The one who is right will never win in an argument. Only those who know how to argue can win. Therefore, it is critically important to learn how to properly discuss, while not offending your interlocutor. Most do not know how to do this and do not even want to learn, preferring a fight with fists rather than an adequate argument. But an educated person is always ready to defend his point of view without screaming and waving his fists. To figure out how to argue correctly, we recommend reading our article.

Every self-respecting person should get rid of the classic concept of “argument”, when two friends or strangers, after drinking a couple of glasses of wine, begin to argue loudly and noisily about politics. Truth will never be born in a dispute, but in controversy - yes. talking in simple words, controversy is a kind of the same dispute, but on more highly intellectual topics and much more organized.

It is always difficult to argue with people, especially if you want to do it culturally. You never know what to expect from your interlocutor. That is why you need to be very careful not to find yourself another enemy. Thanks to the observance of small rules, you can not only find a friend, but also learn a lot of interesting things. But you really need to know them by heart and use them at every opportunity.

Rule One

Decide in advance what you want to take away from the discussion. It will be great if your opponent does this too, and it will be even better if your goals are the same. Try to really seek the truth during the debate, and not just express all the negativity to your friend or acquaintance. Sometimes it can be very difficult, especially if a competitor starts to behave aggressively. But always try to stick to your original position - to find the truth. It is difficult, but only in this way can one learn the art of arguing correctly.

Rule Two

We are all people, each has its own consciousness and understanding of things. Therefore, even before the controversy, talk with your opponent and find out if you correctly understand the interpretation of the terms that relate to your dispute. It often happens that people literally gnaw at each other's throats, although they simply perceive certain concepts differently.

Rule Three

If you really want to get to the bottom of the truth, then in the course of the conversation, decide for yourself what you disagree with and what you are not qualified for. Be sure to tell your opponent about it. Most people don't want to admit that their opponent is somehow better than them in some way, especially when arguing with a girl, but it's still the only way to find the truth.

Rule Four

Decide for yourself that you do not want to win and rise above the other. When people argue just to win, they will never find the right answer to a question and instead end up with frayed nerves and a bad mood. Therefore, decide for yourself what is more important.

Rule Five

In no case should you call names, swear and behave uncivilized. In this way, you will turn the controversy into an ordinary chicken coop, where everyone is ready to beat each other, just to prove that he is right. Practice shows that after scolding, opponents completely forget what they were arguing about. Their main goal is not even to prove their case, but simply to be rude to their interlocutor more than the second interlocutor can do it.

Rule six

Conducting an argument is a normal conversation with a person. It often happens that opponents deviate from the essence of the matter, begin to touch on completely different topics that are clearly not related to the chosen issue. Always try to take the conversation back to where it all started. Otherwise, you run the risk of forgetting about the dispute and never returning to it again. Then how can you find the truth?

Rule Seven

A harmoniously completed dispute leaves a positive impression on all participants. Gently sum up the conversation (what you came to), shake hands and quietly disperse. Or order a cup of coffee and sit peacefully in a cozy atmosphere. It's really much better than yelling at each other and wasting your nerves.

Despite the popular belief that you should not argue with your elders, this is not always the case. Of course, if you want to quarrel with your grandmother for the only free seat in the car, then you really better keep quiet. But if this is a highly qualified specialist who has something to do with what you are studying, then a decent discussion here is quite a place. Just be careful, because older people are very sensitive to criticism. If you are not confident in your abilities, then it’s better not to start in order to remain a polite and educated person, and not an “illiterate dunce”, as your older touchy opponent may call yours.

Today we will talk about how to stop arguing with people both in live communication and online. Many people experience a painful, uncontrollable urge to prove themselves right. Participation in disputes does not bring them satisfaction, but they cannot stop themselves from participating in a fierce and pointless discussion, in those moments when someone does not agree with their point of view.

And I was no exception to these people.

My hard vice

Each person has his most "severe" shortcomings, which are the most difficult for him to cope with. One of my complex vices has always been an uncontrollable desire to argue, to dominate any discussion, to insist on the correctness of my opinion.

I must say that it was much easier for me than to stop constantly participating in disputes. (Do not be surprised that I compare bad habits with some personality traits. I don't see much difference between depending on narcotic substances(nicotine) and uncontrolled desires in the sphere of personality traits. In both cases, we are dependent on some kind of emotion, that is, we are dealing with some kind of dependence. And it doesn’t matter how we get these emotions: with the help of cigarettes and booze, or by participating in an argument, showing impulses for self-affirmation, etc.)

I really "loved" to take part in disputes mainly on the internet. I could not just leave the discussion if there were some people who did not agree with me. These disputes caused in me anger, aggression, acute rejection of someone else's point of view, irritation. It really felt like an addiction. While I was in the middle of the debate, I did not notice anything around. I could forget about food, I could be late for work just because I got very carried away arguing with some person whom I do not know, have never seen and most likely will never see.

When I did step away from the computer, my whole mind was occupied with thinking up smarter and more ingenious ways to defend my point of view and attack my opponent's. Arguing drained a lot of emotional strength from me, but it didn't lead to anything. I stuck to my opinion, my opponents stuck to theirs. The rest was just wasted time and a lot of unpleasant emotions.

But I did not immediately understand that I was dealing with a harmful addiction. For a long time I thought that I was doing something really useful and important, when on some forum I proved that I am smarter than everyone else and my opinion on some problem is correct, while everyone else is wrong.

Understanding that this is a problem, that this is my shortcoming, came much later.

