Types of arguments are strong and weak. Rules that will help you convince your interlocutor
Study for example. There is one difficulty on the path to independently mastering the techniques of persuasion, which is not easy to overcome alone and about which we must warn the reader.
You can’t ask your manager why he refused you: either you couldn’t convince him, or the question is fundamentally unsolvable for reasons unknown to you. You're always left guessing."
Errors are better visible from the outside, especially when the process of persuasion is observed by a specialist in these matters. By regularly conducting practical classes, the author became convinced of how difficult it is to develop persuasive speech skills.
You have to analyze dozens of dialogues in order to master all the above persuasion techniques, at least 2-3 situations for each technique.
Let's give some examples.
How to take time off from work. During practical classes on the topic “Persuasion Techniques,” one of the participants shared her problem: tomorrow she must leave work two hours early, but there is a danger that her manager will not let her go. How can I talk so that I’m sure he’ll let you go?
The teacher suggested rehearsing: “I am your boss, you- asking for time off. Let's try. So, I’m listening to you.”
- Viktor Pavlovich, let me go 2 hours earlier.
- What is it?
- You see, my sister is coming, with two children, with heavy things. I definitely need to meet her.
- You say things are heavy too?
- Yes very. You know, with children there is so much to gain! Stroller and stuff.
- So, maybe it’s better for your husband to meet her, since it’s so difficult?
- We thought so too. But his boss didn’t let my husband go, he said there was a lot of work...
- Yeah! This means they have a lot of work, and we have little! No, let your husband meet her! I can't let you go.
- But this is my sister...
- These are your problems and solve them not at the expense of work. Go and work.
Is this dialogue plausible? Quite, our heroine admitted, and others agreed with her.
Let's figure out what happened. The reason for the failure is that the petitioner violated Homer's rule. First of all, her arguments contained a very weak argument (they didn’t let her husband go - there was a lot of work). Moreover, there was not a single strong argument. After all, the strongest argument for a female employee (the need to meet her own sister) for a manager is no more than average strength.
Strong arguments for a manager are those when work does not suffer and discipline is not violated. How to achieve this? We prepared strong arguments, armed our participant with them, and this is what she said two days later, when we met again in class. The conversation with the manager took place as follows.
- Ivan Petrovich, today I came to work an hour earlier and worked without lunch, so I practically finished all of today’s work.
- Commendable. But what causes this?
- The fact is that my sister is coming with her children, I definitely need to meet her. Therefore, I ask your permission to leave two hours earlier.
- So, you say the work is already done?
- Yes. And in case you have any urgent business, the girls promise to do it, and if they can’t,
Gut, I’ll come early tomorrow and have everything done by the time you arrive.
- Well, of course. Of course, go and meet me. How many children does your sister have?
- Two.
- There are probably plenty of things...
- Yes, there will probably be enough...
- That's it, I'll try to help you.(Calls on the phone). Hello, dispatcher? Can you give us an hour and a half “rafik”? Will you give it? Thank you!" The car will be at the main entrance.
- Oh, thank you very much!
- Everyone would ask for time off like that...
The boss's last remark explains the reason for his thoughtfulness.
If we analyze the conversation sequentially, we discover the competent use of the already mentioned Homeric rule. First, a few strong arguments: the work has been done, and the necessary time has been spent. Then an argument of average (from the manager’s point of view) strength - you need to meet your sister. And at the end - the strongest argument (an agreement in case of a possible urgent task).
The result, as we see, exceeded all expectations. But if you think about it, it is quite natural. The care shown by the manager for the subordinate (calling the car) is a response to the care for him. The employee solved her problem on her own, without “pinning” it on the manager, as often happens when someone asks to let her go. And here, perhaps, not only reciprocal concern, but also a hint to other employees on how to ask for time off.
Problems for motorists. Here is an example of applying another Socratic rule.
"I'm late for work. And then there are no free parking spaces near the building where I work. I pull back and spend a few minutes looking for an empty seat. Finally, having found it, I see my boss’s car standing nearby. “Surely he also spent a long time looking for where to stand,”- I thought.
I had just entered my room when I was called to the boss.
- Why were you late?
- It’s very difficult to find a parking place... You probably also drove around before you got up...
- It was...
- And so every morning! Maybe we need to take some measures so that we are allocated additional parking spaces?
- Yes, something needs to be done. By the way, take care of this, find out who you need to contact on this issue.”
A positive answer was received to both questions asked by the latecomers.
Another rule helped to get out of this difficult situation: the subordinate began with what they had in common with their boss - with the difficulties of parking. As a result, he came out of the situation with honor.
Extraordinary leave. The “art of the possible” must be involved here.
An employee turns to her manager:
- Sergei Nikolaevich, I would like to take a vacation in July.
- Lyudmila Ivanovna, you have a scheduled vacation in September.
- Yes, but my husband has a vacation in July, and we would like to go to the seaside to relax, we haven’t been there for so long!
- Everybody wants. I can't help you. Why was the request unconvincing?
Because the person who asked did not show empathy for the leader, did not put herself in his place. After all, violation of the vacation schedule risks the fact that during some periods of the year there is simply no one to work, which is why both the work and its manager suffer. In addition, by breaking the schedule, the manager can cause a chain reaction of similar statements and even claims.
The employee is trying to shift the solution of her own problem to the manager, which makes her an unpleasant interlocutor. In order not to be driven into a corner (Pascal’s rule), the manager refuses, as they say, “from the threshold.” In addition, the desire of a subordinate to swim in the sea is a weak argument for a manager (Homer’s rule has been violated).
The petitioner's task is difficult, but not hopeless. The conversation could have ended differently if the petitioner, having realized the manager’s difficulties, had made it easier for him to resolve her issue. True, this requires preliminary preparation.
- Sergey Nikolaevich, can I talk to you now?
- Yes, what do you have?
- In winter, a vacation schedule for this year was developed. Is he in force now?
- Yes, definitely!
- Is it possible to exchange vacation time with someone else?
- It is possible, if it does not expose the work area.
- I agreed with Ivanova (she has a vacation in July) to exchange with me for half a month, if you allow us to take vacations at intervals, in two steps. For family reasons, I need at least two weeks in July.
- What about your immediate supervisors?
- They agree.
- Okay, write applications, but only get endorsed by your managers. I'll sign.
Noteworthy, first of all, is the application of the Socratic rule (obtaining agreement on auxiliary issues) and the reduction of the requirement by half. This is the result of elaborating the issue, discussing it with those who could give up vacation time. They say: “Politics is the art of the possible.” Faced with the impossibility of fulfilling her desire, the worker asks for what she can actually get.
Preparatory work is certainly the result of empathy towards the boss: the petitioner realized that the manager will not deal with solving her personal problems, that this is a matter for the subordinates themselves.
The employee does not specify the reason for the request, replacing it with generalized “family circumstances.” After all, they can be more serious than those initially named. If the leader asks you to name these circumstances, they must be more compelling than just a desire to splash in the sea.
