Thank You for Arguing Audiobook | Chapters 1-4
Summary
TLDRこの動画は、説得力のある議論の技術について詳しく解説しています。論理的な議論の仕方、相手の感情を理解し共感することの重要性、そして信頼できる人格を持つことで、聴衆を自分の意見に傾けるための三つの基本的な手段を紹介しています。議論の目的を明確にし、過去・現在・未来のテンスを使い分け、相手の論点に同意することで効果的に議論を進めるコツも教えてくれます。議論を通して人々を説得し、自分の意図した行動を取らせるための実践的なテクニックが数多く紹介されており、説得力のある議論の技術を身につけたい人にとって非常に有益な内容となっています。
Takeaways
- 😄 効果的な議論には、論理、感情、人格性の3つの要素が必要不可欠である。
- 🧠 相手の論理を認めることで、議論を有利に展開できる。
- 🤗 相手の感情に共感し、気分を変えることが説得力を高める。
- 😎 信頼できる人格性を持つことで、聴衆から信用される。
- 🔮 議論の焦点を未来の選択肢に置くことで、建設的な決定につながる。
- 👂 聴衆の気持ちに寄り添うことで、議論を争いから対話へと変えられる。
- 🎭 修辞的な技巧を使うことで、聴衆を自分の意のままに動かせる。
- 🧘♀️ 相手の論点を認めつつ、自分の主張へと誘導することが重要。
- 🌱 議論の核心は、過去の非難ではなく、未来の選択肢である。
- 🌟 適切な修辞と技巧を使えば、誰とでも建設的な議論ができる。
Q & A
説得術の3つの基本的なツールとは何ですか?
-説得術の3つの基本的なツールは、ロゴス(論理による説得)、エトス(人格による説得)、パトス(感情による説得)です。
ロゴス(論理による説得)の最も重要な戦術は何ですか?
-ロゴスの最も重要な戦術は譲歩です。相手の議論を自分の利益に活用することです。
パトス(感情による説得)の最も重要な戦術は何ですか?
-パトスの最も重要な戦術は共感です。聴衆の感情に共鳴し、その後自分の主張に合わせて聴衆の気分を変えることです。
エトス(人格による説得)で最も重要なことは何ですか?
-エトスで最も重要なことは品位ある態度を保つことです。 これについては次の章で詳しく説明されています。
アリストテレスは説得術をどのように分類していましたか?
-アリストテレスは、過去を扱う法廷弁論術、現在を扱う儀式弁論術、未来を扱う審議弁論術の3つに分類していました。
説得においてテンスの制御が重要な理由は何ですか?
-テンスの制御が重要なのは、聴衆に選択させるためには未来形が最適だからです。過去形は非難につながり、現在形は価値観の対立になりがちです。
説得において、ターゲットの設定が重要な理由は何ですか?
-説得における目標設定が重要なのは、聴衆の気分、考え方、行動を変えたいかによって、戦術を変える必要があるからです。
説得における譲歩の利点は何ですか?
-譲歩は、相手の議論の一部を受け入れ、怒りを取り除き、対立から議論へと場を変えることができます。相手の頭の中に入り込む機会も得られます。
子供に説得されたエピソードから、何を学ぶことができますか?
-子供でさえ無意識のうちに論理、感情、人格による説得の要素を使っていたことから、説得は本能的なものであり、誰もが説得の技術を学ぶ価値があることがわかります。
説得の最終目標は何でしょうか?