Exposing flaws

If we compare the tendency to argue with other vices, for example, with a hypertrophied sexual need or alcohol addiction, we can say that the desire to prove one's case everywhere is not as destructive as the other vices mentioned above. It does not lead to major health problems and does not often destroy families. But, it is true, in some respects, it is even worse than many other human weaknesses.

For example, lust, an inflated desire to have sex, does not lend itself to final saturation. "Sexaholic" is constantly looking for opportunities to have sex, he experiences an irresistible desire. This desire cannot be completely satiated: its realization leads only to short-term satisfaction, after which the “craving” reappears.

And the more often he has sex, the stronger this craving, the greater the measure of his dissatisfaction. I want to say that in such a picture there is much less happiness, joy, than it may seem to many people. The state of eternal search for a new partner is a state of constant dissatisfaction with short interruptions of satisfaction. Yes, such a person during sex and a short time after it feels happiness and satisfaction. But at other times, he is in search of ways to satisfy his desire and experiences constant fear at the thought that he will not be able to do this.

The “addict” of disputes, unlike the “sexaholic”, has almost no short breaks for satisfaction! If you yourself are subject to such an addiction, then you can easily understand this. Just ask yourself, at what points in an argument do you feel satisfied and satisfied? Let's analyze the entire possible chain of events. I propose to give an example of a dispute on the Internet, such an example, in my opinion, will be more revealing. Although the conclusions from it also apply to disputes in real life.

Imagine that someone disagreed with your opinion, you experienced irritation and an urgent need to defend your point of view. You write an answer to your opponent. You wrote it. Satisfied? No, you are frozen in tense expectation of what he will answer. You are afraid that he will not accept your arguments and put forward new ones, and then again he will have to prove something.

You have logged into the forum several times, interrupting your business, and checked the answers. On the fifth time you refresh the web page, you find that you have been answered and immediately rushed to read! Well, what is there? He doesn't agree! (And what were you really hoping for?) He argues with your arguments, not considering them serious! And now you again feel the “need” to defend yourself!

You answer him, then he to you, again you to him. The discussion is heating up! The adversaries have already moved from discussing an abstract problem to discussing each other's personalities. Each of them cannot stop, because in this the main participant in the dispute is wounded pride debate representatives. Nobody agrees with anyone. Each speaks about his own, not understanding the other. Finally, your opponent is tired of it. He left one last biting comment and disappeared. You realized that he would not argue anymore. You are relieved: “It's finally over! I don't have to argue anymore!"

This feeling is like someone has given you permission not to continue this tedious process and not get unpleasant emotions further. And up to this point, as ridiculous as it sounds, you felt like you were obligated to defend yourself and you had no choice to stop it.

But do you feel satisfied? No. Your opponent did not share your point of view. And in the process of communication, he managed to offend you and disagree with your opinion on some other issue. This causes a new wave of frustration and dissatisfaction. The degree of misunderstanding between you only increased.
Can you find satisfaction and contentment with yourself in this chain? No. A morbid tendency to take part in arguments, this is the kind of drug that does not provide even a short pleasure.

(I wrote above that I "loved" to argue. I put this word in quotation marks, because there was no love. There was only irritation, frustration and dependence.)

The moment you argue, you experience an unconscious certainty that you are moving towards some goal, internal or external. Either you will come to the resolution of some issue in the dispute in your favor, or you will achieve the moral satisfaction associated with self-affirmation. But neither of these usually happens.

It may seem to someone that I am writing about this rather long and in detail and am not in a hurry to move on to practice. But I believe that before dealing with a vice, you must first see it as a vice. Understand it. And not deceive yourself about him, as I deceived myself for a long time. Since I have suffered greatly because of this weakness, I want to carefully analyze it.

But it is not always enough to expose some shortcoming in order to get rid of it. After I realized that arguing is my painful habit, I still didn’t immediately stop doing it. I tried to stop myself when I got into arguments again, telling myself that the debate would not give me anything, that I did not have to prove that I was right to every random person. But it almost didn't work for me from the beginning. The passion to argue for some time was stronger than me.

Fighting temptation

When I made this site, one of my main demons began to tempt me more often. I wrote my ideas on the site, and, naturally, people did not always agree with them and wrote (and continue to write) about it in the comments. It was not the neutral territory of some forum, but my website and my personal ideas, to which I became very attached. That's why it was very difficult for me not to get involved in disputes. Moreover, some comments seemed frankly offensive to me, I thought that I simply could not afford to pass by and not “teach a lesson” to the offender. Therefore, I scolded myself for this, but for some time I could not help myself.

For this reason, you have not seen this article before. I decided to write it only when I began to make significant progress in getting rid of my "favorite" vice. I started leaving some critical comments unanswered. Believe me, at the beginning it was very difficult for me, since I always considered it my duty to convince a person that he was wrong, and I was right!

Comments that are offensive, I began to simply delete, without getting involved in reciprocal insults. I left the answers of some participants who disagreed with me on the site, but I simply did not answer them if I saw that the person was in the mood to argue, not listen. Sometimes I saw that someone simply misunderstood my article and, therefore, none of us would benefit from this dialogue.

Of course, I still started to get involved in some disputes, but I got out of them as soon as I realized that there was no point in continuing this discussion.

I cannot say that I have become completely in control of this vice. But what happened was, in my opinion, a great success and progress towards getting rid of this weakness. I felt much more free from this habit! Like I don't have to prove anything to anyone!

So now I can write this article, in which I will tell you exactly what helped me achieve this.
But for now, let me tell you a little more about arguing on the Internet and about the biological prerequisites for the emergence of a need for arguing in humans. I really love the topic of controversy, so I am writing such a long introduction.

