grandma is influencing my life from beyond the grave”.
Immediate approximation of how I’d do it (warning: Dark Arts ahead):
“You may be right—I myself have certainly felt like I’ve been being watched over by dead relatives before. But one thing that I realized is that this effect might not actually be supernatural.
The human mind and memory are powerful things. It could simply be that I was so close to my dead grandmother (may she rest in peace) that, in times of peril, my brain subconsciously looks to her memory for advice, since I remember so many times that she had good advice for me in the past.
In this way, I think it’s possible that in some way our dead relatives really do live on with us, even though it’s not really them speaking with us, but merely our memories of them.”
I haven’t tested this yet but I’m moderately confident that it would work, though part of that is of course in the presentation. There may also be a better way—I haven’t thought about this for five minutes yet—but if I had to have that conversation right now that’s the line I would take.
Comes off as transparent and condescending to me. I’m sure I can tell the difference between my dead grandmother signalling me with spoons and my own memories, thank you very much.
I (sadly) have enough experience with New Agers and the like that I’m pretty sure I can successfully make this work. What would you do differently?