If there are no people willing to change their vacation time, you need to look for other strong arguments.
For example, complete the most important July work ahead of schedule, agree on a replacement, enlist the support of your immediate supervisor, etc.
Child in a puddle. Here is a very typical scene.
A little boy wants to walk in a puddle. The mother screams for him not to interfere with her. But the child still goes to where it is deeper. His mother explains to him that he will get his feet wet, catch a cold, get sick, and may even die from this. But the boy goes further. Finally, the enraged mother grabs her child, pulls him out of the puddle and spanks him. The child naturally roars...
Why are parents unconvincing in such cases? Because they violate many rules of persuasion.
First of all, they do not show empathy for the child. Putting themselves in his place, they would understand that curiosity draws him into the puddle: what is there? And having understood the reason, they would have guessed that fighting curiosity is useless (and even harmful - it delays the child’s development). You just need to put your child in rubber boots and let him satisfy his curiosity. If there are no boots, it is better to distract the child with something no less interesting for him, that is, to fulfill one of his needs - the need for development (self-realization).
The lack of empathy also leads to the fact that arguments are given that are strong for an adult, but not understandable for a child (“you will get sick”, “you will die”). This violates the corollary of Homer's rule: since the strength of arguments is determined by the listener, there should be no weak arguments.
The situation is also worsened by violation of rule 11: the mother begins with a shout, that is, with a conflictogen. The result is the child’s stubbornness, the desire to act in defiance of the shout (a reaction to belittling the status of the person being persuaded).
Rule 8 is also violated here: the mother begins not with what unites her with the child, but with what separates her (according to his concepts).
As a result, the parent violated five rules of persuasion. One cannot count on the persuasiveness of her speeches.
Strengthening doors.One day, when I opened the door when the doorbell rang, I was convinced that the neighbors had also called, since they also opened the doors.
Two young men of good appearance stood on the platform. One of them addressed us with the following speech:
- You, of course, know that there are a lot of burglaries now. Thieves break down doors or open locks with a master key in a few seconds. We strengthen door frames and install strong doors with particularly complex locks for security purposes. The cost of work ranges from... to... depending on the materials used. Orders can be placed now or by phone. Payment - after delivery of the work to the customer.
Many people at our entrance placed an order for the proposed service.
The success of young people is not accidental. Their speech complied with all the rules of persuasion. They started with what they had in common with the listeners (rule 8) - protecting apartments from thieves. Mentally, the listeners agreed with the statement of two ways to enter apartments (Socrates' rule). There were no weak arguments among the arguments, and the last argument (payment after execution) was very strong, all according to Homer’s rule.
Confession of an innocent victim.“At the final stop, the driver opened only the front door and began checking the passengers’ travel documents. My two friends and I entered three stops before the final one. I was the only one with a ticket, and I punched it right away. When the three of us approached the driver and explained the situation, he demanded that all three of us pay a fine. To my indignation, he said that I punched the ticket when the check began. No matter how much I tried to prove it, he didn’t let us out until we all paid the fine.”
Approaching the controller together with her friends who were free riders, the girl artificially lowered her image: since her friends are like that, that means you are a violator (they say: “Whoever you mess with, you’ll get the hang of it”). Therefore, the girl’s arguments turned out to be unconvincing.
"Krohobor."A passenger travels in a taxi from the center to his neighborhood. Upon arrival at the place, the taxi driver calls an amount that is one and a half times higher than the meter reading. To the bewilderment of the passenger, he explains that not everyone will come here from the center, that, judging by his respectable appearance, the client should not be petty.
After listening to the taxi driver, the passenger replied: firstly, in a taxi they pay according to the meter, and if the driver wanted differently, he had to warn about it; secondly, there were many free taxis and there would certainly be people who wanted to go here, he was convinced of this more than once; thirdly, the word “krohobor” means “a person who covets other people’s crumbs.”
The taxi driver could not find anything to object to, and the client paid off the meter.
A brilliant example of the application of Homer's rule! Not a single weak argument, and the strongest one is in the end!
When the rules work against us.The girl was late for class. There is not a single ticket in my pocket, and the kiosk at the bus stop is closed. Hoping to buy a ticket already on the bus, she counted out the money and began to make her way to the driver’s cabin. But a controller appeared on her way, who, after listening to the explanation, found it unconvincing.
The girl asks passengers to testify- she just sat down and took out money, but everyone is silent. The controller demands to pay a fine or get off at the nearest stop. Afraid of being late, the girl was forced to pay a fine.
Rule 4 worked against the girl. And it worked in two ways.
Young people often behave inappropriately on public transport: they do not give up their seats to older people, act in a swaggering manner, and often travel without a ticket. Therefore, the image of this age group among passengers is very low.
Apparently, for this reason, those around her did not support the girl when she turned to them to confirm the correctness of her words. And such support is worth a lot. After all, the status of the group is much higher than the status of any of its members. If those around her had supported the girl, the inspector would not have risked demanding a fine from her. On the contrary, the lack of such support lowered the girl’s status and further convinced the controller that she was wrong.
1. 5 ADVICE OF P. SERGEICH AND F. PLEVAKO
Ten tips from a famous lawyer
The arguments that we have found ourselves are more convincing than those that have come to the minds of others.
B. Pascal
Advice formulated by the famous Russian lawyer P.S. Prokhovshchikov (literary pseudonym - P. Sergeich), are based on an excellent knowledge of human psychology.
1. Don't prove the obvious.
The listener is always looking for something new in speech that is unknown to him. And not finding it, he loses interest in both the speech and the speaker. This is exactly what happens when they hear common truths or platitudes.
The following story tells what results a violation of this rule can lead to.
The trolleybus driver, as an initiative, took on the additional responsibility of educating passengers on various topics while traveling along the route: traffic rules, good manners, etc. The speaker in the cabin did not stop, endlessly repeating common truths. Passengers unanimously expressed indignation at such an intrusive “service”; many complained that they got off the trolleybus in a bad mood.
2. If you find a compelling argument or strong objection, do not start with it or express it without proper preparation.
Essentially, we are talking about the competent use of Homer's rule.
3. Throw away all mediocre and unreliable arguments.
We talked about this when commenting on Homer’s rule in paragraph 1.1.
4. Don't miss an opportunity to make a strong point in the form of a dilemma: the conclusion made by the listener is more impressive for him than what he heard.
For example, in the case of an obvious lie of an opponent, we can say that, apparently, he is sincerely mistaken, and perhaps he is deceiving deliberately. Listeners will undoubtedly accept the second as true, and this conclusion is more destructive for the opponent.
5. Don't be afraid to agree with your opponent, when there is an opportunity to turn his own statements against him. Or at least prove their uselessness for the opponent.
"- Wonderful! - said Rudin, - therefore, in your opinion, there are no convictions?
- No- and doesn't exist.