-説得の最終目標は、聴衆に自分の選択を望ませ、行動に移させることです。単なる同意ではなく、コンセンサス(合意)を得ることが重要です。
Outlines
😀 感動的な議論の力
この段落では、著者が息子と短パンを履くかどうかについて議論する様子が描かれています。著者は修辞学の手法を用いて説得を試みますが、最終的には息子に折れてしまいました。修辞学の三大手段である論理(ロゴス)、感情(パトス)、人格(エトス)の重要性が示唆されています。著者は息子の議論を真剣に受け止め、設得力のある議論をすることで、説得の技術を子供に伝えようとしていました。
😮 説得の極意は同意すること
この段落では、同意することが説得の要諦であることが説かれています。著者は上司との議論の経験から、相手の意見に同意し、自分の意見を押し付けないことで、相手を説得できることを学びました。インプロビゼーションの「Yes, and...」の発想も同様で、相手の発言を受け入れつつ、自分の意向に誘導することができます。同意することで争いを回避し、親しみやすい雰囲気を作り出せるため、説得力が増すのです。
🤗 感情に訴えかける説得の技術
この段落は、聴衆の感情に訴えかける方法について述べています。聴衆の気分や感情を共感的に受け止め、自分の立場に引き付けることが重要です。サン・オーガスティヌスは、聴衆を泣かせることで説得力を高めていたそうです。状況に応じて聴衆の気分を変化させる技術が必要不可欠で、それによって聴衆が行動を起こしてくれるようになります。また、聴衆が望む結果につながるよう、説得の焦点をうまく当てることも大切です。
✋ 議論の目的を明確にする
この段落では、議論の目的を明確にすることの重要性が説かれています。目的は聴衆の気分を変えるか、考え方を変えるか、行動を促すかの3つに分類できます。状況に応じて適切な目的を設定し、それに沿って議論を進めることが成功のカギとなります。過去の出来事については非難の議論に、現在の価値観については称賛や非難の議論に、将来の選択については利益を最大化する議論に焦点を当てるべきです。議論の舵取りを誤ると、目的から外れて迷走してしまいます。
⌚ 議論の時制を使いわける
この段落は、議論において適切な時制を使うことの重要性を説いています。過去の出来事については過去形、現在の価値観については現在形、将来の選択については未来形を使うべきです。アリストテレスはそれぞれの時制に修辞の形式を対応させており、将来形の議論が最も建設的だと考えていました。未来形の議論は聴衆に選択の機会を与え、合意形成を促進するためです。一方、過去形や現在形の議論は非難や価値観の押し付けになりがちで、対立を生みやすくなります。
😎 聴衆を説得する準備作戦
この段落では、聴衆を説得する前の準備作戦について説明されています。最初に目的を明確にする必要があります。聴衆の気分を変えるのか、考え方を変えるのか、行動を促すのかを決めます。次に議論の核心を定めます。過去の出来事についての非難なのか、現在の価値観についてなのか、将来の選択なのかを特定します。そして適切な時制を選び、聴衆に合わせて論理的に議論を展開します。議論の舵取りを誤ると迷走してしまうので、目的と核心、時制をしっかりと意識することが大切です。
🔍 議論の本質を見抜く
この段落では、議論の本質を見抜くための3つのポイントが示されています。第一に、議論の核心が過去の責任追及なのか、現在の価値観なのか、未来の選択なのかを見極める必要があります。第二に、議論の時制が過去形なのか現在形なのか未来形なのかを意識する必要があります。第三に、事実関係についての議論なのか、推測に基づく議論なのかを区別する必要があります。適切に核心を捉え、時制を使い分け、事実と推測を明確に区別することで、議論が生産的になり、合意形成へとつながります。
🧐 上手な議論のコツ
この段落では、上手な議論のためのコツが解説されています。議論は常に未来志向でなければなりません。過去の非難合戦に陥ると生産的な議論にはなりません。未来形を使うことで、選択の機会を与え、合意形成を促進できます。また事実関係よりも推測に基づく議論のほうが建設的です。一方的な押し付けではなく、聴衆の意見を汲み取りながら、最善の選択肢を一緒に探ることが大切です。柔軟な姿勢と、双方の利益を考慮することが、上手な議論には不可欠です。
🎯 議論の的を得る方法
この段落は、議論で的を得るためのポイントについて述べています。まず目的を明確にすることが重要で、聴衆の気分を変えるのか、考え方を変えるのか、行動を促すのかを決めます。次に議論の核心が過去の責任追及なのか現在の価値観なのか未来の選択なのかを特定し、それに合わせて適切な時制を使います。そして事実よりも推測に基づいた議論を展開することで、より建設的な結論を導き出せます。常に未来志向で、聴衆の意見を取り入れながら、最善の選択肢を一緒に見つけていく姿勢が大切です。
🔋 聴衆の気持ちをくみ取る
この段落は、聴衆の気持ちをくみ取ることの重要性について説いています。議論を始める前に、聴衆がどのような気分なのかを理解し、それに合わせて自分の立場や論理、感情を調整する必要があります。聴衆と同じ感情を共有し、相手の気持ちに寄り添うことで信頼関係が構築でき、説得力が増します。一方的な押し付けではなく、相手の立場に立って考え、共感することが大切です。議論は勝ち負けではなく、双方が満足できる合意形成を目指す必要があります。
🎭 説得の三大要素
この段落では、説得の三大要素である論理(ロゴス)、感情(パトス)、人格(エトス)について解説されています。論理とは、聴衆の合理性に訴えかける技術です。感情とは、聴衆の気分に働きかける技術です。人格とは、説得者自身の信頼性や魅力に訴えかける技術です。これら3つの要素を適切に組み合わせることで、高い説得力を発揮できます。また、同意や共感、譲歩といった具体的な手法を使うことで、聴衆をうまく自分の意向に誘導できるようになります。
🧠 理論と実践を両立させる
この段落は、修辞学の理論と実践的な技術を組み合わせる重要性を強調しています。説得の基本的な理論として、論理(ロゴス)、感情(パトス)、人格(エトス)の3つの要素があり、これらを上手く活用することが重要です。同時に、具体的な技術としての同意、共感、譲歩なども活用する必要があります。理論だけでは不十分で、実践に基づく経験からも多くのことを学ばなければなりません。理論と実践を適切に組み合わせることで、より高い説得力を身につけることができるのです。
Mindmap
Keywords
💡レトリック
💡ロゴス
💡パトス
💡エートス
💡合意形成
💡状況依存性
💡応酬
💡理解と共感
💡ディコラム
💡状況の構築
Highlights
Rhetoric is the art of influence, friendship, eloquence, ready wit, and irrefutable logic that harnesses the most powerful social forces of argument.
