A trick in a dispute is any technique with the help of which one wants to make the argument easier for oneself or make it more difficult for one’s opponent.
A great contribution to the development of the theory of tricks was made by the ancient Greek thinker Aristotle, the German philosopher A. Schopenhauer, the Russian logician S. Povarnin and other researchers (K. Pavlova, P. Mitsich, L. Averyanov, I. Melnik, A. Nikiforov, etc.) , who managed in their works to significantly improve the classification of possible tricks in disputes.
Analyzing previous experience in systematizing tricks and expanding their arsenal of use, we will reduce the entire set of tricks into three groups: organizational-procedural, psychological and logical:
1. Organizational and procedural tricks
The tricks of this group can only be used by the organizer of the negotiation process or discussion. They are aimed either at disrupting the discussion or at deliberate confrontation opposing views participants in the discussion in order to heat up the atmosphere, or to reduce negotiations to a discussion option that is obviously unacceptable to the opponent. Let us give characteristics of the main organizational and procedural tricks.1.1. Formation initial installation
.
The essence of the trick is to initially give the floor to those whose opinion is known, appeals to others and is capable of forming in them a certain attitude towards the perception of any idea. In this case, the “frame” effect is triggered, according to which the tone and direction, precisely at the beginning of the discussion, forms in the minds of others the necessary attitude toward their directed perception of certain provisions of the problem being discussed.
1.2. Providing materials only the day before
This trick consists of providing discussion participants with working materials (projects, contracts, programs, etc.) intended for discussion shortly before it begins, when it is simply physically difficult to familiarize yourself with these materials.
1.3. Avoiding re-discussion
The trick succeeds when decisions made are fixed rigidly and repeated discussion is deliberately not allowed, even when new data worthy of attention is received that could influence the development of the final decision.
1.4. The atmosphere is tense with the “aggressors” of the dispute
The trick involves alternately giving the floor to aggressive opponents who allow mutual insults, which are only formally, for the sake of appearances, suppressed. As a result, the atmosphere of the discussion becomes critical and when asked to the discussion participants: “Shall we discuss further?”, as a rule, the majority is inclined to answer: “No!”
1.5. Primary continuity in voting
The essence of the trick is to put proposals to a vote not in the order in which they were received, but according to the degree of their acceptability for the interested party, so that those who are undecided can quickly “cast their votes.”
1.6. Pausing the discussion on the desired option
This ploy means stopping the discussion of an important issue in a speech that reflects the most desirable position. In this case, those around are influenced by the already known “frame” effect, when ideas last performance are able to more strongly form the necessary psychological attitude towards the perception of the necessary information.
1.7. Selective loyalty in compliance with regulations
This is the case when some speakers are strictly limited in regulations, while others are not. There are similar restrictions in the nature of statements: some are forgiven for being “harsh” towards an opponent, while others are pointedly reprimanded.
1.8. Pseudo-de jure decision making
This trick is used when people who do not have the right to vote are specifically invited to a discussion, and during the discussion they ask those invited what their opinion is on the problem being discussed. Then, focusing on the opinions of people who do not have casting vote, make the right decision.
1.9. Break in discussion
The trick is to call a break at a key point in the discussion when a highly inconvenient and unacceptable solution may be reached.
1.10. "Blowing off steam" on unimportant issues
This is a model of discussion where, first, they deliberately discuss minor issues for a long time. secondary issues, and then, when many are tired of the discussion or are under the impression of some previous verbal-emotional “squabble,” they bring up for discussion the issue that they want to discuss without increased criticism.
1.11. "Random" lack of documents
This is a deliberately created situation where discussion participants are “as if by accident” given an incomplete set of documents, and then along the way it turns out that someone (unfortunately) is not aware of all the available information.
1.12. Over-information
This reverse option the previous trick, which consists in the fact that a lot of drafts of possible solutions are being prepared and it is simply physically impossible to compare them in a short time during the discussion.
1.13. "Loss" of documents
The trick succeeds if “as if by accident” working documents, letters, appeals, notes and anything that could negatively affect the course of the discussion are lost. There are other tricks of an organizational and procedural nature (“Ignoring proposals received,” “Unexpected change of the discussion agenda,” etc.), which are aimed either at disrupting the discussion, or at reducing the discussion to mutual insults, etc. Final goal These tricks, as shown above, are to reduce the discussion to options that are obviously unacceptable to opponents.
2. Psychological tricks
Psychological tricks mean such unacceptable (from a moral point of view) methods of argument, discussion, polemics that are based on psychological impact on the interlocutor in order to put him into a state of irritation, play on his feelings of pride, shame, and use manifestations and other subtle features of the human psyche.2.1. Annoying your opponent
Removing him from a state of mental balance with ridicule, accusations, reproaches and other methods until the interlocutor becomes irritated and makes an erroneous statement that is unfavorable for his position.
2.2. Usage unclear words and terms
This trick can give, on the one hand, the impression of the significance of the problem being discussed, the weight of the arguments presented, and a high level of professionalism and competence. On the other hand, the use of incomprehensible, “scientific” terms by the initiator of the trick may cause an opposite reaction on the part of the opponent in the form of irritation, alienation, or withdrawal. psychological protection. However, the trick succeeds when the interlocutor is either embarrassed to ask again about something, or pretends that he understands what it is about we're talking about, and accepted the arguments presented.
2.3. Taken aback by the pace of the discussion
When communicating, a fast pace of speech is used and the opponent who perceives the arguments is not able to “process” them. In this case, the rapidly changing stream of thoughts simply stuns the interlocutor and puts him in a state of discomfort.
2.4. Transferring the dispute into the realm of speculation
The essence of the trick is to take the polemic into the direction of denunciation and force the opponent to either justify himself or explain something that has nothing to do with the essence of the problem being discussed. An example of a trick is a statement like: “You say this because your position requires it, but in fact you think differently.”
2.5. Mind reading for suspicion
The point of the trick is to use the “mind reading” option to divert all sorts of suspicions from yourself. An example would be a judgment like: “Perhaps you think that I’m trying to persuade you? So you’re mistaken!”
2.6. Referring to “higher interests” without deciphering them
The essence of the trick is to express a thought containing a hint that if the opponent, for example, continues to be intractable in the dispute, then this may affect the interests of those whom it is extremely undesirable to upset or unbalance. An example of this trick, as a variant of the “stick argument,” could be an appeal like: “Do you understand what you are attempting when you do not agree with the arguments presented?”
2.7. Judgment like “This is banal!”
The main idea of the trick is to force the opponent to react to the unambiguous and unsubstantiated assessment, which really does not contain any arguments. Indeed, the opponent’s reaction to remarks like “This is all nonsense,” “This is nonsense,” “This is well known,” “This is banal” is quite predictable. Having heard such an assessment, few people can resist the temptation to emotionally prove that this is not so. To induce justification - this is the insidious intent of the ruse.
2.8. Carthage must be destroyed
This is the name given to the following psychological trick, the idea of which is to “accustom” the opponent to some thought. “Carthage must be destroyed” - this is exactly how the speech in the Roman Senate of Consul Cato the Elder ended every time. The trick is to gradually and purposefully accustom the interlocutor to some unsubstantiated statement. Then, after repeated repetition, this statement is declared obvious.
2.9. Understatement with a hint of special motives
The essence of this trick is to demonstrate some significant understatement, to hint that in in this case much more can be said, but this is not done for any special reasons.
2.10. Link to authority
Let us remember that this trick “works” only when the authority being referred to is truly an authority. Otherwise the trick may have reverse effect. Interesting data is provided by experts in assessing who the interlocutor trusts most. In the first place, of course, is trust in yourself. In second place is trust in a third party, and an authoritative one at that. Finally, the one he trusts least is his opponent.
2.11. Accusation of utopian ideas
The trick is designed to force the partner to justify himself, to look for arguments against the accusation that his idea is unrealistic. Thanks to reasoning in defense of the proclaimed arguments, the departure from main problem discussions. All this, as in many other cases, is extremely beneficial to the initiator of the trick.
2.12. Flattery or compliment
Flattering or complimentary turns of speech are not inferior to any other trick in terms of the power of their impact on the human psyche. This is due primarily to the fact that, by influencing a person’s subconscious, they are able to: sweeten the opponent’s ears, weaken criticism addressed to them, create the necessary atmosphere confessions human dignity. “We are all sensitive to compliments” - this is a completely fair thought expressed at one time by A. Lincoln. But if a compliment can evoke pleasant feelings in the interlocutor, then flattery by its nature can provoke a reverse reaction. What is the essential difference between these concepts - “flattery” and “compliment”? Let’s dwell on this in more detail. Let’s start with a simple everyday example: in the phrase “How sweet and charming you are!” a flexible and insightful mind will involuntarily hear flattery, i.e. would be a straightforward, simple emphasizing of a person’s merits. However, in a complimentary statement like “It’s clear why your husband is always in a hurry to go home,” there is a guess, a reflection on the merits of a woman, perhaps, and not only her appearance. So, the main differences between flattery and a compliment are that , What:
- flattery is straightforward, unambiguous, simple and understandable, while a compliment presupposes different readings, reflection, during which the person himself figures out the essence of what was said;
- the subject of flattery is people and their qualities, the subject of a compliment is things, deeds, ideas, i.e. everything that, as it were, indirectly relates to people;
- flattery implies an excessive exaggeration of the positive qualities of a person, attributing advantages that do not exist, but a compliment does not allow this, it only indirectly indicates the presence of a number of positive qualities in a person.