- Is this your belief?
- How can you say that they don’t exist?
Here's one for you for the first time.
Everyone in the room smiled and looked at each other.”
(I. S. Turgenev. Rudin.)
6. If the arguments are strong, it is better to present them separately, developing each in detail separately. If there are only weak arguments, you should collect them “in one handful.”
Quintilian said that “the weak mutually reinforce each other. Deprived of meaning qualitatively, they are convincing in quantity - in that they all confirm the same circumstance.”
7. Try to support one piece of evidence with another.
8. Don't try to explain something you don't fully understand.
Inexperienced people often make this mistake, as if they expect that they will find an explanation if they look for it out loud. The enemy is sincerely grateful to such speakers. It should not be forgotten that the attention of listeners is always focused on the weakest part of the speaker’s reasoning.
9. Do not try to prove more when you can limit yourself to less.
Don't complicate your task.
10. Avoid contradictions in your arguments. Let us quote P. Sergeich: “This rule is constantly
violated by our defenders in the courts. They thoroughly and diligently prove their client’s complete innocence of the crime, and then declare that in case their arguments did not seem convincing to the jury, they consider themselves obliged to remind them of the circumstances that could serve as a basis for absolution or, at least, for leniency. A few final words turn the entire defense into ashes. This is an error in the very scheme of speech.”
Adults here are likened to an unreasonable child who, when asked if he broke the cup from the set, replies: “No, not me! But I won't do it again."
Argumentation strategies:
The most difficult stage is selection of arguments. The construction of an argument can be based on two principles: on affirming one’s own thesis and on refuting the opponent’s thesis (the latter is easier, because the opponent takes on the work of generating new ideas, and you can only criticize his ideas).
With the confirmation strategy, a person gives arguments that confirm his thesis (we do not take the kindergarten situation, when the thesis is simply repeated many times, but without a single piece of evidence).
Direct confirmation of the thesis.
Thesis: squirrels are dangerous animals.
Argument: because they attack people.
It still happens indirect confirmation, when another position is deduced from a thesis, its truth is proven and then the truth of the first thesis is proven.
Thesis: Squirrels are dangerous animals.
Additional thesis: Bites from dangerous animals require medical supervision.
Argument: Indeed, after being bitten by a squirrel, you will have to visit the emergency room and get a rabies vaccination. This proves that squirrels are dangerous.
Refutation strategy:
direct refutation :
Counterthesis: Proteins are harmless.
Refuting the counterthesis: Squirrels spoil their habitat, i.e. they are not harmless.
It also happens indirect refutation. Then the person himself deduces certain provisions from the counterthesis (thesis of the opponent), refutes them, and thus refutes the counterthesis itself.
Counterthesis: Proteins are harmless.
Additional counterpoint:Harmless animals are kept at home.
Refutation of the counterthesis: No one keeps squirrels at home, only fans , which means that proteins are not harmless and unsafe.
Another good way to fight an opponent is refutation of arguments, which leads to the recognition of the unfoundedness of the counterthesis and to the reinforcement of the thesis.
Counterthesis: Proteins are harmless.
Argument: These are small animals compared to humans.
Refutation of the argument: Viruses are also small, but they can cause enormous harm to humans. So size doesn't matter here.
Another way to refute is refutation of the demonstration, i.e. proof that valid arguments in themselves do not involve a counterthesis.
Counterthesis: Proteins are harmless.
Argument: Squirrels are beautiful and graceful.
Demonstration rebuttal: Yes, squirrels are beautiful and graceful, but this does not affect their safety in any way. Jaguars are also beautiful and graceful, but would anyone agree to meet one-on-one with a hungry jaguar at night?
Argument types:
The arguments are divided into:
1. natural evidence: arguments to the obvious(eyewitness accounts, documents, examination data, scientific experiment - “tangible” evidence)
2. artificial evidence(other)
Artificial evidence :
- logical (arguments to logos)
There are two types logical proofs: syllogism(particularity is proved using general statements) and guidance(the general statement is proved on the basis of particulars).
This corresponds to two methods of drawing conclusions: deduction(from the general to the specific) and induction(from the particulars a conclusion about the general is drawn). Sherlock Holmes, who always shouted about the deductive method, actually used the inductive method (derived the whole from particulars). Induction can fail, because from several particular facts we can draw some conclusion, and then one fact will take it and refute it (for example, we decide on the basis of observations that all pigeons are gray, and then some white scoundrel will fly in and that’s all will spoil).
Examples of syllogisms :
A syllogism usually includes two premises and a conclusion.
The premises and conclusion are propositions.
There are four types of judgments: general affirmative (all objects that have a certain property also have another property);
All people are mortal
private affirmative (some objects that have a certain property also have another property);
Some people are men
general negative(not a single object that has a certain property has another property); No man is a plant
partial negative (some objects that have a certain property do not have another property)
Some people are not children
A judgment is divided into a subject (what is said) and a predicate (what is new that is reported about the subject).
All professors (M) have an academic degree (P)(includes a conclusion predicate: major premise).
Panteley Prokofich Kryndylyabrov (S) – professor (M) (includes the subject of the conclusion: small premise).
Panteley Prokofich ( S ) has an academic degree (P).
All professors are the subject of a statement. Have an academic degree - a predicate.
Panteley Prokofich is a subject. Professor is a predicate.
Panteley Prokofich is again a subject. Has an academic degree – predicate.
There must be a coincidence of subjects and predicates, otherwise the syllogism will be meaningless (we equated the subject of the first premise with the subject of the second, after which the predicate of the first premise turned out to be a predicate for the second).
There are large (P), small ( S ) and the middle (M) member of the syllogism. The middle member acts as a mediator and does not appear in the conclusion (in our case, this is the professor). Large penis - in this case it means “having an advanced degree.” Small member - Panteley Prokofich.
Not all syllogisms are equally correct (not all yoghurts are equally healthy).
The conscious construction of an incorrect syllogism results in sophistry (“People eat bread.Pigs eat bread.Therefore, people are pigs."). There are syllogisms in which the error was made unintentionally.
For example: Many candidates of science are associate professors. Pasha Zyabkin – PhD. Pasha Zyabkin – associate professor.
In fact, Pasha Zyabkin may or may not be an associate professor: not all candidates of science are also associate professors, these are two partially intersecting sets, and Pasha Zyabkin can either be part of both sets or belong to one of them, i.e. e. many candidates.
There are multi-story syllogisms (complex).
Men like Angelina Jolie.
Men like beautiful women.
If men like Angelina Jolie, then she is a beautiful woman.
Women who look like Angelina Jolie are also beautiful.
Dunya looks like Angelina Jolie, which means Dunya is also beautiful.
Guidance(inductive method)
It often leads to errors because it forces one to accept as truth a conclusion that concerns only part of the phenomena.
For example: I saw only rock pigeons on the streets of the city. Pigeons are only gray.