Holivars

The modern network is replete with forums, thematic communities in which each person can express his opinion, and any other person does not agree with this opinion. Internet communities provide fertile ground for fierce debate about which computer is better, which religion is more correct, which political beliefs are the truest, and so on. Internet does possible collision people of different ages, views, religions, characters. Even within the staunchest adherents of any one belief system, there can be different opinions and, as a result, disputes flare up.

Internet controversy different people reached such a level with each other that the unofficial term “Holivars” was coined for them. This word is derived from English words"holy" and "war", that is, "holy war". In my opinion, this is a very witty and ironic term.

A person can sit for hours in front of a computer, prove his case, not notice anything around, forget about his natural needs. It is as if with complete devotion and self-sacrifice he is given to the holy war against enemies encroaching on the Holy Truth about the undeniable, undeniable superiority of, say, an iPhone over other phones! It seems to him that this is his sacred mission, personally entrusted to him by the supreme paladin of the Shining Apple - Steve Jobs!

The importance that people place on online debate contrasts very strongly with the apparent futility of the process. Each side doesn't come up with anything, it just wastes time pointlessly proving to other people that they will never accept. And even if they do, what good will it do? But, meanwhile, a lot of time is sacrificed for this senseless need, which could be more usefully spent on something else.

Of course, not all disputes are an absurd battle between "blunt-pointed and sharp-pointed" in some disputes, "truth is really born" and its participants are enriched with new knowledge, exchanging it with each other.

Also, not all disputes occur between strangers on the Internet about what is better than iPhone or Samsung (Of ​​course, Samsung, there is nothing to argue about. Just kidding! =)). You can argue with a loved one about some really important things, for example, your relationship. But you cannot come to any decision, because the pride of both participants is affected in this dispute.

In this article, I will try to tell you not only how to get rid of the need to prove your case in a meaningless debate, but also how to make the argument productive.

Genealogy of the dispute

From the point of view of certain branches of evolutionary psychology, the need to defend one's opinion was supposed to help people at the dawn of mankind. The one among our ancestors who was the most stubborn and persuasive in defending his opinion achieved a higher social status than other members of his tribe. Millions of years ago there was no internet. And therefore, any dispute was much more important for a representative of ancient society than for a representative of modern society.

After all, all those people with whom the ancient man could enter into a dispute were familiar people, members of the community in which he himself was a member. With these people, the person maintained constant interaction. And his life depended heavily on how these people perceived him. Now you can discuss on the forum with a person from Australia about which video card for a computer will be better, each insisting on his own.
Most likely, you will never see each other and your conversation will not have any meaning for anyone. But in ancient times, every word meant something in view of the close circle of social interaction.

I think there's another reason why evolution needed to make us debaters. At that time, there were no abstract philosophical ideas, or material things that had no obvious practical application (when nature created us like this, it still “did not know” that there would be the Internet and iPhones). And if there was an argument, it was about things essential to survival. How to properly cut meat so as not to get poisoned? In which direction did the tribe of mammoths go to the South or to the North?

“The tribe of mammoths has gone south! I was there today and saw it myself! Why do you say it's in the North? You weren't there today! Maybe the mammoths were in the North yesterday, but now it's in a different place! We will not listen to you and go south!”

It was beneficial to the principle of survival that a person defend his point of view if he was sure of it. Therefore, nature has provided the human individual with such biological mechanisms that “force” him to argue, to prove his own innocence.

But since the time when these mechanisms were created, a lot of time has passed. Strong metamorphoses have taken place in the environment of life and in human culture. But genetically man has not changed much. We still have those ancient impulses that forced us to argue about mammoths. But within the framework of modernity, these impulses themselves cause problems that I know firsthand. Next, I will tell you exactly what will help you argue less and make arguments productive.

1. Give yourself time

Sometimes our wounded pride and outraged sense of justice require that we start arguing at all costs and prove that we are right, ignoring all the arguments that common sense suggests. As an argument junkie, I am well aware of how the Ego quickly sidesteps all reasonable arguments and whispers to me: “come on, explain to him, this is very important! Show him! You need to do justice!"

It is useless to argue with the Ego, you just have to ignore it for a while. Let your pride settle before answering. Try to relax and not think about the subject of the dispute. Count 10 deep breaths in and out of equal length, and then ask yourself, do you need this argument?

Even if you start arguing anyway, a break will give you at least an opportunity to remain calm in a tense discussion, not succumb to momentary emotions, and maybe come to a productive conversation. This advice applies more to online arguments, but it's okay to take a time out in real life as well: “We're both feeling strong emotions right now. Let's calm down a bit and then we'll continue this conversation."

During this breather, you can try to understand the position of the enemy and run through the possible chain of events in your head. This will allow you to avoid tedious, unnecessary discussions or come to a joint understanding in a meaningful conversation. More on this in the following paragraphs.

2. Try to understand the other person's position

In fierce disputes, the “opponents” are not at all interested in achieving some kind of mutual understanding and reaching a consensus. When a person begins to get involved in an argument, he becomes in the position of defending his opinion and attacking the opponent's opinion.

No matter how strange it may sound, no one thinks about who is actually right. When you listen to and read the arguments of your debate opponent, first of all, you look for logical contradictions, weaknesses in them, and at the same time try to “strengthen” your own opinion with new arguments. You find allies in an argument who agree with you but disagree with your "opponent" to make your arguments more convincing. This is attack and defense.