Be careful when you hear flattery
Her weapons are evil and revenge,
Never trust her.
No wonder people say:
Flattery has a very warm look,
Yes, a heart made of ice.
2.13. False shame
This trick consists of using a false argument against an opponent, which he is able to “swallow” without much objection. The trick can be successfully used in various kinds judgments, discussions and disputes, including pedagogical ones. Appeals like “You, of course, know that science has now established...” or “Of course, you know that a decision was recently made...” or “You, of course, read about...” lead the opponent into a state of “false shame”, when he seems ashamed to publicly say that he does not know the things that they are talking about. In these cases, most of the people against whom this trick is used nod or pretend to remember what is being said, thereby recognizing all these, sometimes false, arguments.
2.14. False shame followed by reproach
This trick, like many others, is aimed not at the essence of the problem being discussed, but at the personality of the interlocutor, with belittling the opponent, humiliating his dignity, etc. An example of a trick is the statement “What, you didn’t read this?” or “What, you are not familiar with this data,” followed by an added reproach like: “So what should I talk to you about then?” The subsequent actions of the initiator of the trick are obvious: he either ends the discussion (which, in fact, is part of his plans), or continues to skillfully divert the discussion of the problem.
2.15. Belittling by irony
This technique effective when the dispute is unprofitable for some reason. You can disrupt the discussion of a problem and avoid the discussion by belittling your opponent with irony like “Sorry, but you are saying things that are beyond my understanding.” Usually in such cases, the one against whom this trick is directed begins to feel a feeling of dissatisfaction with what was said and, trying to soften his position, makes mistakes, but of a different nature.
2.16. Showing resentment
This trick is also aimed at disrupting the dispute, since a statement like “Who do you actually take us for?” clearly demonstrates to the partner that opposite side cannot continue the discussion, as he feels a sense of obvious dissatisfaction, and most importantly, resentment for some ill-considered actions on the part of his opponent.
2.17. Authority of the statement
With the help of this trick, the psychological significance of your own arguments is significantly increased. This can be effectively done through testimony such as “I declare to you with authority.” Such a turn of phrase is usually perceived by the partner as a clear signal of increasing the significance of the arguments being expressed, and therefore as a determination to firmly defend one’s position in the dispute.
2.18. Frankness of the statement
In this trick, the emphasis is on a special trust of communication, which is demonstrated using phrases such as, for example, “I’ll tell you directly (frankly, honestly) now...”. It seems as if everything that was said before was not entirely direct, frank or clear. As will be said by the initiator of the trick, and subsequently encourage the partner to respond in the same vein, that is, also openly, honestly and directly.
2.19. Double-entry bookkeeping
This trick is most popular in almost all business communication situations. Its essence lies in the fact that the same reasons and arguments are considered convincing when they are expressed in defense of one’s position, and extremely unacceptable when expressed by an opponent. This technique corresponds to the well-known principle of the so-called Hottentot morality (Hottentots are the ancient inhabitants of South Africa), according to which everything that corresponds to one’s own desires and views is considered true (true), and everything that contradicts them is considered false and incorrect.
2.20. Imaginary inattention
The name of this trick actually already speaks about its essence: they “forget”, and sometimes deliberately do not notice the inconvenient and dangerous arguments of the opponent. Not noticing something that can cause harm is the idea of the trick.
2.21. Imaginary misunderstanding and miscommunication
The “cunning” of this technique lies in misinterpreting the opponent’s arguments and arguments, that is, deliberately, for the sake of, of course, one’s own interests, presenting the partner’s argument in a distorted form. This is easy to do with the help of well-known listening techniques, such as “listening-paraphrase” and “listening-summarizing”. The essence of the first technique is to formulate your partner’s thoughts in your own words, but deliberately distorting the information, using phrases such as “So, you believe...”, “In other words, you think...”, “According to you opinion...", etc. The essence of the second technique is to give the interlocutor a signal that you have understood the entire message, and not just some part of it (what was beneficial or what you wanted to hear). In other words, with the help of summarizing, i.e. combining your partner’s thoughts into a single semantic field, using phrases like: “Summarizing what you said...”, “So, as far as I understand, your main idea boils down to this , that ... ", you can consciously change the meaning of the ideas expressed by your partner and thereby realize the main idea of the trick.
2.22. Flattering turns of phrase
The peculiarity of this trick is to “sprinkle the sugar of flattery” on the opponent, hinting to him how much he can win or, on the contrary, lose if he persists in his disagreement. An example of a flattering turn of phrase is the statement: “As an intelligent person, you cannot help but see that...”.
2.23. It was smooth on paper, but they forgot about the ravines
The name of this trick corresponds to a famous old aphorism. Let us recall its essence. In past centuries, when planning a very important offensive military operation the mediocre “parquet” military leaders, it would seem, took everything into account: the time of day, the nature of the maneuver, and the route of movement of the troops. However, the calculation was carried out exclusively on the map, without taking into account the location. In a real situation, the regiments had to move not on flat terrain and overcome all sorts of obstacles, in particular ravines. As a result of this, the army was unable to reach the attack lines in time and was itself attacked and subsequently defeated. And so it happened: “it was smooth on paper, but they forgot about the ravines.”
The use of this trick in a dispute, i.e., saying that everything that the partner is talking about is good only in theory, but unacceptable in practice, will force him to prove the opposite with impromptu arguments, which ultimately can heat up the atmosphere of discussion and bring discussion leads to mutual attacks and accusations.
2.24. Relying on a past statement
The main thing in this trick is to draw the opponent's attention to his past statement, which contradicts his reasoning in this dispute, and demand an explanation about this. Such clarifications can (if it is beneficial) lead the discussion to a dead end or provide information about the nature of the opponent’s changed views, which is also important for the initiator of the trick.
2.25. Labeling
The main purpose of the trick is to provoke a response to the reproaches, accusations or insults expressed. The natural human reaction to accusations like “You are a deceiver”, “You are a scoundrel”, “You are a scoundrel” is to respond in kind, that is, to respond with the remark: “I hear from the same person”, “You yourself are like that” and etc. After the exchange of such “courtesy”, naturally, there is no longer any need to talk about any kind of confidential and constructive discussion.
2.26. Replacing truth with utility
This trick is based on an important and quite obvious rule: when the benefit is clearly visible, it is difficult to discern the truth. Thus, the purpose of the trick is to convince the arguer that he owes his well-being to precisely the thesis that he is challenging. A statement like: “Haven’t you ever thought about how much it will cost to implement your idea?” will help force your opponent to think this way.
2.27. Linguistic cosmetics
The essence of the trick is that the same idea is expressed in different ways, giving it the desired shade. “Cosmetics” in this case can be different: from light, elegant, enveloping the object of thought like a thin veil, to excessive, when the “second home” where one moves into this thought, no longer has anything in common with the “first house”. As with a number of other tricks, this technique cannot be used effectively without the listening techniques described below ("paraphrasing" and "summarizing").
2.28. Visible support
The uniqueness of this trick is to take the floor from your opponent and come to his aid, that is, begin to bring new arguments and evidence in defense of his thesis. This help is necessary only for the appearance (appearance) of support for the enemy, because the purpose of the trick is the imaginary support of the opponent, aimed at reassuring him with consent, diverting attention, and also weakening his psychological confrontation. After the enemy loses his vigilance and those around him appreciate the level of awareness of the problem on the part of his opponent, the initiator of the trick delivers a powerful counterattack, known among psychologists as the “Yes, but...” technique, which reveals the shortcomings of the thesis put forward by the opponent and demonstrates its inferiority . Thus, it seems that the opposite side is familiar with the thesis being proven by the opponent more thoroughly than he himself, and after carefully studying the problem, he was convinced of the inconsistency of this thesis and the entire system of argumentation brought by the opponent.
2.29. Reducing a fact (argument) to personal opinion
The purpose of this trick is to accuse the communication partner of the fact that the arguments he gives in defense of his thesis or in refutation of a disputed thought are nothing more than just a personal opinion, which, like the opinion of any other person, can be wrong. Addressing your interlocutor with the words “What you are saying now is just your personal opinion” will involuntarily tune him into the tone of objections and generate a desire to challenge the expressed opinion regarding the arguments he has given. If the interlocutor succumbs to this trick, the subject of the controversy, contrary to his wishes and to please the intention of the initiator of the trick, shifts towards a discussion of a completely different problem, where the opponent will prove that the arguments he has expressed are not only his personal opinion. Practice confirms that if this happens, the trick was a success.
2.30. Selecting Acceptable Arguments
This trick is based on the conscious selection of one-sided information to prove any idea and operating only with this information in the process of conducting a discussion or dispute.
2.31. Rabulistics
This technique means deliberately distorting the meaning of an opponent’s statements, presenting them as funny and strange. For example, a remark like “Your colleague has agreed to the point that...” forces the perceiver to react to this information in a special way. In other words, any influence by rabulistics puts the interlocutor into a state of far from constructive mood when discussing the problem, which, in turn, can cause extremely negative defensive reaction in the form of indignation, accusations or refusal to discuss.
