They’re just being stupid. The only reason they can’t seem to understand is that they don’t want to change. They like clinging to their convoluted views and are idiots for doing so. I really don’t know how people can believe that.
Maybe I can convince them … maybe I can show them how WRONG they really are and they’ll probably thank me for it. Yeah .. let’s do it.
Let’s win.
You might think, in your cold state of reading this article, that what I’m saying is horrendous. Who would think like that? Who can have such a high superiority complex where they can’t approach a disagreement with more tact.
Well, it’s us. It’s us in our most raw form when we’re heavily invested because we’ve tied our identity to the argument. It’s then, that the desire to win, the desire to prove that our point is correct, comes out. To make the other party identify themselves as us rather than them.
Friendships crumbling from misalignment of beliefs. Neighbors torn when they see the opposition politician’s banner on their front yard. Mistrust and power abuse rampant in what used to be the closest of friendships.
Arguments, but more specifically, the desire to win arguments and be “proven” right, are the best way to create divisions if you so choose to.
When we argue, it’s almost as if we’re competing. We’re competing for the idea that will bridge the gap in the other party’s understanding. But have we ever thought about what winning actually means? Well, if it’s a competition, it means the other person loses. It means you might get a momentary satisfaction of gaining victory, but the “loser” gained something even more lasting. The humiliation of being treated as an inferior person.
Winning doesn’t imply that your idea and thought process was successfully imparted onto the other person. It just means they didn’t have the energy to continue defending themselves. They might not be as witty, or quick with responses. They might not have been national debate champions or the disciples of Jordan Peterson or Ben Shapiro.
Winning an argument is an oxymoron
If you “win” you have failed to create a uniting force.
How to be a winner
Well, at least what we think will help us win. But it’s not really a strategy for winning, it’s the inability to communicate leading to an elevation of a disagreement to an all-out attack. Then, winning becomes more about survival.
Actually, it’s quite easy to win. We don’t even have to be correct about the topic, because as long as we can successfully get the other person to give in to their emotions, or be unable to think fast enough, we win!
A non-exhaustive list of “winning” strategies
- Attack anything, nothing is off-limits.
- Using loudness as a proxy for superiority of idea
- Don’t budge from your “logic”! The other person will get tired eventually
- Don’t ever agree to their premise. Use generalizations and anecdotes.
- Fluster them by asking unrealistic hypotheticals and baseless assumptions. “If we had Universal Healthcare and Basic Income, what would you do if all people just stopped working and got free money?”
You get the point. The goal here is not to figure out a solution. It’s to decimate your enemies.
How to lose
In reality, it’s more about the capacity to lose. And from there, it becomes easy to understand that your job in the argument isn’t to convince the other person, but for them to have to convince you.
This does a few things. It makes your life a lot easier, and the other party doesn’t feel attacked because you’re not trying to get them to change anything about themselves. Just as people have strong ties of identity to their stances, they have desires to propagate this stance to develop a bigger in-group.
In no way am I saying that you need to succumb. At the end of it all, if you still feel thoroughly unconvinced, you can walk away with a “Thanks for the explanation, but I don’t think that’s a strong enough point for me to be convinced”.
All the while, take the time to intentionally learn. Try to be proven wrong. Why do we think maintaining our potentially misguided stance is the only truth? Shouldn’t it be even more beneficial to try and be proven wrong so that you can learn?
How to try to be proven wrong
- Ask the other person to explain how they think their idea works
- Ask the other person to explain what they about the workings of your idea
- Get them to explain the differences, and ask them where they think they may be making assumptions
Did you see the pattern? We basically want to try and help the other person guide us by justifying their answer, and possibly our answer. Asking questions is not an offensive move (at least, not with the inquisitive tone). It replaces emotional defense with reasoning.
The caveat with this though is that you also have to go in with an open mind. To allow yourself to be convinced if you actually deem so. Why? Because otherwise, the effort in asking questions is pointless, and we’re back to trying to win, albeit with a slightly more complex strategy. And the goal isn’t to win. It can’t be. Because then there really is no point to the argument. And you might as well not talk.
The point is to get your idea across. And the best way to do that is to understand their thoughts on the ideas.
Awesome! You’ve perfected the art of learning and are able to maintain a relationship past the first argument without detesting one another. I’m afraid not quite. It’s unlikely that the strategy will always work. There will be times when people refuse to talk and feel offended you would even have a different stance. Or they respond to your questions with anger and insults. What do you do then? Personally, I think it would be time for me to re-evaluate what that relationship means.