Close to induction is analogy(the properties of one object known to us are transferred to another). Unlike induction, we are talking about a single object about which we know something, and the transfer is also made to a single object, and not to a class of beings/substances.
For example: I'll take a red apple. I don’t want to take the green one - it’s for sure sour. Yesterday I ate a green apple and it was terribly sour.
This physical analogy . Within its framework, similar or identical objects are compared.
Is there some more figurative analogy. It allows you to pair distant objects.
For example: A good marriage is everything equals what comfortable house slippers.
- arguments for ethos (mores)/ethical arguments (reliance on the collective experience of society)
arguments for empathy (mention of qualities that are positioned as praiseworthy in society)
a) direct attacks on a person (my opponent is a cretin)
b) indirect attack (my opponent is interested in the results of the discussion, so his opinion cannot be considered objective)
c) an indication that the person has previously said or done something different
- arguments for pathos(passions)/emotional arguments (reliance on a person’s individual experience)
The author evokes certain, pre-programmed emotions (positive or negative) in the audience. In this case, arguments can be directed at the audience itself, at the speaker (certain feelings should arise towards him) or at third parties (feelings towards them)
a) arguments for the promise (promises)
b) arguments for threat (intimidation of the audience)
reasons to trust
If we are talking about logical proof, the argument for trust is that, along with logical reasoning, the person to whom this reasoning belongs is indicated, and, as a rule, a characteristic of this person is given that corresponds to the “logos” spirit, such as “the great thinker of antiquity ", "famous logician of the twentieth century", "Chinese sage", etc.Sometimes names speak for themselves, and then the usual way of introducing them is as follows: “Even Socrates believed that...”, “Aristotle himself, the father of logic, believed that...”. As a third party when bringing logical proof experts may speak.
A reference to authority in an argument to ethos most often contains a characterization of authority (from the “ethos” side) and an indication of the addressee of the speech. Her usual scheme is as follows: “So-and-so, and he knows a lot about this, said that we often forget about so-and-so.”
A reference to authority in an argument for pathos also usually contains a characterization of the authority itself. This can be not only an authority in the proper meaning of the word, but also a little-known person who has become an authority as a person who has experienced what is stated in the threat or promise. Moreover, in the latter case, the third party can be called generically: “Every American will tell you that...”, “There is no need to explain to those who experienced the horrors of war that...”, “Those who lived under socialism remember perfectly well how...”.
d gadflies to mistrust
Distrust in an argument about logos is created by the fact that a deliberately incorrect statement is given, belonging to a person whose logical abilities the author doubts. In this case, the “expert in not his field” effect is also often used.
Distrust in the argument for ethos is created by the fact that some person is qualified as not knowing people (most often very specific people, a given social or age group), not understanding their ethical principles. For example: “So-and-so speaks with great feeling about the problems of young people. But he apparently forgot how young people live. And he simply has no idea about today’s youth, their thoughts and feelings.”
Distrust when arguing for pathos (a threat or promise) is created in a similar way: it is shown that the person appealing to pathos does not know the people to whom he is appealing well. For example: “He promises hungry old people Snickers and discos! He invites them to enjoy the sounds of heavy metal, but they need free medical care!” Or: “Is he threatening the rebels with war? People who have been carrying weapons with them for forty years! Yes...It’s unlikely that this politician will be able to control people!”
Argument selection strategy:
When choosing arguments, you need to consider the following:
Strong arguments are natural evidence:
Judgments based on precisely established facts, documented
Experimental results
Testimony of disinterested and competent eyewitnesses
Expert opinions
Statistical calculations
And:
Quotes from statutes, laws, regulations, etc.
However, even with such arguments you can fight (if you really need it):
Facts may be accurate, but they can be interpreted in your own way (for example, doubt the chain of cause and effect)
The opinions of experts and authorities can be challenged by calling into question their right to conduct an examination, their validity as specialists, their disinterest in the results, and you can also clarify whether the experts’ opinion concerned this particular situation or whether this opinion was simply far-fetched
Witnesses can be suspected of being interested and that they were unable to soberly assess the situation/amnesia
Statistical calculations can be accused of being unrepresentative (are you sure you surveyed the entire population of the globe?)
Weak arguments admit:
Conclusions from questionable statistics (five people interviewed in a nightclub)
Reasoning with incorrect use of the syllogism scheme
Sophistry, reasoning with a deliberate logical error (“Horns”)
Contrived analogies (the analogy between playing basketball and driving a car)
One-sidedly selected aphorisms and sayings
Generalizations
Assumptions based on personal experience
Insolventthe following arguments:
Conclusions based on manipulated facts
- speculation
Advance promises not supported by deeds, personal assurances (I guarantee you..., I assure you as a specialist..., I ask you to just take it on faith...)
You should not give too many arguments: a large number of arguments, especially arguments of different sizes, leads to a loss of persuasiveness, to the devaluation of each specific argument.
Individual arguments should not be abandoned if all together they create a convincing picture (a situation where only the sum of the arguments can be convincing, but not each of the arguments separately). Let's say we're trying to justify a murder charge against the son of a dead man. We do not have direct evidence, but we can show with the help of a sum of arguments that it was the son who was most interested in the death of his father and had the best opportunities for murder.
You should not use arguments that the opposite side can use to their advantage. The destructive power of your own argument, used by your enemies, increases many times over.
Argumentation errors are:
1) mistakes related to thesis
Substitution of the thesis– in the process of argumentation, the author begins to prove a different thesis, not the one he outlined at the beginning. This can be done on purpose, or it can be done accidentally.
Proof of absurd theses .
2) errors related to arguments
Use of false premises (a good driver never gets into an accident).
3) demo related errors
As arguments, premises that are not related to the thesis are used (first a company of four people came to the cafe, then a company of three, the next visitors will be a couple).
Any argument consists of two parts. The first is a basis with which it is impossible to argue. The second is the obvious connection of a provable thought to this basis. When a mother tells her daughter not to put her fingers in a socket, the daughter obeys because a) the mother is the authority (this is the basis of the argument) and b) because the mother personally says not to do that (this is an obvious binding).
There are many arguments, but the basis for the arguments is much less. They allow you to structure your speech so that it is convincing. Below is the golden dozen of these reasons, the twelve types of arguments known TOPEKA: ESCALATION OF CLAIMS since the time of Aristotle.
1. What is convincing is what can be verified.
To consider something true, a person does not have to verify the truth himself; it will be enough for him to have the possibility of verification. When there is a clear, accessible and real way of verification, this is already enough. Then laziness (and trust in the speaker) will come into play; no one will check anything, but the conviction will work.
2. What is convincing is what is unique.
Uniqueness is so valuable to us that we automatically find compelling anything that carries unique qualities or confirms uniqueness.
So, since in Russia there are few resources similar to Lifehacker, you can use the argument of uniqueness to explain the need for visiting it every day.
