How to Win Arguments

This brings us to another point. Do men and women argue differently? Do they employ different tactics, argue about different things or have different concepts of what constitutes winning and losing? Are women happier than men to reach a consensus? These are some of the issues to which we shall be paying attention.

Also we shall look at the psychology of argument and, using techniques from a number of different disciplines, try to understand the mechanics at work when we argue. We shall devise strategies for a more effective use of arguing skills and try to use psychological insights to understand an opponent’s motives and strategy. In particular, the techniques of transactional analysis will be recommended as a means of understanding some of the forces at work in an argument.

I must also add a personal comment about self-help books. They have always bothered me. Surely the reader is entitled to ask, ‘Who is this person and what gives him the right to lecture me?’ It is a fair question and is seldom answered. You are expected to take the author on trust. My answer is this: I assume that since you are reading this book you feel that your arguing skills could do with improvement. Naturally bossy, assertive people are unlikely to have strayed further than the front cover. I am not a professional in the field of argument (though I do have some psychological training). I have made a study of argument because the subject fascinates me. Like most people I have often felt that I could have given a better account of myself in arguments and have regretted lost opportunities. However, the sort of writer who happily advises shy people to smile and offer a new acquaintance a friendly handshake is rather missing the point. If they were capable of doing that they would not be shy in the first place. So all the advice I intend to give is intensely practical and has been thoroughly researched and tested. If an idea has proved reliable I shall recommend it warmly, but where a particular tactic is of only marginal value I shall mention it with an appropriate ‘health warning’ attached. I am certain that you will not finish the book without having learned a number of skills that will improve your arguing ability significantly.

Although you will find a list of recommended books in the appendix these will not help you half as much as observing arguments for yourself. There is no problem about this, they are happening around us all the time. Any bus queue, crowded shopping centre, car park, railway station, TV debate, radio phone-in or playground squabble will provide you with ample opportunity to study. The art is to listen attentively and take a dispassionate interest in what is going on. This is a difficult habit for many of us to cultivate because we have such a deeply ingrained dislike of hearing people bicker. We know full well that we are only a hair’s breadth away from violence and our instinct is to put as much distance between ourselves and the cause of the trouble as possible. But try not to run away. Most arguments are merely ludicrous rather than threatening. Most of the anger is bluff and will never lead to blows. If you watch what is happening closely you will see that much of what is happening is ritualized and predictable. Once you understand the ritual you are well placed to control its direction. The techniques that are being used effectively by one arguer can be easily adapted for use by yourself. And because so few people bother to study argument properly you, who have taken the time to do so, will be in a position to win.

One final point. Throughout the book, in the interests of brevity, I have used the male third person singular pronouns. No sinister sexist sub-text should be found in this; unless otherwise stated, my remarks apply as much to women as to men.

CHAPTER ONE (#ulink_2f2be9d8-3fe9-5af5-86a8-5329f766408e)

Things You Should Know (#ulink_2f2be9d8-3fe9-5af5-86a8-5329f766408e)

What Makes an Argument? (#ulink_18108f66-4476-590f-a376-752ced05a760)

The question seems unnecessary. After all, argument is a universal human activity in which we all engage as regularly and naturally as breathing. Even if we have never given much thought to the theory behind it, we have enough practical experience to recognize an argument the moment we become embroiled in one or hear others engaged in verbal conflict.

However, if we are to avoid misunderstandings later there are a few points to sort out at the start. Chambers Twentieth Century Dictionary says that to argue is ‘to discuss with reasoning’. Reasoning? Two cars collide on a cold, wet Monday morning in the rush hour. One, driven by a 25-year-old junior executive, a sporty job with a souped-up engine and go-faster stripes down the sides, was going much too fast and skidded in the wet. The other is driven by a woman doing the school run with two small children in the back seat. How much reasoning would you expect to hear? Would a calm, impartial and mutually satisfactory discussion be the most likely outcome? Experience tells us that the ensuing argument would probably be high on emotion, low on reasoning.