2.32. Trojan horse
The essence of the trick is as follows:
- the arguer, using the already well-known method of “visible support”, goes over to the enemy’s side in the dispute and begins to give additional arguments in defense of his opponent’s thesis;
- being “accepted on the enemy’s side” (since it is flattering for the opposite side to listen to opponents’ speeches in defense of their own position), the person using the trick skillfully distorts the main thesis and arguments of the partner beyond recognition;
- then he begins to ardently defend this already distorted position, which has nothing in common with the original one. As a result, when the author of a compromised thesis comes to his senses, it is already too late, since the enemy has managed to inflict " death blow"both the thesis and the authority of the author.
This method is especially effective after using the “visible support” technique, but only half-implemented, i.e. when, having gone over to the opponent’s side, the initiator of the trick notes only positive, positive aspects proposals (thesis) expressed by his partner. Then, introducing the rule “like begets like,” he invites the interlocutor to speak out about the positive aspects of his own judgment. The enemy usually does this without much difficulty, since he has just received praise for his proposal. Having skillfully achieved such retaliatory actions on the part of his opponent, the user of the trick begins to successfully manipulate the opponent’s just given arguments about the advantages and positive aspects of your project. The main thing at this final stage is, firstly, to keep the partner’s attention until the end of the discussion on the positive that he himself found in his opponent’s arguments; secondly, do not give the opportunity to the opposite side to turn the discussion into the mainstream of discussion positive points your ideas and suggestions.
2.34. Silence
The desire to deliberately hide information from the interlocutor is the most commonly used trick in any form of discussion. When competing with a business partner, it is much easier to simply hide information from him than to challenge it in controversy. The ability to competently hide something from your opponent is the most important component of the art of diplomacy. In this regard, we note that the professionalism of a polemicist consists precisely in skillfully evading the truth, without resorting to lies.
2.35. Half-truth
This may mean mixing lies and reliable information; one-sided reporting of facts; inaccurate and vague wording the provisions being discussed; references to sources with a disclaimer like: “I don’t remember who said...”; distortion of a reliable statement with the help of: value judgments, etc. The technique of half-truths is most often used, as practice shows, when it is necessary to avoid an undesirable turn in the dispute, when there are no reliable arguments, but one must certainly challenge the opponent, when it is necessary in spite of common sense persuade someone to a certain conclusion.
2.36. Lie
This technique, as you know, aims to hide the real state of affairs and convey to your partner false information, which can be presented in the form of false documents, links to sources, experiments that no one has ever conducted, etc. real life There is probably not a person who has not lied at least once. Let's not forget that in everyday life business communication Every person is only as truthful as he is smart.
2.37. Carrot and stick method
The idea of this trick is manifested in problematic rhetorical questions asked to the opponent, such as: “What would you rather have: your own opinion, or everything else?”, “What is more preferable for you - to object or not to get hurt?” In other words, the threatening nature of this trick forces the enemy to make a choice: remain principled, but suffer at the same time, or accept conditions, sometimes unacceptable, but at the same time be safe from threats, blackmail, and sometimes physical violence. Special meaning this morally impermissible trick can be demonstrated interesting example from the famous novel by M. Puzo " Godfather", where one of the novel's heroes openly shares the idea that kind words and a gun can do much more than just a kind word.
2.38. Compulsion to a strictly unambiguous answer
The main thing in this trick is to firmly and decisively demand from the opponent to give an unambiguous answer: “Say directly: “yes” or “no,” that is, consciously force him not to a dialectical answer (“and ... and”), but to alternative (“either... or”). Experience confirms that this trick, as a rule, is resorted to in the case when a detailed answer from the opponent is extremely undesirable. It should be noted that the trick is most effective in communicating with a poorly educated opponent, so as in most cases will be perceived as a manifestation of integrity on the part of the partner.
2.39. What do you have against it?
The essence of the technique is not to prove your stated thesis, that is, not to give reasons and arguments in its defense, but to offer (even demand) to refute it: “What, exactly, do you have against it?” In the case when the opponent falls for the trick, he begins to criticize the position put forward, and the dispute (as planned by the initiator of the trick) begins to be conducted regarding the opponent’s counter-arguments given. Thus, the one using the trick deliberately avoids proving his own thesis and concentrates general attention on the opponent’s counter-arguments.
2.40. Many questions
This trick consists of asking your opponent not one, but several questions in one question, different and not very compatible with each other. What happens next depends on the answers: either they are accused of not understanding the essence of the problem, or they are accused of the fact that the opponent did not fully answer the questions, was misleading, or evaded answering.
3. Logical tricks
This group of tricks is based on deliberate violations of laws and regulations formal logic or, on the contrary, on their skillful use for the purpose of manipulation by an insufficiently informed opponent. Those who use these tricks, as A. Herzen aptly noted at one time, “do not like to enter the open field of logic, realizing that they will be defeated there.” The main tricks of this group boil down to the following.3.1. Thesis uncertainty
The essence of the trick is to vaguely and vaguely formulate your main thesis, this will allow the initiator of the trick to interpret the expressed idea in different ways. This technique is based on a violation of the most important law of formal logic - the law of identity. The wording and comments to it will be given in the next section of the manual.
3.2. Failure to comply with the law of sufficient cause
This is the case when arguments, judgments, and arguments are correct, but not sufficient. The formal logical law of sufficient reason can be formulated in the following way: every true thought must be sufficiently substantiated by arguments, and not only correctly constructed according to the laws of identity, excluded middle and non-contradiction. The essence of the trick is to violate such rules of argument as credibility, sufficiency and consistency. Their characteristics will be described in more detail in the next section of the manual.
3.3. Vicious circle in proof
This trick is intended to prove an idea using its own idea, only said in different words; this is the “vicious circle” in the proof system.
3.4. Cause and effect syllogism
The peculiarity of this trick is that the reasoning is deliberately based on a logical error: “after this, it means as a result of this.” This sophism was known in ancient times. Its essence is to consciously replace the temporary connection between phenomena with a cause-and-effect one.
3.5. Incomplete refutation
The purpose of the trick is to:
- from the opponent’s stated system of arguments, choose the most vulnerable one;
- break it in a sharp manner;
- pretend that all other arguments do not even deserve attention.
3.6. Illegal analogies
A characteristic feature of this trick is to use analogies in the proof that are completely disproportionate to those under consideration. Let's demonstrate this with a few examples. The first example is the famous story of Plutarch about how one day a famous Roman, divorcing his wife, after listening to the reproaches of friends who repeated to him: “Why are you doing this? Isn’t she chaste? Or isn’t she pretty? Or is she barren?” , put his shoe-shod foot forward and asked: “Isn’t he good? Or is he worn out? But which of you knows where he presses my foot?” The second example can be taken from modern Russian politics, when democracy in Russia is compared to a girl, and then asked: “Is it possible to demand too much from a girl when she is still so young?” The third example of the inappropriateness of analogies is the comparison of the activities of our domestic parliament with a boat: “As soon as the deputies begin to row with the “left” oar, the entire parliament begins to turn “to the right” and vice versa.” It is obvious that in the last two examples there is an illegitimate analogy, since in one case the process of democratization is compared with the process of development of the female body, in the other the activities of parliament are likened to the actions of the physical laws of nature.
Conducting disputes: tricks and ways to neutralize them
Tricks in an argument
In the course of criticism and argumentation, intentional and unintentional errors can be made. Those who deliberately are called sophisms, and those who commit them are called sophists. The term sophism itself comes from the Greek. uptsyumb - fiction.
A trick in an argument is any technique aimed at making the argument easier for oneself and making it more difficult for the opponent.
A trick in a dispute is any technique with the help of which one usually wants to make the argument easier for oneself or to make the argument more difficult for the enemy.
IN Ancient Greece there were so-called sophists, i.e. people who teach the art of winning an argument for a fee, no matter what the argument was about, the art of making a weak argument strong and vice versa was held in high esteem. The sophists taught to argue about what you do not understand. Such an intellectual teacher who taught the art of always being a right teacher was the philosopher Protagoras. He is discussed in the famous sophism of Euathlus.
Euathlus is one of the disciples of Protagoras. According to the agreement between the teacher and the student, he had to pay for his education after the first trial he won. A whole year has passed since graduation. During this period Euathlus did not take part in trials. Protagoras began to show impatience, offering Euathlus to pay for the training he had previously completed. Of course Evatl refused. Then Protagoras said: “If you do not pay the fee, then I will go to court. If the court decides that you must pay, then you will pay for the training according to the court’s decision. If the court decides not to pay, then you will win your first trial and you will pay for the training according to the contract." Because Euathlus had already mastered the art of argument promoted by Protagoras, he objected to Protagoras as follows: “You are wrong, teacher. If the court decides “not to pay,” then I will not pay according to the court’s decision. If it decides “to pay,” then I lose process, and I will not pay under the contract."
So which one is right? Some say that Protagoras is right and Euathlus is both right. This answer to the question raised is reminiscent of a story about a village sage.
dispute sophistry discussion controversy
“An elderly peasant came to the sage and said: “I had an argument with my neighbor.” The peasant outlined the essence of the dispute and asked: “Who is right?”
The sage replied: “You are right.”
After some time, the second of those arguing came to the sage. He also spoke about the dispute and asked: “Who is right?”
The sage replied: “You are right.”
“How can this be?” the sage’s wife asked. “One is right and the other is right?”
“And you’re right, wife,” the sage answered her.