The three basic tools of rhetoric are logos (argument by logic), ethos (argument by character), and pathos (argument by emotion).
Concession is a powerful logos tactic where you use your opponent's argument to your advantage, taking the anger out of confrontation.
Sympathy is the most important pathos tactic - registering concern for your audience's emotions and then changing the mood to suit your argument.
Ethos, or argument by character, is the most important appeal according to Aristotle - it involves using your personality and reputation to appear trustworthy.
Set clear goals for what you want to achieve in an argument - change the audience's mood, mind, or willingness to act.
Control the tense of your argument - past tense for blame, present tense for values, future tense for making choices.
Never debate the undebatable - focus arguments on choices rather than inarguable values or morals.
Agreeability - arguing without appearing to argue by getting inside your opponent's head - is a key strategy.
Rhetoric was considered the essential skill of leadership in ancient times, used to create the world's first democracies.
The most effective rhetoric disguises its art, implanting opinions through sleight of tongue.
Aristotle assigned different branches of rhetoric to past (forensic), present (demonstrative), and future (deliberative) tenses.
Orphan Annie's law: The future has no facts, only conjectures and choices, not certainties.
Argue in the future tense to get your audience to make a choice that solves a problem to their advantage.
Decorum, or the rhetorical tactic of understanding and complying with your audience's values and expectations, is crucial for persuasion.
Transcripts
thank you for arguing thank you for
arguing it is early in the morning and
my 17 year old son eats breakfast giving
me a narrow window to use our soul
bathroom I wrap a towel around my waist
and approach the sink avoiding the Grim
side in the mirror as a writer I don't
have to shave every day marketers
despairingly call a consumer like me a
low self-monitor I do have my standards
though and hygiene is one I grab
toothbrush and toothpaste the tube is
empty the nearest replacement sits on a
shelf in our freezing basement and I'm
not dressed for the part George I yell
who used all the toothpaste a sarcastic
voice answers from the other side of the
door that's not the point is it Dad
George says the point is how we're going
to keep this from happening again Dot
and quad he has me I have told him
countless times how the most productive
arguments use the future tense the
language of choices and decisions you're
right I say you win now will you please
get me some toothpaste sure Dot and quad
George retrieves a tube happy that he
beat his father in an argument or did he
who got what he wanted in reality by
conceding his point I persuaded him if I
had simply said don't be a jerk and get
me some toothpaste George might have
stood there arguing instead I made him
feel triumphant Triumph made him
benevolent and it got me exactly what I
wanted I achieved the Pinnacle of
persuasion not just an agreement but one
that gets an audience a teenage wanted
that to do my bidding no George I win
the Matrix only cooler what kind of
father manipulates his own son oh let's
not call it manipulation call it
instruction any parent should consider
rhetoric the art of argument one of the
essential RS rhetoric is the art of
influence friendship and eloquence of
ready wit and irrefutable logic and it
harnesses the most powerful of social
forces argument whether you sense it or
not argument surrounds you it plays with
your emotions changes your attitude
talks you into a decision and goads you
to buy things argument lies behind
political labeling advertising jargon
voices gestures and guilt trips it forms
a real life Matrix the Supreme software
that drives our social lives and
rhetoric serves as arguments decoder by
teaching the tricks we use to persuade
one another the art of persuasion
reveals the Matrix and all its
manipulative Glory the Ancients
considered rhetoric the essential skill
of leadership knowledge so important
that they placed it at the center of
higher education it taught them how to
speak and write persuasively produce
something to say on every occasion and
make people like them when they spoke
after the ancient Greeks invented it
rhetoric helped create the world's first
democracies it trained Roman orders such
as Julius Caesar and Marcus tullius
Cicero and gave the Bible its finest
language it even inspired William
Shakespeare every one of America's
Founders studied rhetoric and they used
its principles in writing the
Constitution rhetoric faded in Academia
during the 1800s when social scientists
dismissed the notion that an individual
could stand up to the inexorable forces
of History who wants to teach leadership
when Academia doesn't believe in leaders
at the same time English Lit replaced
the classics an ancient thought fell out
of Vogue nonetheless a few remarkable
people continued to study the the art
Daniel Webster picked up rhetoric at
Dartmouth by joining a debating Society
the United fraternity which had an