However, here it is necessary to make a reservation that it is only the West that is delighted with uniqueness, and for Eastern cultures it is inferior to authenticity. Therefore, the following argument is better suited for representatives of the East.
We do not question familiar things, so when something new or controversial is similar to familiar things, this is a fairly strong argument in favor of its truth.
When a guy meets a girl and tries to make a good impression on her, he thinks that he is using arguments for uniqueness (“I am such and such, I have such and such, I am better than everyone else”). But the girl perceives this as arguments for compatibility: it is important for her to understand how similar this person is to the best examples of male behavior imprinted in her memory.
4. What is convincing is that it indicates regression.
Everything is getting worse and worse. Well, maybe not everything, but a lot. Even if not much, then certainly something. The idea of regression is hardwired into our brain: you must admit, before not only were the trees greener, but also the dogs were kinder, the dawns were quieter, and there was no food. So it is very convenient to rely on the idea of regress in your evidence.
For example, the need to introduce the death penalty is easily justified by an increase in the number of crimes and/or their increased cruelty.
5. What is convincing is what shows progress.
Ideas about progress are even more ingrained in us than ideas about regression. We will readily accept as truth that which will confirm our belief in progress.
This is why it is convenient for a politician to rely on progress to explain the need for his re-election to some post. The connection between his activities and progress may not be obvious, but the progress itself is beyond doubt: that means he needs to be re-elected. “You have begun to live better - vote for me.”
6. Persuasive logically follows from persuasive
This argument is called the causation argument. Briefly, it can be represented as a logical connective “if - then”. Of course, in every argument there is a logical connective, but only in this case is it the main supporting structure, and all the emphasis is placed on it.
Example: “If we consider ourselves reasonable people, then we cannot ignore arguments based on.” Or this: “If we consider ourselves reasonable people, then we should not believe everything we read on the Internet.” And also: “If we consider ourselves reasonable people, then we should not tolerate such bullying with three identical examples, when everything was already clear.”
7. The fact is convincing
The most common and understandable argument is the data argument. It is used most often, but not because it is the strongest, but because it is the simplest. When using it, remember that there are no facts - only interpretations. The power of a fact lies not in its truthfulness, but in its vividness. And also in frequent repetition, but it’s unlikely that you have the resources to launch propaganda, so you’ll have to make do with brightness.
For example: “Russia is the most peaceful country because it has never attacked anyone or waged offensive wars.” This fact has nothing to do with historical reality, but it works as an argument.
8. What is convincing is what is useful.
The most honest argument - at least it tries to look like it. In the end, we really look at everything from the point of view of benefit. What is useful is true, what is beneficial is good. A pragmatic argument will never let you down if you can connect the thesis being proven with the real benefit of your listeners.
“Pay your taxes and sleep well,” the Federal Tax Service advises us. This may seem like an appeal to our conscience. But do not be deceived, this type of argument does not appeal to conscience, it appeals to ours, which is why it is so effective.
9. What is persuasive is what is based on norms.
Norms should be understood as a fairly broad set of rules existing in society. Laws, customs, traditions, regulations - it is convenient for truth to rely on them. Norms can be different, from social to sanitary, from linguistic to sexual, as long as they are relevant and generally accepted.
The argument by which statesmen are forced to respond more quickly to complaints is precisely based on the norms: “In accordance with the federal law of May 2, 2006 N 59-FZ “On the procedure for considering appeals from citizens of the Russian Federation,” I ask you to provide an answer within 30 days, otherwise In this case, I will be forced to contact the prosecutor’s office to attract those responsible for missing deadlines under Art. 5.59 of the Code of Administrative Offenses of the Russian Federation “Violation of the procedure for considering citizens’ appeals.”
10. What is convincing is what is confirmed by authority.
A more than understandable argument. Even young people who love to overthrow authorities usually do this at the invitation of some authority figure.
Such an argument can be rude when a boss talks to a subordinate, or it can be soft when Leonardo DiCaprio advertises a certain brand of watch from a billboard.
Well, it could be like this:
“Beware of morally indignant people: they have the sting of cowardly anger, hidden even from themselves.”
Friedrich Nietzsche
11. What the witnesses say is convincing.
A witness differs from an authority in that his opinion is interesting not because of his personality, but because of the experience he has. Continuing the theme of advertising: luxury goods are promoted by authorities, that is, stars, and general consumer products are advertised by “witnesses” - no-names with unique experience in combating stains on clothes.
Example: “It works because my neighbor in the stairwell was cured by homeopathy!” The power of this argument cannot be underestimated; it is no weaker than an appeal to authority.
12. What can be imagined to be true is convincing.
Since our brain has never been in the real world - that is, outside the skull - it has to operate only with ideas about how things work. Therefore, if you force the brain to imagine something, it will be almost a real fact for it. And not only for people with a developed imagination, but for everyone in general.
The argument of a real estate agent when meeting with a client in the office: “Just imagine how in the morning you admire this lake from your balcony, inhaling the fresh smells of the forest...”
Strong arguments
They do not cause criticism, they cannot be refuted, destroyed, or ignored. This is first of all
ü precisely established and interrelated facts and judgments arising from them;
ü laws, charters, governing documents, if they are implemented and correspond to real life;
ü experimentally verified facts;
ü expert opinions;
ü quotes from public statements and books recognized as authorities in one area or another, testimonies of witnesses and eyewitnesses of events;
ü statistical information, if its collection, processing and generalization are carried out by professional statisticians.
Weak Arguments
They raise doubts among opponents. Such arguments include:
ü conclusions based on two or more facts, the connection between which is unclear without a third;
ü tricks and judgments based on illogicalities;
ü analogies and non-indicative examples;
ü arguments of a personal nature, dictated by motivation, desire;
ü tendentiously selected examples, aphorisms;
ü arguments, versions or generalizations made on the basis of guesses, assumptions, feelings;
ü conclusions from incomplete statistical data.
Untenable Arguments
ü judgments based on manipulated facts, references to dubious, unverified sources;
ü decisions that have become invalid;
ü conjectures, conjectures, assumptions, fabrications;
ü false statements and testimony;
ü advance promises and promises;
ü arguments designed to appeal to ignorance, etc.
The strength of individual arguments is often determined based on the situation, i.e. taking into account the nature of the audience, its mood and the conditions in which the dispute takes place. Rational and irrational arguments may be unequal in strength. There is no doubt that in some conditions, rational arguments may be more effective for one audience, and irrational ones for another. In practice, a combination of the irrational and logical in the process of argumentation is often observed.
3. Appeal to rational arguments requires the participants in the dispute not only to comply with basic logical laws, but also to follow specific recommendations for conducting a dispute that rhetoric has developed over such a long period of its existence. Let us consider sequentially what demands rhetoric makes in relation to each element of the structure of evidence, as well as what errors and tricks are most regularly observed in the structure of evidence.