Unintentional mistakes are made due to low culture of thinking, haste and some other reasons. They are called paralogisms (Greek rbsblpgyumzh - incorrect reasoning).
Compliance with special rules helps prevent errors in argumentation and criticism.
The first rule: it is necessary to clearly formulate the thesis (in the form of a judgment, a system of judgments, a problem, a hypothesis, a concept, etc.). This rule expresses the main condition for the effectiveness of argumentation and criticism.
The reasons for making unintentional mistakes may be hidden in a low culture of thinking, as well as in haste. Such errors are called paralogisms (Greek rbsblpgyumzh - incorrect reasoning).
There are special rules, the observance of which helps to avoid encountering your own mistakes during a dispute:
1) It is necessary to clearly formulate the thesis
How to fulfill this requirement? S. Povarnin, regarding the requirement for an explicit formulation of the thesis of the argument, wrote: “One should not think that it is enough to encounter a “controversial thought” in order to immediately make it, if desired, a “thesis of a dispute.” It always requires some preliminary research and processing before taking from it the thesis. Namely, it is necessary to find out exactly what we disagree with her; to clarify the “points of disagreement.” And further: “We need to acquire the skill quickly, sometimes “instantly,” to find and revise all the places from which disagreement with a given point is possible thought. This skill is especially necessary in some specialties, for example in legal practice spore".
2) The thesis must be formulated clearly and accessible
Here you should act in accordance with the following requirements:
1. It is necessary to find out whether all the terminology contained in the text will be publicly available and understandable to the audience to whom it will be addressed during the dispute and to the public observing the process of the dispute itself. Existing ambiguous words should, if possible, be replaced or clarified, for example, by definition, during the delivery of a speech arguing the thesis.
2. The logical form of the thesis itself should be identified. If the thesis is a judgment that affirms or denies something about any objects, then it is necessary to determine and find out about all the objects or only some will be discussed in the judgment. For example: the proponent puts forward the statement: “people are evil.” Naturally, someone may object, saying that this is not so. However, if the above statement is clarified as follows: “some people are evil,” the need for argument will disappear. Special attention attention should be paid to the sense in which the conjunctions “if”, “or”, “and”, “then”, etc. are used. For example, the conjunction “or” can express both a loose and a strict disjunctive connection, the conjunctions “if..., then... " - implicative or conditional connections, etc.
3. Sometimes it is very advisable to clarify the time referred to in the proposition put forward. For example, to clarify whether it is stated that a certain property always belongs to an object or whether it belongs to it or sometimes; clarify the meaning of words such as “today”, “tomorrow”, “in so many hours”, etc. Sometimes it is argued that specific event should happen in the near future, in the subsequent period. Such statements are quite difficult to refute, since they are not clear, and, therefore, there is nothing special to refute. If you encounter such judgments, you need to demand that your opponent clarify these judgments.
4. There are times when it is necessary to find out whether the thesis is stated to be true, or whether at the moment it can only be called plausible.
Preparatory work, which consists in developing a general field of argumentation, researching a controversial thought and highlighting and clearly formulating a thesis, allows you to save time at further stages of argumentation and increase its efficiency.
Vague formulation of the thesis often underlies sophisms. Thus, in the sophism of Euathlus the expression “the first case won” is not defined. If, for example, we were talking about the first case won by Evatl, in which he acts as a defendant, then he would have to pay for training in the event that the court decides “not to pay.”
Sometimes in disputes a trick is used: “deliberately unclear formulation of the thesis.” This ploy was used in a controversy against Florida State Senator C. Pepper, which ultimately led to his collapse in the next election. The enemy howled: “... the entire FBI and every member of Congress know that Claude Pepper is a shameless extrovert. Moreover, there is reason to believe that he practices nepotism towards his sister-in-law, his sister was a Thespian in sinful New York. Finally, and This is hard to believe; it is well known that Pepper practiced celibacy before his marriage."
In cases of encountering a similar situation, when the enemy uses this trick, it is necessary either to clarify unknown expressions, or to ask the person who put forward the thesis about it.
Also, the trick “excessive demand for clarification of the thesis” can be associated with the first rule. Its meaning is to demand clarification of even elementary, accessible and understandable expressions and formulations.
For example, someone claims that, in his opinion, some expression is not true. They ask him: “What is truth?” If this person answers that truth is a statement corresponding to reality, he will then be asked what he means by reality, etc. In this case, you can suggest asking all questions after the speech; some people simply try not to notice the questions in such cases.
The next possible trick is “deliberate misunderstanding of the thesis.” Usually it consists of changing the meaning of an expression in order to change the meaning of the thesis in favor of the opponent.
It also often happens that the author is accused of being unclear without any justification. This trick is to pull out some phrases from the text, the meaning of which is lost out of context. On this basis, the author is accused of a penchant for scholastic theorizing.
3) Under no circumstances should the thesis be changed in the process of argumentation and criticism without special reservations
Violation of this rule is associated with the following error - “substitution of the thesis”. It is allowed when one judgment is put forward as a thesis, and argumentation or criticism is directed at another, similar to the one put forward; Ultimately, the conclusion is drawn that the original thesis has been criticized or justified.
The following errors are a type of substitution of the thesis:
1. “replacement of a reasoned thesis with a stronger statement” (in relation to proof, this error is called “who proves a lot, proves nothing”),
2. “replacing the criticized thesis with a weaker statement” (in relation to refutation it is called “he who refutes a lot, refutes nothing”).
Also, a type of error “substitution of the thesis” can be called substitution of the thesis being argued personal qualities person.
This error allowed in cases where, instead of criticizing or justifying the thesis, they characterize the person who put it forward or the person being discussed in the thesis. An example is how quite often lawyers in court, instead of proving the defendant’s innocence, begin to list his personal positive traits, speaking for example about what an excellent worker he is, an exemplary family man, has no tendency to kick or bad habits, etc. Sometimes in disputes, instead of arguing that a person is wrong, they say that he is still too young and inexperienced and does not understand much, or, on the contrary, they say that he is already at an age when people often make mistakes.
Another type of “substitution of thesis” error is “loss of thesis.” For example, one of the students speaks at a meeting and says: “We don’t study much in the evenings. In the dormitory we visit each other, distract each other from classes.” The following remark is thrown at the speaker: “You are still too young.” He immediately loses his thesis and begins to talk about how he worked at a factory even before entering college, how he served in the army and much more, as a result of which the main idea that he wanted to convey and some time ago was ready to defend is lost. And then time runs out.
The third rule is associated with such tricks as:
1. "Weakening the thesis of the argument." This trick consists in the fact that the enemy puts forward a statement that cannot be substantiated, after which he replaces it with a weaker one, which he is able to prove. The whole calculation here is that you are rashly trying to refute the second judgment, which, of course, you fail. After which, having proven the second proposition, the opponent triumphs, creating the illusion that he has proven the first statement. In this case, it is necessary to explain to those present what trick was used.
2. "Strengthening the criticized statement." This trick is used as follows: You put forward a thesis, and the opponent replaces it with a stronger statement, showing that it cannot be proven (second statement). Moreover, the opponent often refutes this second statement, creating the feeling that he has refuted the thesis you put forward. In order to avoid unintentional substitution of the thesis being criticized, during the discussion each statement should be repeated before criticizing it, which is the ethical rule of polemics.
3. "Logical sabotage." The meaning of this trick is to deliberately shift the conversation to another topic with which the disputant is more familiar. A student from one of the Moscow universities told how this trick is used in the exam. During the exam, she was shown absolute ignorance of the subject (in this case logic), but in grade book had the highest grades in all subjects. When asked by the examiner: “Why didn’t you prepare for the exam?” The student replied that she would never prepare for any exam. The reason she received good grades is her thorough knowledge of Marina Tsvetaeva’s work. Here's an example: At an exam in Russian literature, she pulls out a ticket with a question about M.Yu. Lermontov. For 3-4 minutes she talks about his work, and then compares Lermontov’s work with the work of Tsvetaeva and amazes the teachers with her incredible knowledge of all the works and even some of the life nuances of Marina Tsvetaeva. The same thing happens in the Russian language exam: the student moves from adjectives to metaphors, then going to the metaphors of Marina Tsvetaeva. This trick could not be used only in the exam in logic and English.
From student folklore: “At a biology exam, a student is asked to talk about cats. The student knows only one question - about fleas. He answers: “A cat is an animal.” Fleas live on cats." He talks about fleas. The teacher suggests talking about dogs. The student answers: "A dog is an animal. Fleas live on dogs." He talks about fleas. Then the teacher (very smart) asks to talk about fish. The student answers: "Fish are animals. Fleas don't live on fish." He talks about fleas again."
RULES FOR ARGUMENTS:
1. Arguments must be formulated clearly and clearly.
To do this you need:
a) list all the arguments;
b) clarify some terms;
c) determine the logical content of the arguments;
d) clarify their evaluation characteristics.
2. All arguments must be fully justified.
When applied to a refutation or proof, this rule can be formulated as follows: arguments must be fully justified (logically or factually).
In cases where the described rule is violated, the “unfounded argument” error appears. In refutations and proofs, this error is called an “unproven argument.”
3. Argumentation cannot contain a circle. This mistake is made like this: the thesis is justified by arguments, but in turn, some of the given arguments are justified by the thesis itself.