impressive classical library and held
weekly debates years later the club
changed its name to Alpha Delta and
partied its way to immortality by
inspiring the movie Animal House to the
brother's credit they didn't forget
their classical Heritage entirely hence
the toga party scattered colleges and
universities still teach rhetoric in
fact the art is rapidly gaining
popularity among undergraduates but
outside Academia we forgot it almost
entirely what a thing to lose imagine
stumbling upon Newton's law of gravity
and meeting face to face with the forces
that drive the universe or imagine
coming across Freud for the first time
and suddenly becoming aware of the
unconscious where your id ego and
superego conduct their silent arguments
I wrote this book for that reason to
lead you through this unknown world of
argument and welcome you to the
persuasive elect along the way you'll
enhance your image with Aristotle's
three traits of credible leadership
virtue disinterest and practical wisdom
you'll find yourself using logic as a
convincing tool smacking down analyzes
and building airtight assertions
Aristotle's principles will also help
you decide which medium text phone
skywriting works best for each message
you will discover a simple strategy to
get an argument unstuck when it bogs
down an accusation and anger and that's
just the beginning the pages to come
contain more than 100 argument tools
borrowed from ancient texts and adapted
to Modern situations along with
suggestions for trying the techniques at
home school or work or in your community
you will see when logic works best and
when you should lean on an emotional
strategy you'll acquire mind-molding
figures of speech and ready-made tactics
including Aristotle's irresistible
infamine a neat bundle of logic that I
find easier to use than pronounce you'll
see how to actually benefit from your
own screw-ups and you'll discover the
most compelling tools of all in your
audience's own self-identity by the end
of the book you will have mastered the
rhetorical tricks for making an audience
eager to listen people still love a
well-delivered talk the top professional
speakers charge more per person than a
Bruce Springsteen concert I devote a
whole chapter to Cicero's elegant
five-step method for constructing a
speech invention Arrangement style
memory and delivery A system that has
served the greatest orders for the past
2000 years great argument does not
always mean elaborate speech though the
most effective rhetoric disguises its
art and so I'll reveal a rhetorical
device for implanting opinions in
people's heads through sheer sleight of
tongue besides all these practical tools
rhetoric offers a grander metaphysical
payoff it jolts you into a fresh new
perspective on The Human Condition after
it awakens you to the argument all
around the world will never seem the
same I myself am living proof my
perfectly rhetorical day to see just how
pervasive argument is I recently
attempted a whole day without persuasion
free of advertising politics family
squabbles or any psychological
manipulation whatsoever no one would
persuade me and I would avoid persuading
them heck I wouldn't even let myself
persuade myself nobody not even I would
tell me what to do if anyone could
consider himself qualified for the
experiment a confirmed hermit like me
could I work for myself indeed feed
having dropped out of a career in
journalism and Publishing I work by
myself in a cabin a considerable
distance from my house I live in a tiny
village in Northern New England a region
that boasts the most persuasion
resistant humans on the planet
advertisers have nightmares about people
like me no TV no smartphone dial up
internet I'm commercial free a walking
NPR my own individual persuasion immune
man as if my wristwatch alarm goes off
at six I normally use it to coax myself
out of bed but now I ignore it I stare
up at the ceiling where the smoke
detector blinks reassuringly if the
smoke alarm detected smoke it would
alarm rousing the heaviest sleeper the
philosopher Aristotle would approve of
the smoke detector's rhetoric he
understood the power of emotion as a
motivator for the time being the
detector has nothing to say but my cat
does she jumps on the bed and sticks her
nose in my armpit as reliable as my
watch and twice as annoying the cat
persuades remarkably well for 10 dumb
pounds of fur instead of word she uses
gesture and tone of voice potent
ingredients of argument I resist
stoically no cat is going to boss me
around this morning the watch beeps
again I wear a Timex Iron Man whose name
comes from a self-abusive athletic event
presumably if the watch works for a
masochist who subjects it to two miles
of swimming a hundred miles of biking
and 26.2 miles of running all in one day
it would work for someone like me who
spends his lunch hour walking
strenuously down to the brook to see if
there are any fish the ancient Romans
would call the Iron Man's brand appeal
argumentama for shiori argument from
strength.inquot its logic goes like this
if something works the hard way it's
more likely to work the easy way
advertisers favor the argument from
strength years ago Life cereal ran an ad