As a result, discussion turns into a game. In it, the tasks of joint discovery of truth, a productive exchange of ideas recede into the background. And in the first place is the goal of "arguing" a person who disagrees with you, not shunning any rhetorical devices.

But you don't always realize that you're playing the game for everything. To yourself you seem to be a bearer of objective knowledge, an impassive judge. And you think that it is only your opponent who is biased, emotional, illogical and inconsistent. In fact both sides are prejudiced, some more, some less. And the more emotions, personal predilections are affected in the dispute, the more bias there is in it, the more it starts to look like a game.

Even if you are really right and try to be as objective as possible, anyway, when you start to defend yourself, you often stop noticing the sound grain in the opponent’s arguments and the weakness of your own argumentation.

A productive dialogue between people gives them a chance to learn something from each other, to understand themselves more deeply (after all, this can be done through the opinion of other people about our views), to pay attention to their own shortcomings and become better. But when we turn dialogue into a game, its value and meaning disappear.
Someone may object to me: “so maybe there is nothing wrong with making a game out of a discussion if this game is exciting and interesting?”

The game only makes sense when there are winners and losers. But as for disputes, especially disputes on the Internet (holivars), there are no winners in them. Either side is a loser! Although, of course, the exception may be some kind of debate with strictly regulated rules and judges who judge the participants. But even winning such a debate, in my opinion, is a rather dubious thing. Because, it seems to me, the dialogue should be aimed at finding the truth, and not at self-affirmation.

So before you start arguing, ask yourself the following questions:

1. Do I understand my opponent's position?
   (What is my opponent's position? What are his main arguments? Can these arguments be valid? Maybe they are not suitable for all cases, but in some situations they turn out to be correct?)
2. Does my opponent understand my position?
   (Is he ready to have a dialogue with me, or did he just come to impose his point of view? Or maybe I didn’t formulate my own opinion very clearly, so he misunderstood me?)
   How is my position different from his position? (You need to understand where you agree and disagree with your opponent so you don't have a pointless argument about things you actually agree on)
3. Could my opponent be right?
   (Why does my opponent think so? Is there at least some truth in his words? After all, he does not just say or write this, so he is sure of it. Why is he so sure of this?)
4. Can I be wrong?
   (How sure are you that you are right? How is this rightness confirmed? Are the things on the basis of which you consider yourself right obvious to all participants in the discussion?)

When you ask yourself these questions and answer them, then perhaps the need to argue will disappear by itself. There are a variety of situations. I will list some of them.

For example, you will realize that your opponent simply does not understand your position and may not want to understand. Then what is the use of explaining something to him when he is not going to listen to you, but only wants to conduct his monologue?

I encounter this situation often on my site. Some people even try to argue not with me, but with their own understanding of my articles, which may not at all relate to the meaning that I laid in them. Perhaps they did not read the articles carefully, but simply came to argue. In this case, I don’t waste time simply retelling the article for this person in an attempt to convey to him what I had in mind (there are exceptions, if a person needs help, then I try to help him and explain something again).

But sometimes I understand that I really didn’t explain something quite accurately, which is why incorrect conclusions were born.

In another situation, you will see that your opponent is somewhat right. Only he exaggerates the significance of his own ideas, elevates arguments that are true in a particular case to the rank of general and universal truth. Do not argue with his ideas themselves.

Even if the discussion flares up, then with the help of this analysis you will at least give yourself a break and come to a better understanding of the opinion of the other person.

You should not, of course, strongly hope that you will be as honest with yourself as possible. Perhaps your ego and hurt pride will not let you do this. You will convince yourself that your opponent is just stupid and there is nothing to argue with him. Let it be untrue, but it will save you from wasted time.

3. Weaken the enemy's defense

Imagine that you are blaming your husband for not giving enough time to your children. Let's say you do it in an emotional and a little rough way. He, being offended by your rudeness, begins to defend himself and accuse you in response, even if your reproaches were fair. You are even more offended and, in order to take revenge on the offender, you remind him of some other old guilt. And gradually the dispute turns into a scandal.

I think many of us are familiar with the vicious circle that both debaters fall into. The more pride and emotions are inside the dispute, the more both participants move away from understanding each other. Each speaks only of his own and refuses to understand the other.

To prevent this from happening, try not to provoke a defensive reaction from the person to whom you want to explain something. Don't hurt his pride. Don't be offensive. Don't jump to direct accusations.

Pride is a wall through which reason cannot pass. Do not build this wall in front of you!
Neil Fiore in the book "" gives a good method to start a difficult conversation, but at the same time not hurt the ego of another person.

This method helps to move from direct accusations to the fact of acknowledging one's own problem. Instead of saying, “You are always rude to me! You are rude! You are behaving incorrectly!”, you need to start the dialogue with the following wording: “I ran into a small problem. I am greatly offended by your rudeness and I do not want to hear it. How can we solve it?"

In principle, the meaning of the phrase does not change. Only the wording changes. And This allows you to bypass defense mechanisms. personality. Once you've done this, you're more likely to get your words across to the other person. Even if he does not agree with you, he will not be annoyed by the insulting form of the accusation against him, accordingly he will not turn to reciprocal insults and will not affect your own protective functions. And then it will be easier for you to understand that perhaps you yourself are wrong.

4. Imagine a possible chain of events in your head

Before you get involved in any dispute, for example, on the Internet, think about Is your opponent ready to listen to you? Perhaps he plans only to impose his opinion and defend it. You won't convince this man of anything! No need to argue with him!