Thesis requirements:
1) certainty, clarity, accuracy of the meaning and formulation of the thesis;
Sometimes people cannot clearly, clearly, and unambiguously formulate a thesis in a written statement, scientific article, report, lecture. This happens in meetings too. The uncertainty of the thesis for the speaker himself entails incorrect argumentation. And the listeners end up perplexed: why did the person speak in the debate and what did he want to say? Thus, before putting forward a thesis, think carefully about what exactly you want to prove, and formulate your thesis specifically and concisely.
The vagueness and ambiguity of the thesis formulation give great advantages to opponents: you can always “find fault” with a too general formulation, with a thesis that is ambiguous or contains ambiguous words. For example, a thesis formulated in the form of a statement Taxes should be reduced, easy to challenge and refute: What, all taxes? What does “reduce” mean? and so on.
2) throughout the dispute the thesis must remain the same;
The most common logical mistake of debaters (or a trick, if this is done on purpose) is “substitution of the thesis” (its “narrowing” or, conversely, “expansion”). The speaker is assigned a thesis that is more convenient for criticism, which is then rejected.
For example, you argue that spouses should share household responsibilities reasonably. “ Eh, no, they tell you. – Feminism will not work here! This is not some kind of America" There is an “expansion” of the thesis: after all, you do not at all advocate feminism (the movement for the equality of women) and in your thesis there was no statement about the need for equal rights for women in general, or even a demand for equal rights in everyday life. There was another, more specific requirement: a reasonable distribution of responsibilities at home.
Another way to refute the same thesis: “ Why should I peel potatoes and wash dishes? These are women's responsibilities" There is a “narrowing” of the thesis (your thesis has been replaced by a more specific, narrow one - about potatoes and dishes - and they are trying to refute it).
Both narrowing and expanding your thesis, i.e. its replacement became possible because the thesis was formulated unsuccessfully: ambiguous and in too general a form. What does “reasonable” mean? What does “divide” mean? What kind of household duties are you referring to? All this had to be thought through and put into concrete form, then it would be impossible to replace the thesis.
Argument Requirements:
1) truth;
2) consistency;
3) sufficiency.
Arguments must be true in themselves and not depend on the thesis; they should not contradict each other; they should be enough to make the truth of the thesis obvious.
Mistakes and tricks of arguers related to arguments:
1. The truth of the thesis is proven by arguments, and the truth of the arguments is proven by the thesis: "vicious circle". This cannot be, because it can never be; Sleeping pills put you to sleep because they have a hypnotic effect; Glass is transparent because everything is visible through it - Here are statements constructed according to this model.
2. “Anticipating the conclusion" This is an accidental or intentional advance of events: untenable, unproven arguments are presented as verified, strong, weighty, proven reasons for the thesis. This ploy often comes in the form of a rhetorical question. For example: Should we continue the destructive course of reforms or is it better to return to proven, stable state regulation of the economy? The fact that the course is destructive, and state regulation in the current real situation is a stable rate - these are arbitrary arguments (they still need to be proven). The listener is “pushed” by the speaker to a conclusion that anticipates this evidence - yes, it should!
3. “Falsity of grounds.” Erroneous, unreliable data and false judgments are used as arguments. This, like previous cases of violation of the logic of evidence, may be both a mistake and a trick of the speaker.
Demonstration requirements:
The arguments and thesis must be connected according to the laws of logic (remember that these laws are the law of contradiction, the law of identity, the law of excluded middle and the law of sufficient reason). Violation of these laws leads to errors in demonstration, and is also used as a special technique, an argumentative trick to mislead the opponent.
The demo's mistakes and tricks are:
1) "do not do it"– the appearance of a cause-and-effect relationship is created, which does not exist: “Cucumbers have fallen in price,” the economist declares in his autumn speech, - This means the economy is booming.”. A special version of this error seems to be error in replacing the temporal relationship with a cause-and-effect one: an event preceding in time is understood as the cause of another, subsequent event, although in fact there is no cause-and-effect relationship between these phenomena. The joke about the cockroach is based on this mistake. They put the cockroach on the table and knocked - the cockroach ran. They tore off the cockroach's legs and knocked on the table - the cockroach did not run. “Consequently,” the scientists concluded, “the hearing organs are located in the cockroach’s legs.”
2) “from what is said with a condition to what is said unconditionally”. For example, because one should be truthful, it does not follow that one should always tell the truth;
3) “hasty generalization” is a fallacy (or trick) in inductive reasoning: “Student A is not ready for the lesson. Student B is not ready for class. Student C is not ready for class. Well, the whole class was not prepared for the lesson,”- says the teacher, clearly jumping to a conclusion.
4) errors in concluding by analogy. We must remember that analogies are not strict, i.e. provide grounds only for probable conclusions. If the phenomena have few coinciding (analogous) signs, then the analogy can lead to a false conclusion. For example. I. Kepler wrote that the Earth, like man, has internal heat - volcanic activity convinces of this. Accordingly, the vessels of a living body on Earth are rivers. There are a number of other correspondences. But man is animated. Therefore, the Earth also has a soul.
5) errors in deductive inferences. These are errors in the construction of syllogisms; they are very diverse and are studied in detail in logic. Let's give an example of one of these errors. All Koreans eat dogs. Petrov ate the dog during a burglary. Therefore, Petrov is a Korean. This is an error caused by mixing multiple values of the expression “ eat the dog” – literal and figurative. This kind of error in logic is called “quadruplement of the term.”
Undoubtedly, this is not a complete list of errors and tricks that occur in logical proof. Turning to textbooks on rhetoric (see the list of textbooks by E.V. Klyuev, I.N. Kuznetsov, V.P. Sheinov) will allow you to get acquainted with more complete lists of tricks and polemical techniques that are actively used by debaters.
4. Distinguish two main strategies of dispute :
A) constructive– disputants strive to find the truth, understand the positions and evaluate the opponent’s evidence. They try to act correctly, being interested not in their victory, but in the truth about the subject under discussion;
b) destructive– the main goal is your own victory and the defeat of your opponent. Disputants strive for the desired result using all possible means: correct and incorrect.
Basic dispute tactics .
The main tactics of the dispute are differentiated according to the division of the disputants into proponent and opponent. The proponent is the one who puts forward the thesis, and the opponent is the one who refutes the thesis. Thus, two main dispute tactics are distinguished, namely: the proponent’s tactics and the opponent’s tactics.
Proponent tactics consists of an “attack” and is carried out using the following techniques:
1) direct appeal to the addressee with a thesis that is supported by direct evidence based on facts;
2) “questioning-interrogation” technique– questions to the addressee follow one after another, so that he is forced to accept this model of conduct imposed on him by the enemy, and, answering the questions, reveal his position earlier and more clearly than he would like at the initial moment of the dispute;
3) trap questions- these are questions that require answers Not really, and are used to “catch” the enemy in a mistake and demonstrate the weakness of his position. For example:" Of course, you admit that...?“If the opponent agrees, then the proponent’s attack immediately follows: “ Unfortunately, you are wrong!“It is recommended to use tactics against this technique ignoring: Leave the question unanswered and ask your own questions after a pause.