with little Mikey the fussy eater his
two older brothers tested the cereal on
him figuring that if Mikey liked it
anybody would and he liked it an
argumentum of for sure cereal ad my Iron
Man watch his own argument from strength
does not affect me however I bought it
because it was practical remember I'm
advertising immune but its beeping is
driving me crazy easy here I'm not even
up yet and I already contemplate
emotional appeals from a cat and a smoke
detector along with a wristwatch
argument from strength wrenching myself
out of bed I say to the mirror what I
tell it every morning don't take any
crap from anyone Dot and quad the cat
bites me on the heel I grab my towel and
go fix its breakfast five minutes later
I'm out of toothpaste and arguing with
my son not a good start to my experiment
but I'll chalk it up to what scientists
euphemistically call an artifact
translation bone-headed mistake and move
on I make coffee grab a pen and begin
writing ostentatiously in a notebook
this does little good in the literary
sense I can barely read my own scribble
before coffee but it produces wonderful
rhetorical results when my wife sees me
writing she often brings me breakfast
did I just violate my own experiment
shielding The Notebook from view I write
a grocery list there that counts as
writing Dorothy returned to full-time
work after I quit my job the deal was
that I would take over the cooking but
she loves to see her husband as the
inspired author and herself as the able
enabler my wife is a babe and many babes
go for inspired authors of course she
might be persuading Me by acting as the
kind of Babe who goes for inspired
authors she turns me on desire underlies
the most Insidious and enjoyable forms
of argument we live in a tangled Dark
World of persuasion a used car salesman
once seduced me out of 15 grand my
family and I had just moved to
Connecticut and I needed cheap
Transportation it had been a tough move
I was out of sorts the man at the car
lot had me pegged before I said a word
he pointed to a humble looking Ford
Taurus sedan suggested a test drive and
as soon as I buckled and he said want to
see PT Barnum's grave of course I did
the place was awesome we had to stop for
peacocks and Brilliant green feral
Peruvian parrots squawked in the
branches of a huge fur tree opposite
Barnum's impressive Monument stood
General Tom Thumb's marker with a
life-size statue of the 26-inch
millionaire enthralled by our test drive
I did everything else the salesman
suggested and he suggested I buy the
fort it was a lemon he sized me up and
changed my mood he beguiled me and to
tell you the truth I enjoyed it I had
some misgivings the next morning but no
regrets it was a consensual act which
leads us to arguments grand prize the
consensus it means more than just an
agreement much more than a compromise
the consensus represents an audience's
Common Sense thinking in fact it is a
common sense a shared faith and a choice
the decision or action you want and this
is where emotional persuasion comes in
as Saint Augustine knew Faith requires
emotion persuasion is manipulation
manipulation is half of argument and
therefore many of us understandably shy
from it but even Aristotle that logical
old soul believed in the Curative powers
of persuasion logic alone will rarely
get people to do anything they have to
desire the ACT you may not like
Persuasions manipulative aspects still
it beats fighting which is what we
usually mistake for argument birds do it
Meanwhile my experiment gets more
dubious by the moment I'm leaving the
bathroom when Dorothy puts a plate of
eggs on the table shrugs into her suit
jacket and kisses me goodbye don't
forget that I'll be home late I'm having
heavier hors d'oeuvres of the reception
tonight she says and leaves for her
fundraising job at a law school
fundraising and law could it get more
rhetorical I turned to George so want to
have dinner with me or on campus Tonight
George attends a boarding school as a
day student he hates the food there I
don't know he says I'll call you from
School dot and quad I want to work late
and don't feel like cooking but I'm
loathe to have George think my work
takes priority over him okay I say
adding with as much enthusiasm as I can
fake we'll have Stu UK says George right
on cue he hates my stew even more than
School food the odds of my cooking
tonight have just gone way down oops has
that fine rhetorician Britney Spears put
it I did it again and so goes my day in
my cabin office I email editors with
flattering explanations for missing
their deadlines I'm just trying to live
up to their high standards I put off
calling Sears to complain about a 147
bill for replacing a screw in our oven
when I do call eventually I'll take my
time planning the situation giving me a
break on the bill will cost less than
dealing with me any further at noon I
grab some lunch and head outside for a
walk a small pile of fox cat lies atop a
large granite rock mine the Fox Says
with the scat this spot belongs to me
territorial creatures such as foxes and
suburbanites use complicated signals to
mark off terrain and discourage
Intruders musk fences scat marriage