If you still really want to rub his nose in a dispute and crush him with your undeniable arguments, then imagine the real chain of events that will follow your action.

You will answer him, he will answer you, then you will answer him, he will answer you, and so on ... Imagine this process in the smallest details. Think about how much time you have to spend. Surely this is not the first time in your life that you have been involved in an argument and you know, although you are not aware of this knowledge, that this does not lead to anything, despite the time spent. Both people will get nothing but negative emotions.

Also, you can ask yourself: What will I get from this? Even if I manage to convince someone of something (which most likely will not happen), then what will it give me? Will I be able to take something new and useful for myself out of this dispute? Will I be able to enrich my mind and erudition?

More often than not, you won't get a positive answer to these questions.

When I want to argue with someone, I vividly imagine how long this process will take me, and how dissatisfied with myself I will be because I spent it so stupidly and did not achieve any result. And I immediately lose the desire to argue.

5. Give Others the Right to Practice Their Beliefs

This principle helps me a lot not to get involved in long discussions. If you understand that everyone has the right to embody their beliefs in action, then they will want to participate in disputes less. What does it mean? Everything is very simple. If someone thinks that Apple computers are better than PCs, then this person will buy an Apple for himself if he has such an opportunity. If someone is sure that articles on a self-development site should be concise and not very detailed, then this “someone” will write short posts if he has a site about self-development. Suppose you disagree with each of these opinions, so you will buy a PC with which you will publish voluminous posts on your self-development site.

I understand that this sounds terribly banal, even tritely stupid. But if we accept the fact that each person acts according to his own principles or will so act, if possible, then why argue about these principles with each other?

If I don't want to argue with someone, I can say, “If you don't agree that you should regularly dust your computer, then you won't dust it regularly. And I will, because I think differently. Why should we discuss this?"

Of course, you should not abuse this method. If the discussion concerns some important, vital things that affect the happiness, health of a person and the people around him, then sometimes it is possible to influence this person in some way so that he becomes better. For example, try to prove to him that children should not be treated rudely, that one should not constantly get drunk, even if the person does not agree with you.

Use this method when you realize that an argument will be pointless or when an initially productive conversation has gone too far. It's just a way to "dodge the bullet", stop unwanted emotions, and not nip any dialogue in the bud.

6. “Perhaps I will come to this someday”

On Steve Pavlina's website, one of the most famous English-language self-development blogs, his author describes what exactly helps him not to get involved in lengthy arguments with people who disagree with his ideas. He says or writes to them, “Perhaps you are right,” and ends the conversation with that.

Maybe it will be useful for someone to know about such a method. It does require you to take a little break from your ego and admit, at least in the possibility, that your views may not be the ultimate truth and the one who criticizes you will probably be right.

But personally, a slightly different setup helps me. I think to myself, “Now I don’t agree with him. But perhaps someday I will come to share his opinion.

For example, someone tells me that I treat a certain style of music unfairly, calling it simple and mediocre. Maybe it is. I'm not ready to accept this just yet. But, perhaps, someday my , (as has happened more than once in my life) and I will not be so critical of such music. Therefore, I will not argue with someone and prove the opinion that I hold now.

This attitude helps you recognize that the truth you hold is not something static and unchanging. This is a thing that greatly depends on your age, level of development, knowledge, momentary emotions, attitudes and beliefs. All these things can change, so your truth can change too. Recognize this, and it will become much easier for you to measure the fact that other people's ideas and views do not coincide with your beliefs. After all, someday everything can change!

7. Be prepared for any reaction

Keep in mind that your reluctance to argue with people can cause them to have the most violent reaction. When two people argue, it can be said that they are mutually satisfying each other's need to argue. To refuse a person who wants to argue, in fact, in a dispute, is the same as to refuse a person in sex when he has already tuned in to it. Naturally, this will cause a backlash.

So be prepared to hear something like the following:

• “You just have nothing to say. You have no arguments. Haha, I knew I'd be right."
• “Well, are you giving up? Did I show you?
• “When it comes to arguments, you immediately leave!”

Pay no attention to it. This is just an expression of resentment of a person who did not get what he really wanted. This is his hidden desire to provoke your reaction.

8. Go out when it smells like roast

Remember, it's never too late to get out of an argument, even if you're up to your neck in it. Just finish it. If the case takes place on the Internet, close the page and do not open it again in the near future. Don't answer anything. Just stop wasting time and move on.

In real life, you might say, “I'm sorry, I don't want to talk about this anymore. You and I will not come to anything, but only get angry. Let's not let some trivia about which you and I disagree come between us."

9. Manage attention

The above methods will help you avoid unpleasant disputes. But simply "dodging a bullet", not responding to other people's provocations, is not enough. Sometimes it becomes very difficult to resist the temptation to return to the argument after you decide not to prove anything to anyone. After all, so many crushing arguments come into your head, with the help of which you can still defeat your rivals! Your mind will tell you: “Come back, you gave up early, you need to prove to him that he is wrong!”

But do not give in to these impulses! If you decide not to argue, follow your decision to the end. As soon as thoughts come to you to return, just focus on something else. Be prepared to repeat this action as many times as the thought of returning to the argument comes to you. Trust me, you will spend less time "wrestling" with these thoughts than you would in a pointless argument if you get into it.

(The word fight is in quotation marks, because you don’t really need to fight any. It’s a fight without a fight. You just need to learn not to react to them and redirect your mind to something else, every time these thoughts appear. This principle will help you not only in disputes, but also in the fight against addictions, fears, and any annoying thoughts.)