Opponent's tactics - this is “defense with transition to attack.” The following techniques are used:
1) “yes, but...” method. You seem to agree with the opponent’s statement, and then move on to a refutation: This is true, but you forgot this and that...;
2) “piece method”. The opponent's argument is assessed in parts: This is fair, this is accurate, this is banal, this is incomplete, but this, excuse me, is incorrect.
3) "summation". You summarize your opponent's position as you see it and begin your rebuttal.
5. Rules of conduct in a dispute .
2) Do not shout down or interrupt your opponent.
3) Listen actively, do not allow objections to your opponent even in your own inner speech while you listen - just listen, you will object when you have listened to your opponent to the end.
4) Be friendly, do not show disdain.
5) Avoid being too categorical; You can persuade listeners to agree with your point of view only when you express it with conviction, but gently and non-aggressively.
6) If you lose, try to turn your defeat into victory in the following way. Admit that the other person is right - it will be clear to everyone that you are a competent and objective person.
7) If you win, don’t gloat.
8) Don't be too serious. A special role in a dispute is played by jokes, humor, and irony. Take into account Aristotle’s recommendation: “Kill the enemy’s joke with seriousness, and defeat seriousness with a joke.”
9) If you are confident that you are right, but your opponent turns out to be stronger in the skill of arguing, you should not admit defeat. Just say: “Although this time I was not able to prove that I am right, I am still sure of it. I hope that we will return to this problem and I will be able to present more compelling evidence.”
.They do not cause criticism; they cannot be refuted, destroyed, or ignored. This is first of all:
Precisely established and interrelated facts and judgments arising from them;
Laws, charters, governing documents, if they are implemented and correspond to real life;
Experimentally verified conclusions;
Expert opinions;
Quotes from public statements, books by recognized authorities in the field;
Testimony of witnesses and eyewitnesses of events;
Statistical information, if its collection, processing and generalization are done by professional statisticians.
2. Weak arguments
They raise doubts among your opponents, clients, and employees. Such arguments include:
Inferences based on two or more separate facts, the relationship between which is unclear without a third;
Tricks and judgments built on alogisms (alogism is a technique for destroying the logic of thinking, most often used with humor. For example: “Water? I drank it once. It does not quench my thirst”);
Analogies and non-indicative examples;
Arguments of a personal nature arising from circumstances or dictated by motivation, desire;
Tendentiously selected digressions, aphorisms, sayings;
Arguments, versions or generalizations made on the basis of guesses, assumptions, feelings;
Conclusions from incomplete statistical data. 3. Untenable Arguments
They allow you to expose and discredit the opponent who used them. They are:
Judgments based on manipulated facts;
Decisions that have become invalid;
Conjectures, conjectures, suppositions, fabrications;
Arguments designed to appeal to prejudice, ignorance;
Conclusions drawn from fictitious documents;
Promises and promises given in advance;
False statements and testimony;
Forgery and falsification of what is said. Thus, in the course of argumentation:
1) use only those arguments that you and your opponent understand equally;
2) if the argument is not accepted, find the reason for this and do not insist on it further in the conversation;
3) do not underestimate the importance of the opponent’s strong arguments; on the contrary, emphasize their importance and your correct understanding;
4) present your arguments that are not related to what your opponent or partner said after you have responded to his arguments;
5) more accurately measure the pace of argumentation with the characteristics of your partner’s temperament;
6) excessive persuasiveness always causes resistance, since the superiority of a partner in a dispute is always offensive;
7) give one or two compelling arguments and, if the desired effect is achieved, limit yourself to this.
LAWS OF ARGUMENTATION AND BELIEF
1 . Law of embedding (implementation)
Arguments should be built into the partner’s logic of reasoning, and not driven in (breaking it), not presented in parallel.
2. The law of common language of thought
If you want to be heard, speak the language of your opponent's basic information and representational systems.
3. The law of minimizing arguments
Remember the limitations of human perception (five to seven arguments), so limit the number of arguments. It is better if there are no more than three or four of them.
4. The law of objectivity and evidence
Use as arguments only those arguments that your opponent accepts. Don't confuse facts and opinions.
5. The law of dialectality (unity of opposites) Talk not only about the advantages of your evidence or assumptions, but also about the disadvantages. This will give your arguments more weight, since a two-sided review (pros and cons) deprives them of their lightness and disarms your opponent.
6. The Law of Demonstrating Equality and Respect
Present your arguments by showing respect for your opponent and his position. Remember that it is easier to convince a “friend” than "enemy".
8. Law of Reframing
Do not reject your partner’s arguments, but, recognizing their legitimacy, overestimate their strength and significance. Increase the significance of losses if you accept his position or reduce the significance of the benefits expected by your partner.
9. Law of gradualism
Do not try to quickly convince your opponent; it is better to take gradual but consistent steps.
10. Feedback law
Provide feedback in the form of an assessment of your opponent’s condition and a description of your emotional state. Take personal responsibility for misunderstandings and misunderstandings.
11. Law of ethics
In the process of argumentation, do not allow unethical behavior (aggression, deception, arrogance, manipulation, etc.), do not touch the “sore spots” of your opponent.
DIAGNOSIS AND RECIPES OF BEHAVIOR IN NEGOTIATIONS
Diagnosis 1. The opponent “inflates” the problem, takes it beyond the boundaries of the discussion (conversation, argument), smearing the problem, and killing something new in the bud.
Recipe. Remind us of the framework of the discussion and its purpose. Ask him to clarify his antithesis again and return the conversation to its previous course.
Diagnosis 2. It covers minutiae (minor facts) without affecting the main thesis.
Recipe. Ask if he has forgotten the purpose of the conversation, his own purpose. Bring him back to the controversial issue.
Diagnosis 3. The opponent tries to seize the initiative in choosing the topic of conversation: a) replaces fundamental issues with trifles,
b) puts forward theses that are not on the essence of the problem, c) offers a counter-problem, ignores your arguments.
Recipe. Anticipate your opponent's objections in advance, study their motives and positions in order to: a) point out to your interlocutor that he is avoiding a controversial issue, b) ask him what idea he was proving, c) ask him to express his attitude to your argument.
Diagnosis 4. The enemy makes hints that compromise you. By doing so, he questions your thought or proposal. His goals: a) to transfer criticism to you, to your personality, b) to attribute obviously ridiculous statements to you.
Recipe. Do not exclude compliments to your opponent, win with goodwill, demonstrate your objectivity. To do this: a) say that a smart thought can shine in a dark room, b) do not try to justify yourself, c) do not show strong emotions, d) do not succumb to provocation.
Diagnosis 5. He deliberately leads you to false conclusions, manipulates the facts in order to subsequently convict you of illiteracy and amateurism.