licenses Footprints alarm systems
argument is in our nature literally a
Mockingbird sings a pretty little tune
that warns Rivals off its Turf without a
pause it does the same thing in Reverse
rendering a figure of speech called
chiasmus this crisscross figure repeats
a phrase with its Mirror Image you can
take a boy out of the country but you
can't take the country out of a boy Dot
and quad I wasted time and now time
dothwaist me Dot and quad our culture
underrates figures but only because most
of us lack the rhetorical Savvy to wield
them they can yield surprising power
John F Kennedy deployed a chiasmus
during his inaugural address asked not
what your country can do for you ask
what you can do for your country and
thousands join the Peace Corps I fell in
love with figures and even launched a
website figarospeech.com devoted to them
figures add polish to a memo or paper
and in day-to-day conversation they can
supply ready wit to the most tedious
conversations the phone is ringing when
I get back to my cabin it's George
calling to say he plans to eat at school
yes so I work late rewarding myself now
and then by playing computer pinball I
find I can sit still for longer
stretches with game breaks is this
persuasion I suppose it is my
non-ratorical day turned out to be
pretty darn rhetorical but nonetheless
agreeable I finally knock off work and
head back to the house for a shower and
shave even though this isn't a shaving
day my wife deals with a lot of good
looking well-dressed men and now and
then I like to make a territorial call
through grooming and clothing to
convince her she did not marry a bomb a
pull on a cashmere sweater that Dorothy
says makes my eyes look bedroomy and
meet her at the door with a cold gin and
tonic let the persuasion begin offense
2. set your goals Cicero's light bulb
change the audience's mood mind or
willingness to act Aphrodite spoke and
loosened from her bosom the embroidered
girdle of Many Colors into which all her
allurements were fashioned and it was
love and in it desire and in a blanching
persuasion which steals the mind even of
the wise Homer back in 1974 National
Lampoon published a parody comic book
version of Plato's Republic Socrates
stands around talking philosophy with a
few friends each time he makes a point
another guy concedes yes Socrates very
well put dot and quad in the next frame
you see an explosive pal and the
opponent goes flying through the air
Socrates wins by a knockout the
Lampoon's Republic has some historical
validity ancient Greeks like
argumentative nerds throughout the ages
love to imagine themselves as Fighters
but even they knew the real life
difference between fighting and arguing
we should too we need to distinguish
rhetorical argument from the blame
shifting he said she said squabbling
that defines conflict today in a fight
each disputant tries to win in an
argument they try to win over an
audience which can comprise the
onlookers television viewers an
electorate or each other this chapter
will help you distinguish between an
argument and a fight and to choose what
you want to get out of an argument the
distinction can determine the survival
of a marriage as the celebrated research
psychologist John gottman proved in the
1980s and 1990s working out of his love
Lab at the University of Washington he
and his assistants videotaped hundreds
of married couples over a period of nine
years pouring over every tape and
entering every perceived emotion and
logical Point into a database they
watched hours and days and months of
arguments of couples glaring at each
other and revealing embarrassing things
in front of the camera it was like a bad
reality show when gottman announced his
findings in 1994 though rhetoricians
around the country tried not to look
smug because the data confirmed what
rhetoric has claimed for several
Millennia gottman found the couples who
stayed married over those nine years
argued about as much as those who ended
up in divorce however the successful
couples went about their arguments in a
different way and with a different
purpose rhetoricians would say they
instinctively follow the basic 10
minutes of argument when some of the
videotapes appeared on network
television they showed some decidedly
uncomfortable moments even among the
happy couples one successfully married
husband admitted he was pathologically
lazy and his wife cheerfully agreed
nonetheless the couples who stayed
married seemed to use their disputes to
solve problems and work out differences
they showed faith in the outcome the
doomed couples on the other hand used
their sessions to attack each other
argument was a problem for them not a
means to a solution the happy ones
argued the unhappy ones fought much of
the time I'm guessing that the happy
ones also enticed while our culture
tends to admire Straight Shooters the
ones who follow their gut regardless of
what anyone thinks those people rarely
get their way in the end sure aggressive
loudmouths often win temporary victories
through intimidation or simply by
talking us to exhaustion but the more
subtle eloquent approaches lead to
long-term commitment corporate
recruiters will confirm this Theory