Eventually the police appear and tempers are calmed. But while the adults talk, one of the children steals the other’s teddy bear and throws it into the front seat. Will they sort out their differences by an exchange of reasons? Even the most limited observation of young children will make you aware that reason rarely plays a part in such exchanges. People are not wholly rational creatures and their arguments are seldom based purely on reason. Of course, human beings know how to use reason and may well do so when trying to justify their actions but that is a far cry from acting consistently in a rational manner. Most human arguments are conducted in an atmosphere that reeks of emotion, manipulation, self-interest, false reasoning, bigotry and propaganda. This book aims to show you how to survive that jungle.

In America there is currently a great vogue for analysing and teaching negotiation skills. The business section of every bookshop and library has handbooks offering to improve the reader’s negotiating technique. University courses are offered to those hoping that their business careers will be enhanced by a talent for negotiating. Harvard boasts the distinguished Harvard Negotiation Project whose aim is to ‘develop and disseminate improved methods of negotiation and mediation’. This morning’s newspaper even contains an advertisement for a twenty-page report which for £19.70 promises to reveal ‘38 of the dirtiest tactics used by professional negotiators’ and ‘… how to handle them’.

However, although negotiation is one part of the area we shall be discussing, it is by no means the whole of it. There is a fundamental difference between negotiation and argument.

In a negotiation, both sides, however much they try to look detached and disinterested, are searching for an agreement. Naturally they want the most advantageous settlement they can get and during the course of the discussions they will try all manner of stratagems to achieve that aim. If they feel that there is no possibility of getting a sufficiently favourable settlement then the negotiations may be broken off for some time, but still deep down they want agreement. They may even need one desperately. Take a look, for example, at the war that has followed the break-up of the former Yugoslavia. Much of the time peace seems impossible and repeatedly the various factions have met to negotiate and have then parted without reaching a settlement. Yet all the parties are well aware that no state can exist in a condition of permanent civil war and therefore, at some stage, a negotiated settlement will have to be found. Similar situations exist in the Middle East, Northern Ireland, Rwanda and many other world trouble spots. However bitter the differences that divide one side from another, there is always a need for people who live in close proximity to get on with each other. Since human society is impossible without that element of cooperation, in the end negotiation must always be the answer. Even the Troubles in Northern Ireland, which have persisted for twenty-five years and are based upon disagreements hundreds of years old are at last being settled by negotiation.

Argument is fundamentally different. In an argument the parties may not want a settlement at all, ever. For example, where two rival politicians are debating a point on television it is a forgone conclusion that neither will change his or her position or make any concession at all to the other. That was never the point of the argument. The aim of each contestant is to convert as many voters as possible to his or her own point of view. Similarly, there are many cases where the only point of an argument is to chasten and humiliate an opponent by scoring a victory in a battle of verbal skill. The substance of the argument is purely secondary to the emotional battle that forms the subtext. Take as an example a couple about to divorce who are trying to decide who gets custody of the children. We have all heard of cases where concern for the children’s welfare is outweighed by a desire to score an emotional and legal victory over a former spouse who has become a hated opponent. Couples have been known to inflict enormous mental and emotional damage on themselves and their children in such a struggle.

Negotiation experts who offer advice like ‘separate the people from the problem’, or ‘deal rationally with irrational people’ are missing the point. Frequently people enjoy being irrational. There are many areas of human life where arguments exist for their own sake and are tied up with issues of power and status, not to mention sheer bloody-mindedness.

The American psychologist Eric Berne described arguments as a clash between the images we all carry in our minds. He explained that none of us has an objective view of reality but instead we perceive things through the filter of our own personality. With time these perceived images become fixed and we are increasingly loath to change them. Berne cited the instance of an able-bodied man who loses a leg. It may take some considerable time for him to alter his image of himself from that of a fit person to that of a handicapped one. He may continue to ‘feel’ the leg even though it is no longer there and, even when he seems to have accepted his altered condition there may be times when he dreams of himself as once again being able-bodied.