4. All arguments must be relevant or relevant.
RULES AND ERRORS REGARDING THE FORM OF ARGUMENTATION AND CRITICISM:
The relation of thesis to argument must be no more than that of confirmation.
If the dacha rule is not followed, the error “does not confirm” or “should not” appears.
When examining a ready-made argument or arguing, it is important to understand logical connection between arguments and thesis.
The following trick is associated with the “shouldn’t” error: the opposite side is confused by a set of phrases that have no meaning. This trick works especially well in cases where the enemy himself is aware of his weakness in relation to the opponent and when the enemy is accustomed to listening to a lot of things that he himself does not understand, pretending that everything is clear to him.
A trick in an argument is called any technique with the help of which they want to make a dispute easier for themselves and make it more difficult for their opponent.
The practice of public disputes, since ancient times, has developed many such methods, varied in nature and essence.
Let's look at the most common situations encountered in a dispute. For example, the opponent presented an argument to which it is difficult to immediately find a worthy answer, so they try to unnoticed by the opponent “delay the objection.” For this purpose, questions are raised in connection with the argument given, as if to clarify it; they begin the answer from afar, with something not directly related to the given question; they begin to refute secondary arguments, and then, having gathered strength, smash the main arguments of the enemy, etc. It is recommended to use “Delaying an Objection” even if you are very confused, nervous, all your thoughts have suddenly “disappeared”, there is confusion in your head . In order not to show your opponent your condition, you can start talking about something extraneous, in a confident voice. Sometimes the enemy’s argument seems correct, but you should not rush to agree with it.
The following situation may also arise: in the process of discussing a controversial issue, one of the polemicists notices that he has made a mistake. If it is discovered, it will discredit the speaker's position. If the error goes unnoticed, the polemicist will become a conductor of incorrect thoughts and inaccurate information. The polemicist does not want to openly admit a mistake for various reasons and resorts to speech patterns that allow him to soften and correct the situation: “That’s not what I wanted to say”; “These words do not express my thoughts correctly”; “Let me clarify my position,” etc. All these techniques are considered permissible, they are perfectly acceptable in a public dispute. Their use does not interfere with finding out the truth and does not compromise the opponent.
However, it should be borne in mind that unscrupulous polemicists often resort to various kinds of dishonest means in disputes.
The rudest prohibitive tricks of S.I. Povarnin in the work “Dispute. On the Theory and Practice of Dispute” gives the wrong way out of a dispute, derailing a dispute, an argument “to the policeman”, “stick” arguments.
Exit from the dispute. One of the participants feels that the dispute is not in his favor, that he does not have sufficient arguments, and tries to “sneak out of the dispute,” “suppress the dispute,” “finish off the dispute.”
Breaking down the dispute. Sometimes the enemy is interested in derailing the dispute, since it is beyond his strength, or unprofitable for some reason. In such cases, they resort to crude “mechanical” tricks: they interrupt the opponent, do not allow him to speak, clearly show reluctance to listen to the opponent - they cover their ears, hum, whistle, laugh, stomp their feet, etc. Sometimes these actions are performed by listeners, wanting to support their like-minded person and harm his opponent. This technique is called “obstruction” (intentionally disrupting the dispute).
"The argument to the policeman." The opponent's thesis is declared dangerous for the state or society. The opponent is essentially “gagged”, the argument ends, and victory is on the side of the one who used the trick.
"Stick arguments." They present an argument that the opponent must accept for fear of something unpleasant, often dangerous, or to which he cannot answer for the same reason and must either remain silent or come up with some “workarounds.”
A variation of the “argument to the policeman” and “stick arguments” is considered a trick called "reading in hearts". Its essence lies in the fact that the opponent does not so much analyze the opponent’s words as refer to the motives that forced them to be expressed (“You speak out of pity for him”; “You are forced to speak so by the interests of this organization”; “You are pursuing personal interests” and so on.).
The grossest impermissible tricks include insinuation. Word insinuation(Latin) means “a slanderous fabrication intended to discredit someone; malicious fiction, slander." The essence of the technique is that the participant in the dispute, wanting to discredit his opponent, undermine confidence in him, and, consequently, in his arguments, uses irresponsible hints and statements, for example, “It’s clear what you were doing during this visit...” , “We’ll still figure out where you got the funds to build a new dacha,” “Yes, we already know how you spend your free time.”
A fairly large group of dishonest means consists of psychological tricks. They are diverse in essence, many are based on a good knowledge of the peculiarities of human psychology, the weaknesses of human nature. As a rule, these tricks contain elements of cunning and outright deception. They display a rude, disrespectful attitude towards their opponent.
Let's look at some of them.
Knocking the enemy off balance. For this purpose, rude antics, insults, clearly unfair, mocking accusations, etc. are used. If the enemy “boils”, the case is won. He lost his chance of success in the argument.
A bet on false shame. It is known that people often want to appear better than they really are and are afraid of “losing themselves” in the eyes of others.
It is this desire to look a little better that some experienced polemicists play on. For example, when presenting an unproven or even false conclusion, the opponent accompanies it with the phrases: “You, of course, know what science has long established”; “Do you really still not know?”; “It is a generally known fact” and so on, i.e. relies on false shame. If a person does not admit that he does not know this, he is “hooked” by the enemy and is forced to agree with his arguments.
"Greasing the argument." Another related ego-based trick is called buttering up an argument. A weak argument that can be easily rebutted is accompanied by a compliment to the opponent. For example: “You, as an intelligent person, will not deny”; “Everyone is well aware of your honesty and integrity, so you...”; “A person who is not sufficiently educated will not appreciate or understand the argument presented, but you...” Sometimes the enemy is subtly made to understand that he is personally treated with special respect, his intelligence is highly valued, and his merits are recognized.
Suggestion. In a public dispute, suggestion has a great influence on both opponents and listeners. Therefore, one should not succumb to such a common trick as a self-confident, peremptory, decisive tone. A person speaking with aplomb and an impressive voice puts psychological pressure on those present. Indeed, when the enemy behaves very confidently, without having any reason for it, we, even if we feel right, begin to doubt our position. And if we haven’t understood the problem enough, then we generally give in to him. In such a situation, internal composure, restraint, a businesslike tone, and the ability to move the conversation from general phrases to consideration of the substance of the matter are required.
In addition to the appropriate tone, there are many other various tricks designed to inspire and psychologically influence the participants in the dispute. This is ridicule, and the desire to cut off the enemy, to arouse distrust in his words, a sharply negative assessment of the opinions expressed, an offensive remark, etc.
Reference to age, education, position. Often in disputes, references to one’s age, education and position are used as arguments. Quite often we come across the following reasoning: “If you live to my age, then you will judge”; “First get your diploma, and then we’ll talk”; “If you take my place, then you will argue,” etc. However, it is known that a person who is older in age, has a higher education, and holds a certain position is not always right. Therefore, you should not immediately give up positions and retreat; it is necessary to demand that the opponent present more compelling and convincing arguments.
"Double-entry bookkeeping". This trick is based on people’s tendency to have dual assessments: one measure is for ourselves and for what is beneficial and pleasant to us, the other is for other people and for what we do not like. In a dispute, the same argument can be correct when it suits us, and erroneous if it does not suit us. When We we refute someone using this argument - it is true, and when us they refute it - it is false.
Quite common in disputes and logical tricks, so called sophistry, or intentional errors in evidence. It should be remembered that sophistry and error differ only in that sophistry is intentional, and error is not intentional. Therefore, as many logical errors as there are sophisms. Let us dwell on some tricks of a sophistical nature.
Taking the conversation aside. We often observe situations when participants in a discussion of a controversial issue find it difficult to find the necessary arguments. In order to avoid defeat, to make it less noticeable, they divert the conversation in every possible way, distracting the attention of their opponents with secondary questions and stories on abstract topics.
Translating the dispute into contradictions between words and deeds. You can get away from the subject of discussion, leave aside the thesis put forward, with the help of such a trick - transfer the dispute to the contradictions between word and deed, the views of the enemy and his actions, way of life. By showing the inconsistency of the thesis put forward with the actions of the opponent, they put the opponent in an awkward position, effectively reducing the dispute to nothing.
This trick affects not only the enemy, but also the witnesses to the dispute. Usually listeners do not have time to delve into the essence of the matter, and they do not want to do so. Even if there is no contradiction between the stated principle and the behavior, no one will understand anything, the trick achieves its goal. Regarding this type of trick, S.I. Povarnin writes: “This is one of the types of “clamping the mouth” of the enemy and has nothing to do with an honest fight in a dispute for the truth. – As a method of denunciation, it may be required and is often necessary. But denunciation and an honest dispute for the truth, like the struggle of thought with thought, are two incompatible things.”
Translation of the question into the point of view of benefit or harm. This is one of the common tricks in public argument. Instead of proving the truth of this or that proposition, it is determined whether it is of benefit to us or not. And it is clear that when we feel that a given proposal is beneficial to us, although it has harmful consequences for others, we are more likely to agree with it. It is this weakness of human nature that unscrupulous debaters take advantage of. They begin to put pressure on the opponent, emphasizing the advantages of their position for the opponent. Such arguments are often called “pocket”, i.e. convenient, profitable. And sometimes they have a simply hypnotic effect.