there are a few Alpha types in the
business world who live to bully their
colleagues and stomp on the competition
but if you ask Headhunters what they
look for in executive material they
describe a Persuader and team Builder
not an aggressor you succeed in an
argument when you persuade your audience
you win a fight when you dominate the
enemy a territorial dispute in the back
seat of a car fails to qualify as
argument for example unless each child
makes the unlikely attempt to persuade
instead of scream I see your point
sister however have you considered the
analogy of the international Frontier at
the age of two my son George became a
devotee of what rhetoricians call
argument by the stick when words failed
him he used his fists after every fight
I would ask him did you get the other
kid to agree with you for years he
considered that to be a thoroughly
stupid question and maybe it was but
eventually it made sense to him argument
by the stick fighting is no argument it
never persuades it only inspires revenge
or retreat in a fight one person takes
out his aggression on another Donald
Trump was fighting when he said of Rosie
O'Donnell I mean I'd look at her right
in that fat ugly face of hers I'd say
Rosie you're fired on the other hand
when George former and tries to sell you
a grill he makes an argument persuasion
that tries to change your mood your mind
or your willingness to do something
Homer Simpson offers a legitimate
argument when he demonstrates our
intellectual superiority to dolphins
don't forget we invented computers leg
warmers bendy straws peel and eat shrimp
and the pudding cup Dot and quad Mariah
Carey pitches an argument when she sings
We Belong Together to an assumed
ex-boyfriend she tries to change his
mind and judging by all the moaning in
the background get some action Taylor
Swift undramatically telling Katy Perry
we got bad blood fight business proposal
argument Bernie Sanders saying
Republicans have declared war on the
middle class in fact anyone who deploys
the war metaphor fight Yogi Bera saying
it's not the heat it's the humility
argument the basic difference between an
argument and a fight an argument done
skillfully gets people to want to do
what you want you fight to win you argue
to achieve agreement that may sound
wimpy under some circumstances though
argument can take a great deal of
Courage it can even and determine a
nation's fate ancient rhetoricians
dreaded most the kind of government led
by a demagogue a power mad dictator who
uses rhetorical skills for evil the last
century shows how right the Ancients
were but the cure for the Dark Side of
persuasion they said is the other side
even if the stakes aren't quite as high
if the evildoer is a rival at work or a
wacky organization on campus your
rhetorical skills can balance the
equation but rhetoric offers a more
selfish reason for arguing learn its
tools and you'll become the face to
watch the rising star you'll mold the
minds of men and women to your will and
make any group yield to the Dominion of
your voice even more important you'll
get them to want a yield to commit to
your plan and to consider the result of
consensus you will make them desire what
you desire entice them into a consensual
act how to beguile a cop a police patrol
stops you on the highway and you roll
your window down you what's wrong
officer cop did you know that the speed
limit here is 50 you how fast was I
going cop 55 the temptation to reply
with a Snappy answer is awful you whoa
lock me up and indeed the satisfaction
might be worth the speeding ticket and
risk of arrest but rewind the scene and
pause it where the cop says 55. inquot
Now set your personal goal what would
you like to accomplish in this situation
perhaps you would like to make the cop
look like an idiot your Snappy answer
accomplishes that especially if you have
passengers for an audience good for you
of course the cop is unlikely to respond
kindly the result will be a fight and
you are the likely loser how about
getting him to apologize for being a
martinat sorry you have to set a
realistic goal Judge Judy and Daniel
Webster combined could not get this cop
to apologize instead suppose we said as
your personal goal the avoidance of a
ticket now how are we to do that to win
a deliberative argument don't try to
outscore your opponent try instead to
get your way it's unlikely that your
opponent knows any rhetoric he probably
thinks that the sole point of an
argument is to humiliate you or get you
to admit defeat this cognitive
dissonance can be useful your opponent's
aggressiveness makes a wonderful
argument tool does he want to score
points let him score points all you want
to do is win to get your audience to
accept your choice or do what you want
it to do people often win arguments on
points only to lose the battle although
polls show that Barack Obama and Mitt
Romney scored a tie during their three
debates Romney's popularity spiked the
audience liked Obama's logic but they
liked Romney better temporarily even if
your argument includes only you and
another person with no one else looking
on you still have an audience the other