10. Don't get attached to your ideas

The fear associated with the fact that your ideas, beliefs will be questioned provokes you to fiercely defend your own opinion. But ask yourself the question: what happens if I'm wrong? Will it really be such a big disaster if Samsung turns out to be better than iPhone? Canon is better than Nikon? Mercedes is better than BMW?

No, nothing bad will happen and your opinion will not suffer. Stop looking at this as a matter of life and death.

Of course, this principle is more difficult to apply in situations where the subject of discussion is the foundation of your worldview or an important part of it. For example, faith in God or beliefs related to the development of the individual, the emergence of this world, the destiny of man, etc. If you consider yourself ugly, but smart, it will be difficult for you to even think that physical beauty can be more important than intelligence. Because it is attached to the opposite of this belief.

Difficult but impossible. You can’t base your self-esteem, and your views, on some things that can suffer. It must be that in order to achieve such a result, when you do not bind yourself to your ideas, you will need systematic, comprehensive work on the development of a person, to whom my site is dedicated. I'm not ready to tie this result to one thing.

But, recently, I myself began to come to this. I stopped worrying so much about my ideas being wrong. Of course, I have no doubt that my site helps someone. My practical recommendations are correct if they work. But as far as my views on some ideas not much relevant to everyday experience, I became much less worried that they suddenly turn out to be inaccurate. So be it.. So it will help me get rid of delusions and give me a chance to find the truth. That's all.

And this thought really became liberating for me! I stopped worrying so much about losing the foundation under my feet. And it gave me the opportunity to hear other people, instead of fiercely defending my beliefs.

But if you are sure that no one can shake your views, then why argue?

11. Accept that not everyone will agree with you.

After all, that's how the world works. People have their own views and refuse to share yours. You will not be able to convince every person that you are right, even if you are sincerely sure that he is wrong, and your personal experience it only confirms. People will argue with you, disagree, criticize your ideas. That is the order of things. The only way to avoid this is to say nothing and write nothing at all.

Think about the fact that someone disagreed with you? Indeed, so what?

Conclusion

These different methods can be used depending on the circumstances. I use them all in different time. Sometimes I manage to “dodge the bullet” without too much thought (recently this has been happening more and more often) sometimes I have to seek support in these ways and convince myself that I should not give in to my painful habit.

Some of these methods are designed not only to get out of an argument, but also to make the argument more productive. Turn your "opponents" into allies in the search for truth!

But finding a balance between a productive dialogue and a stupid argument can be difficult. So if you are seriously addicted to arguing, follow the principle of the alcoholic who is trying to stop drinking. “No alcohol any time soon, in any form. Perhaps later, when you learn to control your desires, then you can afford to drink a glass on holidays. But for now it is best to avoid any temptation.”

Strive to end the argument completely, even if it seems productive to you, in the event that you have big problems with self-control. But when you train your ego, you can have interesting dialogues, defend your point of view and at the same time not get emotionally involved in the conversation and not cross the line of respect for its participants.

Speaking about training your “I”, I would like to note that even if, applying these tips in practice, you feel a very strong resistance that prevents you from finishing the argument, this does not mean that such resistance will always be. By systematically and methodically following my recommendations, you will gradually train your Ego, and it will no longer have so much power over you. I feel the truth of these words.

Every day I find it easier and easier to cope with my own desire to argue. The main thing is patience. Don't berate yourself too much for "breaking out" and starting the debate again. Instead, take it easy. What happened, happened. Think about how you can prevent this from happening in the future.

I reread these lines and feel how a person who has not experienced such a problem may have a smile if he reads this. On my website I write about alcohol addiction, panic attacks and. This can indeed be called a problem with capital letter. But I am discussing the topic of this article as thoroughly, methodically and seriously as one of these problems. "It's just an argument!" Someone will say! Does it deserve so much attention? Believe me, he deserves it. For some, this can actually represent trouble. And that was trouble for me.

Well, now you are well aware of my weakness, which I have struggled with and continue to struggle with. Perhaps, after this article, someone will want to provoke me to a holivar on the site! Well! I will be glad to have another opportunity to train my ego! (Offensive comments are deleted =))

6 years ago

Readers of my blog often ask me the question: "how...

7 years ago

In this article, I'll show you how to extract...

1. Is it worth it to start an argument in order to "lower" the speaker
From life: Many start a dispute not because they consider the opponent's version to be erroneous, but because they simply want to lower him in the eyes of the users (and, therefore, exalt themselves). Skilled debaters often succeed, even if the opponent was right.

Consequences: Many members of the forum, however, will understand what you were trying to achieve and turn away from you. Those who enjoy your spectacular duel will, of course, initially be for you, but their opinion will quickly change as soon as a more skilled debater appears. An offended opponent, if he is a fairly literate person, will simply forget about this incident, but if he belongs to the category of flooders (is it worth arguing with them at all?), then you can get yourself a lot of problems (insults, spam, etc.).

Conclusion: Do not enter into an argument if you only want to "lower" the person. You will lose a lot more than you will gain, mainly the support of those people who saw through your goals, and these are not stupid people.

2. Do I need to have my own ideas on the issue of the dispute?
From life: Often people enter into an argument without having their own ideas on this issue, but believing that the opponent's opinion is wrong. Many people confuse the argument and the usual showdown, believing that the main thing here is to prove that the opponent is wrong.

Consequences: If you manage to refute the opinion of the enemy, then without your own ideas on this issue, the topic of conversation will most likely be exhausted, and many will regard your actions as point 1. If you lose, it will be doubly insulting - after all, it was not your ideas that were refuted, but your refutations.