Action time offset. Sometimes debaters use this trick: in the process of reasoning, they shift the time of action, replacing what is true for the past and present with what will happen in the future. The author of the feuilleton “Saving an Honorable Name” humorously spoke about how the director, Comrade Kirchev, used this trick, refuting the speech of his colleague Simeonov:
“Noticing with what gloomy determination he stood up, everyone realized that Simeonov had decided to criticize the director himself.
– I think it's enough to be silent – Simeonov said in a voice vibrating with excitement, and a grave silence fell in the hall. – Everyone knows that our director is a despot. He suppresses criticism! No one dares to object to him, knowing full well what will follow...
Simeonov continued in the same vein for another ten minutes. After him, Comrade Kirchev, our director, himself made a refutation.
– Comrades, – he began, – I listened with great attention to the speech of the previous speaker. He spoke quite interestingly, but with his accusations he embarrassed both himself and me. Think for yourself: if after all that has been said I don’t punish him, what will happen? But it turns out that I am not a malicious critic at all and that Simeonov publicly slandered me! This is what will happen, comrades! It turns out that Simeonov is a slanderer and a liar! The honest name of Comrade Simeonov, who so passionately criticized me, will be seriously tarnished. And this, in turn, can cast a shadow on our entire glorious team. Therefore, I believe that the honest name of Comrade Simeonov must be saved. And I think the best way to do this is by punishing him, for example, by transferring him to a lower-paid position and depriving him of a quarterly bonus...
The hall burst into applause."
It is obvious that director Kirchev is not concerned about saving Simeonov’s reputation, as he claims, but about dealing with him for his criticism. After all, Simeonov said what the director’s behavior had been like so far, and not what it would be, so a change in the director’s behavior could not refute Simeonov’s statements and discredit his name.
Polemicists often resort to the tricks associated with the unfair use of questions and answers. These include, for example, the so-called "The error of many questions." The opponent is immediately asked several different questions under the guise of one and demands an immediate answer. Yes or No. But the fact is that the sub-questions contained in a given question are directly opposite to each other, one of them requires an answer yes, ah another - No. The answerer, without noticing this, gives an answer to only one of the questions. The questioner takes advantage of this, arbitrarily applies the answer to another question and confuses the opponent. This trick was used back in ancient world. Here is a typical question of this type. The student was asked: “Have you stopped beating your father? Yes or no?" If the respondent says “yes,” then it turns out that he beat his father; if he says “no,” then it turns out that he continues to beat his father. Obviously, such a question cannot be answered in a “yes” or “no” form. The student had to say something like this: “I can’t even think about beating my father, because there can be no greater shame for a son.”
In disputes there are often situations when polemicists, for various reasons, try avoid the questions asked. Sometimes they simply ignore the question, as they say, deaf ears, as if they don’t notice it.
Some polemicists begin sneer at questions his opponent: “You ask such “deep” questions”; “And do you consider your question serious?”; “What a frivolous question”; "You ask this difficult question that I pass before him” and so on. The question itself is often given a negative assessment: “This is a naive question”; “This question sounds apolitical”; “This is dogmatism”; "It's an immature question." Phrases of this kind do not contribute to finding out the truth or constructively solving the problem. They have a psychological effect on the opponent, as they manifest a disrespectful attitude towards him. This allows the person uttering such phrases to avoid the questions posed and leave them unanswered.
The most common in the dispute is considered “answering a question with a question.” Not Wanting to answer the question posed or having difficulty finding an answer, the polemicist poses a counter question to his opponent’s question. If the enemy begins to respond, it means he has fallen for this trick.
Polemicists also resort to such a peculiar trick as "answer on credit." Having difficulty discussing a problem, they postpone the answer to “later,” citing the complexity of the issue.
These are some of the dishonest tactics you encounter in disputes. You can learn the rest of the tricks on your own by reading literature on the art of argument.
The need for knowledge of this kind of means is beyond doubt. Everyone who fights for his beliefs, seeks the right solutions, asserts the truth, must not only be armed himself, but also know well the methods of his opponent. The ability to recognize this or that trick, show for what purpose it is used, and give a worthy rebuff to the enemy is a necessary quality of a polemicist.
Researchers are developing special techniques for protecting against incorrect methods of arguing. For example, if an opponent moves the discussion of a controversial issue to another, no less important topic, it is recommended to first agree that the new topic certainly deserves attention, and then suggest returning to the previous one.
It is advisable to ignore minor attacks from the opponent, but in case of obvious insults it is necessary to temporarily interrupt the argument.
Useful guidelines for resolving difficult situations when making management decisions are contained in Otto Ernst’s book “The Floor is Given to You: Practical Recommendations for Conducting Business Conversations and Negotiations.” The author describes the partner's actions during an argument and possible reactions to these actions. We present this table in full.
|
Partner's actions during a dispute |
Possible reaction to your partner’s actions during an argument |
|
Rejection of the decision (“it still won’t work”) Accusation of illusions (“pure theory”) Unproductive questions (for example, about organizational details when discussing strategic issues) Simplifying the problem (“it will run its course”) Complicating the problem (extreme “yes, but” method – permanent position) Making demands (in terms of number of workers, financial, material resources) Routine (“we always did it this way, and everything worked out”) Verbosity (“lots of water, few arguments”) Avoidance of meaning (pompous words, complex, incomprehensible sentence structures) One-sided approach (for example, excessive theorizing when there is a need to discuss practical aspects) Generalization error (individual, general phenomenon) Lack of criteria for evaluation (presumptuous judgments) Arbitrariness of comparisons (quantity, quality) |
activating the partner by asking questions: what arguments can be given? what other solution is possible? what real goals (means, solutions) are possible? How does this relate to the problem under discussion? What contradictions and obstacles may arise in this case? how can you solve the problem? how to meet these requirements? what is the difference in efficiency (new, old)? what is the meaning of your statement? requirement (direct) to speak clearly what is practical value what was said? direct questions: does this concern a particular case, phenomenon, opportunity? Based on what criteria is the assessment made? Isn't a differentiated approach needed here? |
Thus, you need to be psychologically prepared for various kinds of attacks and tricks from your opponent. It is important to maintain restraint and composure. It should be remembered that dishonest methods are in one way or another connected with a deviation from the laws of correct thinking, with a violation of the basic rules that govern the dispute, with the desire to divert the conversation from the subject of discussion.
Test questions and assignments
1. Tell us about the history of the art of argument.
2. What types of disputes do you know?
3. Formulate the basic rules for conducting a dispute and characterize them.
4. What influences the behavior of polemicists?
5. How do opponents treat each other with respect?
6. What polemical techniques are used in a dispute? Give examples of their use.
7. What tricks do unscrupulous polemicists often resort to in disputes? What is the essence of these tricks?
8. Have you ever encountered dishonest tactics from your opponent? How did you behave in a similar situation?
It should be recognized that the dispute perfect form You don't get to see this very often in real life. More often, there are disputes in which the participants do not understand (or do not want to understand) each other, do not listen to the argument, interrupt each other, “attack” the opponents’ arguments, or “attack” the opponents themselves. A more sophisticated form of hidden struggle in an argument is a ruse.
A trick in a dispute is any technique with the help of which the participants in a dispute want to make it easier for themselves or make it more difficult for their opponent. A person who masters tricks is able to win an argument faster and more “successfully.” A philosopher who openly proclaimed an attitude towards dishonest argumentation was A. Schopenhauer. In his work “Eristics, or the art of winning in disputes,” he gives advice on how to deceive or confuse your opponent in a dispute. True, he recommends using this kind of advice only in certain situations. Thus, he considers fidelity to the truth impracticable or useless in cases where the thesis of the argument clearly contradicts the already established opinion of the opponent.
Tricks may or may not be acceptable. They are acceptable if it is noticeable that the opponent is resorting to dishonest, impermissible methods of conducting a dispute. In this case, it is necessary to create a kind of trap into which the unscrupulous debater must fall. For example, a person who insists that “all people are dishonest, trying to grab a bigger piece for themselves” and does not listen to any arguments refuting this thesis, can be stopped in his persistence only by attributing this statement to his own person, a statement of this kind: “ If we assume that what you insist on is fair, then you are also a dishonest person, trying to grab a bigger piece for yourself.” Usually a moralizing person does not accept such assessments of himself.
Such a technique as delaying an objection is allowed.
They resort to it if an objection to a thesis or argument does not immediately come to mind. Usually a person finds clearer objections only after an argument (often called late in the mind); at the right moment there is only a “feeling” that he could respond to the attack, but his thoughts do not line up in a coherent logical chain. In such a situation, you can begin to ask questions in connection with the argument presented, imagining this as a simple clarification of the essence of what was said or information in general. It would be forgivable to delay the objection even if there is a need to more carefully consider the thesis or argument being put forward with their apparent correctness.
Are considered unacceptable the following types tricks: wrong way out of a dispute, disrupting a dispute, “argument to the policeman,” “stick” arguments.
Exit from a dispute occurs if one of the parties to the dispute is unable to support argumentative activity due to the weakness of his own position in this dispute.
Disruption of a dispute is done by constantly interrupting the opponent, demonstrating reluctance to listen to him, etc. Unfortunately, such a trick is resorted to even during dialogue about socially significant problems in reality. high level. In recent history, the reaction of deputies to the speech of Academician A.D. Sakharov at the First Congress is notorious in this regard. people's deputies USSR in June 1989.