The problem comes when we are forced to abandon an image to which we still wish to cling. Sam had admired Katie for about six months before he got up the courage to ask her out. He was not especially good-looking or well off and she was remarkably pretty and vivacious. To his surprise she accepted. The date was a great success, they found they had a lot in common and before long they were going steady. However, Sam’s best friend Joe was unhappy with the situation. Once he and Sam had spent much of their leisure time hanging around together. Now Sam was usually too occupied with Katie to devote much time to his old friend. Joe heard gossip that Katie was well known for amusing herself with someone for a while and then dumping him in favour of a new conquest. Eventually Joe spotted Katie with another man and felt he had to warn Sam that his girlfriend was unfaithful. Sam was in no mood to hear Katie slandered. In his eyes she was just about the best thing that had ever happened to him and it was not hard to guess that Joe’s motive was simply jealousy. An argument developed, became quite heated and soon the two friends split up and ceased to speak to each other.

Who was right? We don’t know. From our point of view it doesn’t really matter. Probably there was some truth in the accusation that Joe was jealous but, all the same, he may have genuinely thought that he had a duty to save his friend from what he saw as the clutches of a devious woman. That is the point about arguments. The ‘real’ facts are often extremely hard to discover. What is much more important is how people feel about the facts. Sam felt strongly attracted to Katie. Most people are lucky enough to have had the experience of liking someone so much that they can’t bear to hear him criticized. Joe was trying to let what he saw as the cold light of reality break into his friend’s romantic dream. It was the fundamental incompatibility of the two men’s images of Katie that caused the row.

If we think about this tale a little further another interesting point emerges. Surely the strength of a particular image must have a bearing on the situation. If Sam’s faith in Katie had been completely rock solid he would have been able to dismiss Joe’s advice with a pitying smile. He might not even have felt much offended. Imagine, for example, that someone accused your mother of being a spy for a foreign power. The idea would seem so ludicrous that your first reaction would be to laugh it off. Your confidence in her innocence would be so strong that it would take tremendous pressure to crack it. So we can see that one of the first lessons to be learned in argument is confidence in your own cause. As long as you are firmly convinced that your image is the one that best describes reality you will be very hard to budge even when, to all other eyes, you are in the wrong.

Richard, a scientist friend of mine, is a convinced and passionate Christian. He is also a brilliant speaker with a tremendous natural gift for oratory. I once organized a conference about the developments we could expect to see in the next millennium. To add some excitement to the proceedings I asked Richard to debate the notion that in the coming century Christianity would die. As a matter of interest we asked for a vote at the beginning of the debate to establish the beliefs of the audience and found that we had about forty atheists, fifteen Christians and twenty agnostics.

In the debate Jim, another scientist, put the case for the death of Christianity with great panache. He was a witty, practised speaker and completely familiar with all the pros and cons of this argument (it was a personal favourite of his and he had gone over it with many opponents in the past). Then Richard spoke. Intellectually his speech was not a patch on Jim’s and, to a non-believer, it sounded far too personal and emotional, but he had one great advantage. Richard felt he knew God personally. He spoke with such utter rock-solid conviction that, by the end of the debate, the subject of which had by now changed from the death of Christianity to the existence of God, something interesting had happened. A final vote about religious beliefs showed that, as you might expect, none of the atheists and Christians had changed their view. However, among the agnostics Richard’s speech had convinced about ten to change their mind, while Jim had persuaded none. Thus, although Jim won the debate on a show of hands, the true lesson for me was that a powerful belief in what you are saying is one of the biggest assets you can have in an argument.

Elements of an Argument (#ulink_4ba48755-5b73-5cf9-b981-ab7c510b13f5)

Arguments can seem like a verbal free-for-all in which the participants simply hurl at each other whatever missiles come to hand. However, there are a number of elements that always contribute to the making of any argument and the way in which these elements combine will tell you much about the form the argument may be expected to take. What are these elements? Here’s a list.

Concern for Truth

It is always worth considering to what extent the parties are trying to reach the truth. Of course, your opponent’s ‘truth’ may not be yours but, if you feel that he is trying, by his own lights, to get at a rational analysis of the situation then you will have more confidence in his arguments and be willing to give them a more sympathetic hearing. If, on the other hand, you are pretty sure that your opponent is only concerned to get his own way, to score a victory for the body he represents, or to inflict a humiliating defeat on you, then you will be suspicious of any arguments he may use.

Unfortunately, concern for truth is usually one of the rarest elements in any argument. Even among scientists and academics who spend their whole lives trying to deepen their understanding of their chosen field, it is common to find a degree of partisanship that does not do the truth any favours at all. Evidence that supports their own view is put forward while contrary findings are belittled or ignored.