Recipe. Stop the exchange of opinions, praise the interlocutor for the depth of the analysis and ask him to draw a general conclusion.
Diagnosis 6. The opponent hides a sharply negative attitude towards your position or towards you under the guise of goodwill. Recipe. Witty rip off his mask, recall the previous fact of such “goodwill” and its result, reveal his plan to everyone present.
Diagnosis 7. He accuses you of incompetence, plays on your mistakes and shortcomings, ignores the facts for and against, and tendentiously interprets your words.
Recipe. Don't be overly sensitive. Ask what exactly is being discussed and why. Ask him to express his thoughts on how to get out of the difficulty.
Diagnosis 8. The enemy constantly changes position, spins around and around, tries to find something third.
Recipe. Do not insist on recognition, agreement and support for your proposal. He is someone's puppet. End a conversation that will lead nowhere anyway.
Diagnosis 9. They rudely pull you back during a conversation (your speech, your reasoning).
Recipe. Not give free rein to your feelings. This is your opponent's attempt to throw you off balance. If possible, be satirical, ironic, sarcastic towards him, try to parody his behavior (act out a parody).
Second rule (Socrates' rule): in order to positively resolve an issue that is important to you, put it in third place, prefacing it with two short, simple questions for the interlocutor, to which he will probably answer you “yes” without difficulty. This rule has existed for 2400 years and has been tested in practice (it turns out that when a person says the word “yes,” endorphins (“pleasure hormones”) enter his blood, and having received two portions of “pleasure hormones,” the interlocutor is in a favorable mood and it is psychologically easier for him to say “ yes" than "no").
Third rule (Pascal's rule): Don't drive your interlocutor into a corner. Give him the opportunity to “save face” and preserve his dignity. “Nothing disarms like the terms of honorable surrender.” (Show that your proposed solution satisfies some of the other person’s needs.)
Fourth rule: the persuasiveness of arguments largely depends on the image and status of the persuader. A high official or social position, competence, authority, and support from the team increase a person’s status and the degree of persuasiveness of his arguments.
Fifth rule: do not drive yourself into a corner, do not lower your status by showing signs of uncertainty, excessive apologies (the phrases “sorry if I was in the way,” “please, if you have time to listen to me...” lower your status).
Sixth rule: do not belittle the status of your interlocutor, because any manifestation of disrespect or disregard for the interlocutor causes a negative reaction.
Seventh rule: We treat the arguments of a pleasant interlocutor favorably, and with prejudice towards the arguments of an unpleasant one. A pleasant impression is created by many factors: respectful attitude, ability to listen, competent speech, pleasant manners, appearance, etc.
Eighth rule: If you want to convince, start not with the points that divide you, but with the points on which you agree with your opponent.
Ninth rule: show empathy, try to understand the emotional state of the other person, imagine his train of thought, put yourself in his place, empathize with him.
Tenth rule: Be a good listener to understand the other person's thinking.
Eleventh rule: check whether you understand your interlocutor correctly.
Twelfth Rule: Avoid words and actions that could lead to conflict.
Thirteenth rule: Watch your facial expressions, gestures, and postures—yours and your interlocutor’s.
To maintain effective interaction and understanding of interlocutors, it is important to promptly notice and take into account body signals for typical situations and negotiations.
1. Involvement, interest. The basic rule: the more the body “opens” and the more the partner’s head and torso lean towards you, the more involved he is, and vice versa.
Increasing attention to the partner and mental activity in this direction: forward movement of the head and upper body, i.e. leaning towards the partner, fully straightened head, direct gaze with the face fully turned towards the partner, increasing tempo of movements, so to speak, “active” sitting on the edge of the chair, sudden interruption of any rhythmic play of the arms, legs or feet, open gesticulation of the arms and hands (grin), accelerated speech and gesticulation of arms and hands.
More or less uncritical attitude, complete agreement, trust, recognition of another: relaxed head position, often tilted back, head tilted to the side (cross-legged), wide, comfortable posture, calm, firm, open and direct look into the partner’s eyes, open, free smile, eyes closed for a few moments, while slightly indicated nod of the head.
The onset of readiness for active action, the will to work mentally: a sharp tossing of the head, the previously relatively relaxed body acquires clear signs of tension, for example, the upper part of the body moves from a position comfortably reclined on the back of the chair to a free, straight position.
2. Distraction due to waning interest. Basic rule: the more a partner “covers” or “hides” parts of his body, the more he leans back or turns away, the greater the distraction, if not denial or defense!
Aimless, passive state: movement backward, deviation of the upper body, as well as the head, “closed” posture of the arms and hands, slow pace of movements, change of active participation in the conversation by some kind of rhythmic play of the arms, legs, feet, the same - in a demonstratively lazy pose, for example , partner drums fingers on the table, tilting the head and/or upper body to one side, unclear, vague underlining of words or emphasis, slowing speed of speech and gestures.
3. Inner restlessness, uncertainty, doubt, mistrust. Inner restlessness onset of nervousness, nervous tension: continued rhythmic movements of the fingers, legs, feet or hands, often with a very small amplitude (then anxiety and tension are also of a negative kind), rhythmically disturbed movements of a repetitive nature (fidgeting back and forth on the seat, uneven finger tapping, rotating a cigarette pack, etc.) n., squinting).
4. Thoughtfulness, thoughtfulness, thoughtful reflection. Looking into the distance with a certain relaxation, hands clasped behind the back, slowly rubbing the forehead with an erasing motion, slightly open fingers touching the mouth, while looking vaguely into space, eyes closed for a few moments, tongue touching the edge of the lips, sedentary but relatively rich facial expressions with an inactive setting .
5. Increasing distraction, aversion, active or passive defense. General: turning the face away from the partner, tilting the body back, while extending the arms with the palms facing forward.
Surprise, reluctance, excitement, anger, rage: more or less strong tension, strong strikes with the palm or knuckles on the table, vertical folds on the forehead, baring of teeth, “a grimace of protest, stupefaction,” jaw pulling, inappropriate strong and monotonous movements, blushing, increased voice volume.
Decisiveness, readiness to fight, aggressiveness: strong tension (standing - lifting up, sitting - in a tense readiness to jump up), hands are sharply and tensely thrust into pockets with subsequent tension in the shoulder girdle, hands clenched into fists, vertical folds on the forehead, a glance from under the brows, a firm look at the partner, emphasized closed or clenched mouth.
People who walk quickly, waving their arms, have a clear goal and are ready to immediately implement it, while those who usually keep their hands in their pockets, even in warm weather, are likely to be critical and self-deprecating. People who are depressed also often walk with their hands in their pockets, dragging their feet, and rarely looking up or in the direction they are walking.
People who are busy solving problems often walk in a meditative position: their head is lowered, their hands are clasped behind their back.
Self-satisfied, somewhat pompous people can be recognized by their gait: their chin is raised, their arms move with pronounced intensity, their legs look like wood. The whole gait is designed to impress.