Роберт Аллен – How to Win Arguments (страница 4)
There is another important consideration. People involved in arguments may not always tell the truth. They may either lie deliberately to deceive you about their true motives or they may even mislead themselves about what those motives are. It can be very hard indeed to unmask a good liar. The idea that liars look shifty or give themselves away with special body-language signs is laughably naive. When you are confused about who is telling the truth it is as well to consider what each participant has to gain. This may not be an infallible guide but it is often the only clue you will get.
What of your own motives? It is in the nature of argument that sometimes you will merely be trying to get your own way. Truth, Justice or the Greater Good will simply not enter your thoughts. This is human nature. However, if you are aware that that is what you are doing then you will be in a much better position to handle the argument. Naturally you will rationalize your position so that you feel justified in getting your own way (this is a psychological trick we all use as a matter of course). But if you can retain some vestige of impartiality you will be able to construct an argument that at least appears to be based on a desire to get at a just solution.
You should also weigh your advantage very carefully against the possible costs of getting what you want. For example, if you do battle with A over this matter and win you may feel very pleased with yourself. On the other hand, suppose your relationship with A is ongoing and you know that soon you will have to argue over matters that are even more important to you. What do you do? Perhaps by giving him a fair deal this time you will soften him up for a hard argument when it really matters. On the other hand you may reason that if you thrash the pants off A right now you will be able to use your psychological advantage to overcome him again in the future. Your actions in this situation will depend mainly on your reading of A’s character, but an accurate assessment of the material gains to be made will tell just how far it is worth going with your argument. Would you, for example, be wise to offend someone mortally over a matter that was only worth a few pounds? Arguments quickly get out of hand, tempers become inflamed, pride suffers and before you know where you are you may find yourself engaged in a major war over something that is worth only a trifle.
Status
Anyone who has read this far will be in no doubt that I do not have much faith in human beings as rational creatures. A glance at today’s news headlines (any day, any country) will bear me out. That is why the issue of status assumes such importance in the realm of argument. It is utterly irrational, a throwback to our animal ancestors, and yet it still exerts an iron control over our behaviour. One can readily understand why baboons may depend for their success on organising their family groups on the basis of status. But people? The thinking apes? Unfortunately it is all too true.
Status in arguments is seen best within a business environment or in some highly structured organization such as the army or police. Anyone who has ever worked in an office or factory will have seen a boss who is always right, no matter how wrong he may be. Bosses like this don’t argue about the facts of a case (they may well be ignorant of them and, in any case, they regard them as largely irrelevant). No, their chief concern will be that by pursuing a particular course successfully (getting their own way), and putting down any opposition they may encounter, they get to stay Chief Baboon.
Subordinates will often play along with this game by deliberately deferring to the boss and letting his opinions hold sway even when they know he is wrong. In that way they help to confirm his status and thus bolster their own position in the pecking order. One of the features of a pecking order is that people do not mind it as long as it remains unchanged. In fact they will engage in regular rituals that are designed specifically to reconfirm the order. However, someone who dares to try to upset the status quo will spark off the bitterest of status arguments.
Another interesting feature of status is that the people who concern themselves with it do not have to be ‘important’. It is not only officers and gentlemen who worry about their pecking orders. Think for a moment of the stock comedy figures of the mild-mannered gentlefolk who organize the church flower rota. Anyone who has experienced the intrigues and political chicanery attendant upon a church flower rota will know that the issue of status is just as important to the meek and humble as to the high and mighty.
Emotion
Arguments are frequently very emotional occasions. It is surprising that, even when we think we are engaged in a rational discussion about some matter of objective fact, a contrary opinion can stir feelings of resentment or even anger. The truth is that no one likes to be contradicted or, even worse, proved wrong. Issues of status are immediately brought into play in almost any argument. You may not care two hoots about a particular topic until someone tells you that your opinion on the subject is wrong. Then you may well feel inclined to fight to the death to prove yourself right.
This is a human reaction and, as such, we have to live with it. There is no point trying to pretend that you are some sort of superhuman being who is not affected by the heady emotions attached to an argument. However, if you are aware of the extent to which you may be emotionally involved in what is being said you may be able to stand aside from yourself just enough to prevent falling into the worst excesses.
It used to be said that the forbidden topics of polite conversation were sex, politics and religion. Nowadays many people pride themselves on getting to grips with the issues of the day and having full and frank discussions on things that really matter. There are far fewer taboos about what can be discussed. However, there has been no significant inward change in the way people feel about such topics. If you really want to get someone stirred up you have only to attack his religion or his politics, and sex, of course, is just a minefield. I would add another issue to this short list of dangerous topics: children. No issue is more contentious than the upbringing and education of children. For some reason just the mere mention of the word ‘children’ is enough to drive normally sane, sensible people into a frenzy. From that moment no theory is too nutty to be espoused and no statement too extreme to be proposed. Non-believers can expect pretty much the same treatment as heretics at the hands of the Inquisition. Beware when you argue about children!
The emotional content of an argument may often be of far more importance than the intellectual content and this is a fact that you ignore at your peril. Once hurt pride becomes an issue then it will prove the greatest of obstacles to getting a reasonable solution. In any argument in which you may be involved take great care to consider the effects of emotion.
There are various types of argument, each with its own rules and methods.
The first major division is into public and private arguments. It is enormously important to decide whether you are arguing to convince an individual or whether you are merely using that person as a sounding board to help you convince others.
Private Arguments
Those arguments that take place between individuals, or in a small group of people with no audience listening, are clearly in the private category. The fact that such arguments are, by definition, carried on without an audience will have a profound effect on their shape. In a private argument, what is said will tend to be regarded as ‘off the record’ and people may well feel able to reveal feelings and opinions that they would hide from a wider audience. Inevitably a private argument will tend to concentrate on the personal aspects, even when matters of public importance are being discussed. Anecdotal evidence is very common in private arguments and people will frequently use their own experiences, and those of friends and relatives, to try to prove a case. They will often not be able or willing to see that just because Uncle Harry smoked forty cigarettes a day every day of his life from the age of eleven, and lived till he was eighty-seven, then that doesn’t mean that it must be a load of rubbish that smoking gives you cancer.
Unless the participants are experienced arguers they will tend to make common mistakes such as confusing fact and opinion or quoting facts inaccurately. One of the strongest ploys you can use in private arguments is