The stories of this happening are too many to tell here but, as just one illustration, let’s take the example of the Wright brothers and their experiments with a heavier-than-air flying machine. Although their efforts were widely reported, the experts persisted in dismissing them as poppycock. Heavier-than-air flight was impossible and so it followed that what these two charlatans were doing must be a fraud. The early tests took place in a field that lay beside a railroad track and were witnessed by many rail passengers as they passed by, but that counted for nothing in the eyes of the experts. You will quickly realize that if you get involved in an argument where a genuine quest for the truth is involved you will be extremely fortunate. When both parties struggle to reach a deeper level of truth by engaging in constructive argument they are experiencing one of the mental processes that sets us apart from our fellow primates. We rightly regard this phenomenon with great respect. So much so that we do not normally refer to it as ‘argument’ at all, but as discussion.

Self-interest

Another important element to be aware of is the extent to which the participants in an argument stand to gain from the outcome. The most obvious example is where there is some material gain in money or goods that is eagerly sought by the parties. There is also the question of a gain in status that comes from winning an argument but this is such an important element in arguments that it deserves, and will get, a section all to itself.

When getting involved in an argument it is as well to consider just what is at stake financially. Ask yourself what, if anything, your opponent stands to gain. This will give you great insight into the lengths to which he may go to defeat you. An argument over whose turn it is to buy the next round in the pub is likely to be fought less tenaciously than one over the ownership of, say, a champion racehorse or a valuable building site. This should not be taken as an infallible guide (see the sections on Status and Emotional Content), but it must be urgently considered.

There is another important consideration. People involved in arguments may not always tell the truth. They may either lie deliberately to deceive you about their true motives or they may even mislead themselves about what those motives are. It can be very hard indeed to unmask a good liar. The idea that liars look shifty or give themselves away with special body-language signs is laughably naive. When you are confused about who is telling the truth it is as well to consider what each participant has to gain. This may not be an infallible guide but it is often the only clue you will get.

What of your own motives? It is in the nature of argument that sometimes you will merely be trying to get your own way. Truth, Justice or the Greater Good will simply not enter your thoughts. This is human nature. However, if you are aware that that is what you are doing then you will be in a much better position to handle the argument. Naturally you will rationalize your position so that you feel justified in getting your own way (this is a psychological trick we all use as a matter of course). But if you can retain some vestige of impartiality you will be able to construct an argument that at least appears to be based on a desire to get at a just solution.

You should also weigh your advantage very carefully against the possible costs of getting what you want. For example, if you do battle with A over this matter and win you may feel very pleased with yourself. On the other hand, suppose your relationship with A is ongoing and you know that soon you will have to argue over matters that are even more important to you. What do you do? Perhaps by giving him a fair deal this time you will soften him up for a hard argument when it really matters. On the other hand you may reason that if you thrash the pants off A right now you will be able to use your psychological advantage to overcome him again in the future. Your actions in this situation will depend mainly on your reading of A’s character, but an accurate assessment of the material gains to be made will tell just how far it is worth going with your argument. Would you, for example, be wise to offend someone mortally over a matter that was only worth a few pounds? Arguments quickly get out of hand, tempers become inflamed, pride suffers and before you know where you are you may find yourself engaged in a major war over something that is worth only a trifle.

Status

Anyone who has read this far will be in no doubt that I do not have much faith in human beings as rational creatures. A glance at today’s news headlines (any day, any country) will bear me out. That is why the issue of status assumes such importance in the realm of argument. It is utterly irrational, a throwback to our animal ancestors, and yet it still exerts an iron control over our behaviour. One can readily understand why baboons may depend for their success on organising their family groups on the basis of status. But people? The thinking apes? Unfortunately it is all too true.

Status in arguments is seen best within a business environment or in some highly structured organization such as the army or police. Anyone who has ever worked in an office or factory will have seen a boss who is always right, no matter how wrong he may be. Bosses like this don’t argue about the facts of a case (they may well be ignorant of them and, in any case, they regard them as largely irrelevant). No, their chief concern will be that by pursuing a particular course successfully (getting their own way), and putting down any opposition they may encounter, they get to stay Chief Baboon.