“Argument to the policeman” as a method of suppressing an opponent in a dispute is actively used in totalitarian societies. This usually happens in the following way: the thesis or argument proposed by the opponent is declared dangerous for society or the state. In any case, these tricks are aimed at ending a dispute that is unfavorable for one of the parties to the dialogue.
If the goal of the dispute is to “convince” the opponent at any cost, then they resort to the so-called “stick” arguments. This type of trick can be defined as special shape intellectual and psychological violence. Its essence lies in the fact that the participant in the dispute makes an argument that the opponent must accept for fear of something unpleasant, dangerous, or to which he cannot answer correctly for the same reason and must either remain silent or come up with “workarounds.”
A variation of the above tricks is such a technique as “reading hearts x”. At the same time, the opponent is not interested in understanding what the enemy said, but is trying to determine the motives for which he says it or somehow acts. An example of this method of arguing is described by A.P. Chekhov in the story “Name Day”:
“Will you bother to explain to me what this means? I'm asking you!
I'm tired of it, Olga! Honestly, I’m tired, and I don’t have time for this now... Tomorrow we’ll fight.
No, I understand you perfectly! - Olga Mikhailovna continued. - You hate me! Yes Yes! You hate me because I'm richer than you! You will never forgive me for this and will always lie to me!... Now, I know, you are laughing at me... I am even sure that you married me only to have a qualification and these vile horses...
Pyotr Dmitrich dropped the newspaper and stood up. The unexpected insult stunned him. He smiled helplessly as a child, looked at his wife in confusion and, as if protecting himself from blows, stretched out his hands to her and said pleadingly:
Insinuation should also be included in the same category of tricks. If one of the participants in a dispute needs to undermine the credibility of his opponent, and therefore his arguments, he uses irresponsible hints for this purpose. In this case, they resort to remarks like: “No one knows what you did or said there...” or “Who can prove that you didn’t do that or say that?” and so on.
A person focused on winning an argument at any cost has a fairly large arsenal of psychological tricks, which include such as throwing the enemy “off balance”, relying on the slowness of thinking and gullibility of the enemy, distracting attention and leading to the wrong trail, relying on false shame , “greasing” the argument, suggestion, “double-entry bookkeeping.” In the first case, the opponent uses statements that infuriate the opponent, outrage him, for example, he uses rude antics, insults to the “personality,” bullying, etc. In the second, seeing that the opponent thinks slowly but thoroughly, he speaks very quickly , expresses thoughts unclearly, in a form that is difficult to understand, replaces one thought with another. Wanting to defeat an opponent who is clearly weak in some area of knowledge or generally weaker intellectually, they turn to him with the words: “You, of course, cannot but know that...”, “Everyone knows that ...", "Only stupid and uneducated person doesn’t know that...”, etc. In such a situation, a person gets lost and begins to pretend that he, of course, knows... Then a strong opponent can say anything, the opponent has no choice but to agree with everything else.
One is inclined to “grease the argument” if the argument itself is unsubstantiated and the opponent can object to it. Then they express this argument in a vague, confusing form, accompanied by, for example, a compliment to the opponent: “Of course, this is an argument that you cannot bring in every dispute; an insufficiently educated person will not understand or appreciate it” or “You, as an intelligent person, do not you will deny that...”, etc.
One of the most powerful tricks in an argument is suggestion. Its role is especially great in oral argument. If a person has a loud, impressive voice, speaks calmly, clearly, confidently, authoritatively, has a representative appearance and manners, he has, other things being equal, a huge advantage in an argument. If a person is deeply convinced of what he is arguing about, and knows how to express this unshakable firmness with a convinced tone, manner of speaking and facial expression, he has greater inspiring power and also “acts” on the enemy, especially one who does not have this conviction. A persuasive tone and manner are often more persuasive than the most solid argument.
“Double-entry bookkeeping” is based on the duality of a person’s assessments of the world around him and himself (if something is beneficial to me, it’s good, if something is beneficial to someone else, it’s bad). In the field of argumentation, it looks like this: the same argument turns out to be true when it is beneficial for us, and erroneous when it is disadvantageous. A type of “double-entry bookkeeping” includes the conscious substitution of one definition for another in order to create a favorable and convenient assessment of the situation, actions taken. This case is described quite clearly by A.P. Chekhov: “My Vaska was my worker all his life; he didn’t have a baby, he’s hungry and sick. If I give him 15 kopecks now. per day, then by this I want to return him to his previous position as an employee, that is, I protect, first of all, my interests, and meanwhile these 15 kopecks. For some reason I call it help, allowance, good deed... There is no logic in our lives, that's what! Logic! (Chekhov A.P. Wife).
Among the usual and widespread tricks are the so-called sophisms, or deliberate errors in proof. Sophistry and error differ not essentially, not logically, but only psychologically: error is not intentional, sophistry is intentional. Sophisms are possible as deviations from the objectives of the dispute in the field of argumentation, as well as so-called sophisms of inconsistency.
A deviation from the objectives of the dispute, a deviation from the thesis occurs if at the very beginning of the dispute or in the middle of it, the previous thesis is discarded and another one takes its place, or a dispute over the thesis is replaced by a dispute over evidence. IN the latter case What happens is that instead of refuting the thesis, the opponent breaks down the proof and, if he succeeds, declares that the opponent's thesis has been refuted. In fact, one correct conclusion follows from this: the thesis has not been proven by the enemy. This same type of sophism includes the translation of a dispute into contradictions. It is necessary to point out that the opponent contradicts himself, but this is absolutely not important for proving the falsity of his thesis. Such instructions have, for example, great value when criticizing any system of thoughts, it is often possible to break or weaken the opponent’s evidence with their help, but it is impossible to refute his thesis with one indication of the inconsistency of the opponent’s thinking. This should also include transferring the dispute to the contradictions between word and deed, between the views of the enemy and his actions, his life, etc. This is one of the ways of “clamping the mouth.” As a method of denunciation, it may be necessary, but denunciation and an honest dispute for the truth as a struggle of thought with thought are two incompatible things.
If not one argument, but several, is given as proof of a thesis, the sophist often resorts to an “incomplete refutation.” He tries to refute one or two of the weakest or easiest to refute, often leaving the most significant and only important without attention. At the same time, he pretends to refute all the evidence.
Frequent deviations from the objectives of the dispute include the substitution of a point of disagreement in a complex controversial thought, the so-called refutation without substance. It is especially typical for disputes in the press and occurs in the expectation that the reader might not have seen or remembered the original thesis. The sophist does not refute the essence of a complex controversial thought, but takes only unimportant details and refutes them, pretending to refute the thesis.
Control questions
What is called a trick in an argument?
Describe the essence of acceptable tricks in a dispute, give examples of this kind of tricks.
What tricks are considered unacceptable when conducting a discussion or argument?
Define the essence of sophistry as a type of trick.
IN scientific literature about the rules of ideal argumentation, the code of the argumentator and the code of the opponent are formulated, with the goal of helping those participants in the dispute who strive not only for success in argumentation, but also for their statements to correspond to reality and be effective. Let us present these codes.
Argumentator Code
1. The argumentator strives to achieve or disseminate the truth, deepen the understanding of the subject.
The argumentator views himself and his opponent as people with equal rights to free knowledge.
Based on this:
P. 1. The argumentator has the goal of achieving acceptance by the opponent of the thesis in the modality in which the argumentator himself accepts it.
The argumentator cannot mislead his opponent by using obviously incorrect premises or deliberately incorrect methods of reasoning. Everything that is asserted by the argumentator is asserted in the modality in which he himself accepts it.
The argumentator takes into account the field of argumentation. It means that:
a) the arguer forms the argumentative structure in such a way that it is understandable to the opponent;
b) the argumentator forms an argumentative structure in such a way that the views and inclinations of the opponent, the information he has, and his intellectual capabilities allow him to accept it.
The argumentator avoids the use of argumentum ad hominem, and especially those cases where the opponent’s ability to make an objective and adequate judgment on the issue under consideration is called into question.
The argumentator’s commitment to the ethical-gnoseological attitude formulated in Part I supports his emotional balance in the event of failure of the argumentation and contributes to the preservation of self-criticism and the desire for improvement in the event of successful argumentation.
Opponent Code
1. The opponent realizes himself free in internal assessment argumentation.
The opponent strives to achieve the truth, deepen the understanding of the subject, and spread the truth.
When assessing the argument internally and expressing it externally, the opponent adheres to general ethical standards.
Based on this:
P. 1. The opponent strives to give an adequate logical and epistemological assessment of the argumentative structure, as well as adequate pragmatic, ethical and emotional assessments.
In this case, the opponent carries out the type of assessment that
required or appropriate in the circumstances for a given argumentative construction.
Opponent doesn't mix different kinds assessments does not replace one type of assessment with another.
If conditions allow and ethical standards, the opponent gives an external assessment of the argumentation that coincides with the internal one. The opponent avoids giving an external assessment of the argumentation that contradicts the internal one.
Alekseev A.P. Argumentation. Cognition. Communication. M., 1991.
Andreev V.I. Conflictology: the art of dispute, negotiation, conflict resolution. Kazan, 1992.
Dialectics and dialogue. M., 1992.
Pavlova K. G. The art of argument: logical and psychological aspects. M., 1988.
Povarnin S. Dispute. On the theory and practice of dispute // Questions of philosophy. 1990. No. 3.