Conclusion: Do not enter into an argument without your own ideas on how to solve this problem. Carefully read everything that has been written before you - perhaps you will repeat yourself or begin to refute something that is already practically a fact.
And after all, the outcome of the dispute should be a solution to the issue, and if you think that the opponent is wrong, then you should at least express your point of view on the issue, and not run to refute his words.

3. Often heard "Yes, you are."
From life: Very often, disputes end with the words "Yes, you are," "Well, what's the point of arguing with you when you don't know this." This is mainly said by those who are tired of the conversation, those who believe that the opponent is stupid and should not be talked to anymore, or when meeting with a very stubborn opponent (although this does not simply exclude his stupidity).

Consequences: If you said it and you entered into an argument, then this will be considered your defeat. If you said this to someone who entered into an argument, refuting your judgments, then you considered him stupid or stubborn, this can cause offense and it’s not a fact that this person will stop refuting your words - but after “Yes, you”, a further argument with your side will be somewhat inappropriate. And the enemy has the advantage of saying something that you cannot refute, because. in their own words, they stopped paying attention to him (but others didn’t).

Conclusion: You must know at least a little bit about who you want to argue with. Because when you enter into an argument, you accept the enemy for who he is. Let me explain. If he was known as a great flooder, then entering into an argument with him, you can no longer "write off" the fact that he is a flooder and does not understand anything - because YOU entered into an argument with him. And if the issue of the dispute has not yet been resolved, it is better to refrain from such words as those given above, because it is not known what the opponent will say and maybe this will be practically the result of the dispute - to refute some of his judgments. If everyone else, except your opponent, is convinced that you are right, it's time to say "Yes, you are," but even though you win the argument, you won't convince your opponent, but this is already his stubbornness.

4. What is the purpose of the dispute?
From life: Many people quickly forget about a controversial issue and get personal, trying to remember the old sins of their opponents. Their goal is to convince the enemy that he is wrong, using not specific reasoning on this issue, but the behavior of the enemy in general in society, some of his reasoning a year ago, etc.

Consequences: Usually such disputes very quickly turn into personalities, the main question is forgotten and the topic acquires a flame character with all outcomes. And both debaters fall in the eyes of the public.

Conclusion: Do not forget, if you enter, then you disagree with the opponent’s opinion and you must convince him of his wrong (or partial wrong), and then (or along the way) offer your opinion (which he can also refute). If someone gets into an argument with you, then you do not have to convince him that he is wrong. If so to prove to everyone, then there will not be enough time and effort, because. each person is distinguished by his own stubbornness. The main thing is to convince others that you are right. Just for this, opponents in a dispute are needed, because. refuting their statements, you thereby affirm your own and the more you refute, the faster others will agree with you, so you should not completely ignore the enemy.

5. You are not a know-it-all
From life: On the way to victory, many debaters, breaking the opponent's arguments, take off sharply in own eyes. They consider themselves omniscient and all-right.

Consequences: And because of this, they often make blunders further and can lose as quickly as they went to victory. Also, usually, their speech is accompanied by an arrogant tone. This offends the opponent, and can also turn the public against you, because. most do not like it when someone speaks too arrogantly, considering others below him.

Conclusions: Remember you are not a know-it-all - and you can not hint that you understand all issues better than others. There will always be someone who will wipe your nose in some area, the other in another area, etc. - thus you can wipe your nose everywhere. If you know - show this knowledge, it's only +. But do not abuse it, saying things like "Do you even know what the word entropy means", or "What do you even know!". And apart from malicious looks from the outside, you will not achieve anything.

6. He is always right!
From life: Very often, many lose not because they were wrong, but because their opponent very cunningly and skillfully transferred others to his side. Mainly due to attacks on some minor arguments of the opponent, but not on his main idea.

Consequences: Most likely they will be defeated. Moreover, the one who was playing the game will not even understand why he lost, because he was right and no one even persuaded him.

Conclusions: As a rule, if you are sure that you are right, you can continue the argument and translate it into an ideological channel, letting the opponent understand that he should deny why your idea is inappropriate, and not some petty judgments. You should not say what you are unsure about - the enemy will invariably take advantage of this and try to refute, or overshadow with his more confident statements. Speak only what you are sure of.

7. A cunning opponent.
From life: Very often the enemy, seeing that you are more right than he is, will try to move his idea closer to yours, or, even worse, develop your idea and pass it off as his own.

Consequences: It often happens that everyone will accept his idea and forget about yours, he will take all the laurels of the winner for himself, having come with the wrong idea and generally taking yours for his son!

Conclusion: Do not let the enemy capture your idea - if you notice that he is raking some of its particles to himself, developing them, then you must quickly stop him in this, saying that he took your idea as a basis, and not his own, that they say, really now he himself considers his idea wrong. But at the same time, try to develop your idea yourself, thereby ensuring that he does not do it.

8. How to skillfully admit defeat?
From life: Although this happens quite rarely, so that in a dispute a clear division into losers and winners is achieved, it nevertheless happens. Often this happens when smart and literate people are arguing. Usually the loser leaves the dispute as offended, worse if he offends the winner before that. It also happens that because of his pride (stubbornness?), he does not want to admit defeat in any way.

Consequences: If you left simply or insulting the winner, then you will not grow in the eyes of the public, and in the latter case, even vice versa. And hardly anyone will consider it an honor to argue with you in the future.