Subordinates will often play along with this game by deliberately deferring to the boss and letting his opinions hold sway even when they know he is wrong. In that way they help to confirm his status and thus bolster their own position in the pecking order. One of the features of a pecking order is that people do not mind it as long as it remains unchanged. In fact they will engage in regular rituals that are designed specifically to reconfirm the order. However, someone who dares to try to upset the status quo will spark off the bitterest of status arguments.

Another interesting feature of status is that the people who concern themselves with it do not have to be ‘important’. It is not only officers and gentlemen who worry about their pecking orders. Think for a moment of the stock comedy figures of the mild-mannered gentlefolk who organize the church flower rota. Anyone who has experienced the intrigues and political chicanery attendant upon a church flower rota will know that the issue of status is just as important to the meek and humble as to the high and mighty.

Emotion

Arguments are frequently very emotional occasions. It is surprising that, even when we think we are engaged in a rational discussion about some matter of objective fact, a contrary opinion can stir feelings of resentment or even anger. The truth is that no one likes to be contradicted or, even worse, proved wrong. Issues of status are immediately brought into play in almost any argument. You may not care two hoots about a particular topic until someone tells you that your opinion on the subject is wrong. Then you may well feel inclined to fight to the death to prove yourself right.

This is a human reaction and, as such, we have to live with it. There is no point trying to pretend that you are some sort of superhuman being who is not affected by the heady emotions attached to an argument. However, if you are aware of the extent to which you may be emotionally involved in what is being said you may be able to stand aside from yourself just enough to prevent falling into the worst excesses.

It used to be said that the forbidden topics of polite conversation were sex, politics and religion. Nowadays many people pride themselves on getting to grips with the issues of the day and having full and frank discussions on things that really matter. There are far fewer taboos about what can be discussed. However, there has been no significant inward change in the way people feel about such topics. If you really want to get someone stirred up you have only to attack his religion or his politics, and sex, of course, is just a minefield. I would add another issue to this short list of dangerous topics: children. No issue is more contentious than the upbringing and education of children. For some reason just the mere mention of the word ‘children’ is enough to drive normally sane, sensible people into a frenzy. From that moment no theory is too nutty to be espoused and no statement too extreme to be proposed. Non-believers can expect pretty much the same treatment as heretics at the hands of the Inquisition. Beware when you argue about children!

The emotional content of an argument may often be of far more importance than the intellectual content and this is a fact that you ignore at your peril. Once hurt pride becomes an issue then it will prove the greatest of obstacles to getting a reasonable solution. In any argument in which you may be involved take great care to consider the effects of emotion.

Types of Argument (#ulink_22e57a4a-96fa-5031-acc2-d01e5a1824d9)

There are various types of argument, each with its own rules and methods.

The first major division is into public and private arguments. It is enormously important to decide whether you are arguing to convince an individual or whether you are merely using that person as a sounding board to help you convince others.

Private Arguments

Those arguments that take place between individuals, or in a small group of people with no audience listening, are clearly in the private category. The fact that such arguments are, by definition, carried on without an audience will have a profound effect on their shape. In a private argument, what is said will tend to be regarded as ‘off the record’ and people may well feel able to reveal feelings and opinions that they would hide from a wider audience. Inevitably a private argument will tend to concentrate on the personal aspects, even when matters of public importance are being discussed. Anecdotal evidence is very common in private arguments and people will frequently use their own experiences, and those of friends and relatives, to try to prove a case. They will often not be able or willing to see that just because Uncle Harry smoked forty cigarettes a day every day of his life from the age of eleven, and lived till he was eighty-seven, then that doesn’t mean that it must be a load of rubbish that smoking gives you cancer.

Unless the participants are experienced arguers they will tend to make common mistakes such as confusing fact and opinion or quoting facts inaccurately. One of the strongest ploys you can use in private arguments is Know-all (see page 49), the simple ruse of knowing the facts and quoting them accurately. However, know-alls are never popular in any sphere and in arguments, where emotions are usually heightened, you risk making yourself unpopular by always knowing better. It may be wise to save this technique for occasions when it really matters.