Schopenhauer A. Eristics, or the art of winning disputes. St. Petersburg, 1900.
Tricks in an argument
Permissive tricks
What is a trick? Delaying an objection. Shock. Development of weak points of the opponent’s argumentation. Tricks in response to “malicious denial” of arguments.
1. A trick in a dispute is any technique with the help of which one wants to make the argument easier for oneself or make the argument more difficult for the enemy. There are many such techniques, very diverse in nature. Some of them, which are used to facilitate the dispute for oneself, are permissible. Others are unaffordable and often downright dishonest. It is currently impossible to list all the tricks or at least accurately classify them. We believe, however, that it is necessary to describe some of the most important and most frequently encountered ones in order to help recognize them and take protective measures.
2. First, let's touch on some clearly permissible techniques. Such tricks include (most often in an oral argument) delaying an objection. Sometimes it happens that the enemy has given us an argument to which we cannot immediately find an objection. It just “doesn’t come to mind,” and that’s all. In such cases, they try to “delay the objection” as unnoticeably as possible for the opponent, for example, they raise questions in connection with the argument presented, as if to clarify it or for information in general, although they do not need either one; start the answer from a distance, with something related to this issue, but not directly related to it, etc., etc. At this very time, the thought works and often the desired objection appears, to which they now move on. You need to be able to do this deftly and unnoticed. If the enemy notices what's going on, he will do his best to interfere with the trick.
3. This trick is pure form quite permissible and often necessary. The human mental mechanism is a very capricious mechanism. Sometimes suddenly the thought in a dispute refuses to work for a moment in the face of the most ordinary or even absurd objection. The person gets lost. This happens especially often with nervous or shy people, under the influence of the most unexpected reasons - for example, sometimes even under the influence of a suddenly flashing thought: “what if I don’t find the answer” (self-hypnosis). This phenomenon reaches its highest degree in the so-called “shock”. The person arguing suddenly loses all the baggage of thoughts on this issue. “My head is empty.” All knowledge, all income, all objections seemed to “fly out of my head.” (49:) The person is completely helpless. This “shock” occurs most often when a person is very worried or tired. In such cases, the only “salvation” is the trick we analyze. You must try not to give away your condition, not look confused, not lower or weaken your voice, speak firmly, and skillfully delay an objection until you recover. Otherwise, both the opponent and the listeners (for the most part judging the course of the dispute “by appearance”) will think that we are “broken,” no matter how absurd the reason for which this unpleasant story happened to us.
Often they resort to “delaying an objection” in cases where, although the opponent’s argument seems correct, the possibility cannot be ruled out that we are subject to some illusion or error in such an assessment. Caution dictates not to agree with him too easily; In such cases, they very often resort to other tricks that are no longer permissible, for example, they evade an objection to it and keep silent, “bypass” it; or they simply transfer the dispute to another topic, etc. etc.
4. It is also entirely permissible to use that technique (it’s hard to even call it a “trick”) when we, seeing that the enemy is embarrassed by some argument, or has become especially excited, or is trying to “escape” the answer, pay special attention to this argument and we begin to “press” on it. Whatever the dispute, you should always vigilantly monitor the weak points in the opponent’s argumentation and, having found such a point, “develop” it to the end, without “letting go” of the enemy until the entire weakness of this point is revealed and emphasized. “Releasing” the enemy in such cases is possible only when the enemy is obviously in shock or the like. or out of generosity, out of the well-known “chivalry in an argument”, if he got into a particularly ridiculous “problem”. Meanwhile, the ability to exploit enemy weaknesses is quite rare. Anyone interested in the art of argument often watches with pity as the arguer, due to his complete inability to navigate the argument or for other reasons, loses his advantage over his opponent.
5. Some tricks used to respond to the enemy’s dishonest tricks are also quite permissible. Sometimes you can't protect yourself without this. For example, in an argument you need to prove some important idea. But the enemy felt that if you prove it, you will also prove the thesis, and then his case is lost. To prevent you from proving this idea, he resorts to a dishonest trick: whatever argument you give in favor of it, he declares it unproven. You say: “all people are mortal,” he replies: this has not yet been proven. You will say: “Do you yourself exist or not?” He answers: maybe I exist, but maybe it’s an illusion.” What to do with such a person? With such a “malicious denial” of the arguments, the only option is to either give up the argument or, if this is inconvenient, resort to a trick. The most typical are two “defensive tricks”: a) it is necessary to “conduct” arguments in favor of the idea being proven so that the opponent does not notice that they are intended for this purpose. Then he will not “maliciously persist” and can accept them. When we have carried them all out, then all that remains is to connect them together - and the idea is proven. The enemy fell into a trap. In order to successfully carry out this trick, one often needs very great skill, the ability to “master an argument,” the ability to conduct it according to a well-known plan, which is rare in our time. Simply another trick. b) Noticing that the enemy maliciously (50:) denies each of our arguments in favor of the thought being proven, and we need to make some argument, we set a trap. We are silent about our argument, and instead we take a thought that contradicts it and pretend that we want to use it as an argument. If the enemy has “set up” to deny all our arguments, then he can, without thinking carefully, attack her and reject her. This is where the trap over him will slam shut. By rejecting the thought that contradicted our argument, he thereby accepted our argument that we wanted to carry out. For example, I need to make the argument “some people are vicious by nature,” but my opponent has clearly taken up malicious denial and will never miss any argument. Then I pretend that I want to put forward, as an argument, a contradictory thought: “after all, you will not deny,” I will say, “that by nature every person is good and blameless, and depravity is acquired from upbringing, from the environment, etc. ." If the enemy does not solve the trap, he will apply his tactics here too and declare that this is an obviously false idea. “Undoubtedly, there are people who are vicious by nature” - sometimes he will even provide evidence. This is exactly what we need. The argument has been carried out, the trap has slammed shut.
From the book The Art of Argument author Povarnin Sergey InnokentievichGeneral information about the dispute Chapter 1. About evidence Thesis. Clarification of the thesis. Definition of concepts. "Quantity" of judgment. Degrees of "modality". The importance of clarifying thoughts. 1. Before talking about the dispute and its features, it is necessary to familiarize yourself at least in the most general terms with
From the book Art verbal attack author Bredemeier KarstenChapter 8. Our arguments in the dispute Compliance with the objectives of the dispute. Statement of arguments. Foreign words. Finding reasons. "Trained debaters." Well-developed arguments. Weak arguments. 30:1. The choice of arguments, as already mentioned in passing more than once, is determined by the tasks that we set
From the book Eristics, or the Art of winning disputes author Schopenhauer ArthurChapter 12. Some General Notes on the Dispute Scope of the Dispute. The roots of the dispute. A dispute over principles. The end of the dispute and the end of the dispute. Different shapes end of the dispute. 42:1. In order to consciously conduct a correct, focused debate, you need to have one rather rare skill:
From the book How to overcome NO: negotiations in difficult situations by Yuri William From the book Black Rhetoric: The Power and Magic of Words author Bredemeier Karsten From the book Shyness and how to deal with it by Vem Alexander From the book God Never Blinks. 50 lessons that will change your life by Brett Regina From the book Saying No Without Feeling Guilty author Sheinov Viktor PavlovichExpose the Tricks The hardest thing to do is change the frame of the trick. This tactic exploits the assumptions present in any fair negotiation - that the other party is telling the truth, keeping its word, having the necessary authority and not renegotiating what has already been achieved.
From the book 100 rules of persuasion and argumentation author Nepryakhin NikitaTrick questions This type includes disguised questions about signs, messages, links or circumstances that are very likely associated with certain compromising facts about the interlocutor, which is revealed as a result of the conversation. You might think that
From the book Tricks in Argument author Vinokur Vladimir AlexandrovichTricks of the subconscious Well studied action defense mechanism rationalization, which is characteristic of schizoids. Boris was distinguished by exceptional passivity and indecisiveness. He thought not two, but twenty times before asking someone an ordinary question. Once upon a time
From the book Conversations with your Daughter [A Guide for Concerned Fathers] author Kashkarov Andrey PetrovichLESSON 6 You Don't Have to Win Every Argument: Have Your Own Opinion Before I got married, I laughed when I read about a couple who drew up a sixteen-page prenuptial agreement that detailed everything from “Don't drive with less than a forecastle tank.”
From the book How to Win Friends and Influence People by Carnegie DaleTricks of Buyers Buyers also have their own tricks of creating a feeling of guilt in sellers.1. It has been noticed that if the seller has already taken money from the buyer, he does not want to part with it. So if the buyer gives a little less amount and says that he has more
From the author's book10 rules How to repel tricks and manipulations in a dispute 1 The main thing is to remain calm and cool. Don't show your opponent that his trick was a success and that you are offended. Thus, we break the scenario of any manipulation and get out of any situation
From the author's bookREFLECTING TRICKS IN A DISPUTE Skilled warriors first make themselves invulnerable, and then wait for the moment when the enemy becomes vulnerable. Salvation from defeat is always in our hands. Sun Tzu The effect of subterfuge can be significantly reduced when the disputant against whom they
From the author's book From the author's bookChapter 10. You Can't Win an Argument One day I learned an invaluable lesson. The events took place in London. First World War ended quite recently. I was Sir Ross Smith's manager at the time. This ace pilot fought in the Australian Army during the war.