Conclusion: The winner likes when his main opponent recognizes his victory, you will rise in his eyes and in the eyes of the public. And also they will not say about you "you are stubborn and unable to admit defeat." The ability to admit defeat is also a great thing and is greatly appreciated. The winner can, seeing that you admitted your mistake, pat you on the shoulder or shake your hand virtually, and he will never insult or humiliate you. Remember - he also wants to be merciful and very gently acknowledges his victory. It is also not worth saying that you were almost right - this may embitter the winner, cause a new dispute and your new defeat, but the winner will not be so merciful. It's easier to say "You're right, damn it!" - it will be better than some expressions, meaning that the winner is right, but you are not completely or partially right.

9. You won the dispute.
From life: "As you can see, I won, you were wrong, fool!" - very many winners love to scatter expressions similar to this, not understanding what this can lead to.

Consequences: In addition to resentment and anger of the loser, this will not cause anything, but perhaps discontent among the audience, especially who was "for" your opponent.

Conclusions: In no case should you use such expressions. The enemy admitted defeat - this means that you have grown in his eyes, he respects you. This is the most important thing you could achieve in a dispute. And also you have grown in the eyes of the public. Accept the victory as it is, shaking hands with the opponent for such a good argument, which you have not had for a long time :-). It is also not worth saying that his idea was also almost correct - because the enemy can quickly change his mind from these words and thereby cause a new dispute.

10. Draw? Does this happen?
From life: It happens, and even more often than one could imagine. This usually happens when both opponents, with their arguments, break both of their theories or agree that they are all partially right.

Consequences: There is no winner or loser here, usually as a result of such a dispute, the result may be a united idea of ​​both debaters or without them at all. After that, they look at each other in surprise, pretending to say "Who is right then?".

Conclusions: If you understand that your theory is partially wrong, and the opponent's theory is partially correct - this is essentially a future draw, unless you just want to break the enemy, following step 1. But after all, others also see all this, and many also like you, so the consequences can be corresponding to the first paragraph. In fact, the winner will be the one who quickly recognizes the given situation as a draw, namely that everyone is partially right. Therefore, if you see that everything is moving towards this, if others are already convinced that some of your ideas are wrong, then it is better to save the situation than to lose everything by trying to convince them. Do it first and you almost win.

11.
This paragraph does not have a name, conclusions and consequences, but it is intended to tell you that everything described above is taken from real practice, and not invented by a person who is the first day on the Internet and does not know what a virtual dispute is (although its difference from real not very large).
You can agree with everything, partially or completely disagree - this is your personal opinion. And in any dispute, you must respect someone else's opinion.
All that is described above is rarely so unambiguous in a dispute, usually one item accompanies another or is somewhat combined into one.
There are rarely disputes without flooding and dirt - there are almost always those who will climb in and ruin everything, turning a good argument into a stupid showdown.
Just like if your goal in a dispute is to "lower" a competitor, self-affirmation in society or all the praise "what a know-it-all I am" - you don't need all these tips, because they are all aimed only at skillfully conducting and ending the dispute.

We often have to argue with superiors, colleagues on various issues, and we need to be able to defend our point of view without conflict, and sometimes agree with the opponent’s point of view if yours turned out to be wrong.

Many years ago, I did a residency in psychiatry. As always, on Mondays there were clinical reviews of patients. Often, heated debates arose at these analyses. It was interesting to watch how venerable psychiatrists dive in during the discussion of the patient's condition. Sometimes, breaking into raised voices and provoking this into conflicts.

But there were others who knew how to argue without coming into conflict. I have learned a lot from them.

I remember how I represented the patient and expressed my diagnosis. My teacher, a professor, politely asked me if there were other options for the diagnosis? I replied that there were none. He said softly: “Think, Igor Olegovich, do not rush. What symptoms do not fit into your diagnosis and why?

Only later did I realize how important it is to be able to ask questions correctly in a dispute. Yes, he could harshly say that I was wrong and give his diagnosis, but he did not, trying to push me to a more objective perception of the situation.

We are grateful to our teachers who taught us how to argue with people on the merits, without offending the other side, without making enemies. Otherwise, people become irritated and sometimes vengeful, especially in the presence of others, when you poke their noses into their own mistakes.

You may not be forgiven for this. Although, if you are a truth lover and are not afraid of enemies, believing that decent people should have enemies, then the flag is in your hands!

Learn to manage disputes, if you want, of course, to resolve them constructively, and not turn your life into a kind of Solovyov's program "To the Barrier". But this is a TV show, where the louder the scandal, the better, and the most wonderful debaters are those who are ready to fight. However, such emotions are good only on the TV screen. In real life, they just get in the way.

So what should be done?

• Ask (to learn about the criteria and principles of the opponent, to clarify ambiguities and to check the level of understanding).
• Listen carefully to what your opponent is saying.
• Based on the ideas of the opponent.
• Control your emotions by staying calm.
• Show both sides of the problem.
• Putting forward the thesis, give arguments.
• Be brief.
• Use clear, simple language.
• Use examples, analogies.
• Involve independent experts, evidence, precedents.
• State your point of view firmly.
• Criticize the person's arguments, but not himself.

And here is what you can not do in any case:

• Immediately move on to harsh criticism of the opponent.
• To argue, to find fault with trifles.
• Speak with sarcasm, be "the smartest".
• Interrupt, trying to seem "the most important."
• Announce disagreement in advance.
• Be overly talkative.
• Use jargon, incomprehensible, ambiguous words.
• Speak abstractly.
• Be irritable, aggressive.

Summary. The fact that people argue is normal, the whole question is in what form. Stick to the rules of argument and you will be considered a smart person.