person in that case there are two ways
to come out on top either by winning the
argument getting your opponent to admit
defeat or by losing it let's try both
strategies on your cop one when the
argument with a bomb proof excuse you my
wife's in labor I need to get her to the
hospital stat cop you're driving alone
sir you oh my God I forgot my wife
chances are this kind of cop won't care
if your wife is having triplets all over
the living room floor but if the excuse
works you win 2. play the Good Citizen
you assume the cop wants you to be
conceit his point you I'm sure you're
right officer I should have been
watching my speedometer more good you
just let the cop win on points now get
him to let you off easy you I must have
been watching the road too closely can
you suggest a way for me to follow my
speedometer without getting distracted
this approach appeals to the cop's
expertise it might work as long as you
keep any sarcasm out of your voice but
assume that the appeal needs a little
more sweetening cop you can start by
driving under the speed limit then you
won't have to watch your speedometer so
much you well that's true I could I've
been tailgated a lot when I do that but
that's their problem isn't it cop right
you worry about your own driving you I
will this has helped a lot thanks now
what do you think is most likely to
happen I can tell you what won't happen
the cop won't order you out of the car
he won't tell you to stand spread
eagleed against it while he Pats you
down even yell at you you took the anger
out of the argument which these days is
no mean accomplishment and if he
actually does let you off with a warning
congratulations you win the cop may not
recognize it but you have just notched
the best kind of win he leaves happy and
so do you the easiest way to exploit
your opponent's desire to score points
is to let him concede a point that will
not damage your case irreparably when
your kid says you never let me have any
fun you say I suppose I Dawn apostrophe
T Dot and quad when a co-worker says
that'll never work you say hmm maybe not
DOT and qua then use that point to
change her mood or her mind in other
words one way to get people to agree
with you is to agree with them
tactically that is agreeing upfront does
not mean giving up the argument instead
use your opponent's point to get what
you want practice rhetorical Jiu Jitsu
by using your opponent's own moves to
throw him off balance does upfront
agreeing seem to lack and stand up for
your selfishness yes I suppose it does
but wimps like us shall inherit the
rhetorical Earth while the rest of the
world fights will argue and argument
gets you what you want more than
fighting does the rhetoric diet changing
the mood is the easiest goal and usually
the one you work on first Saint
Augustine a one-time rhetoric professor
and one of the fathers of the Christian
church they famously buffer sermons The
Secret he said was not to be content
merely with seizing the audience's
sympathetic attention he was never
satisfied until he made them cry
Augustine could not have been invited to
many parties as one of the great
sermonizers of all time he converted
pagans to Christianity through sheer
emotional pyrotechnics by changing your
audience's emotion you make them more
vulnerable to your argument put them in
the mood to listen ringing tears from an
audience is easy compared to goal number
two making them decide what you want
Henry Kissinger used a classic
persuasive method when he served as
Nixon's National Security advisor he
would lay out five alternatives for the
president to choose from listing the
most extreme choices first and last and
putting the one Kissinger preferred in
the middle Nixon inevitably chose the
correct option according to Kissinger
not exactly the most subtle tactic but
I've seen it used successfully in
corporate PowerPoint presentations
usually since most arguments take place
between two people most of the time you
deal with just two choices yours and
your opponents my daughter Dorothy Jr
makes especially difficult adversary
although she enjoys argument much less
than her brother does she can be equally
persuasive she launches an argument so
gently you fail to realize you're in one
I once visited her in London where she
was spending a term as a college student
my first evening there she proposed
dinner at a low price Indian restaurant
I wanted to play the generous dad and
take her someplace fancier guess who won
Emmy we could still eat Indian but some
place more upscale Emmy we could still
eat Indian but someplace more upscale
Dorothy Jr sure Emmy so do you know of
any Dorothy Jr oh London's full of them
Emmy aha so do you know of any in
particular Dorothy Jr vaguely oh yeah
Emmy any near here Dorothy Jr not really
me so you'd rather eat at your usual
place Dorothy Jr if you want to Sure
Emmy I don't want to and then I felt
guilty about losing my patience which
though she denies it may have been
Dorothy Junior's strategy all along we
aided her usual place she won using my
guilt as her emotional goal Dorothy
couldn't have done better if she had
prepared a ciceronian speech in advance
Cicero might even approve the most
effective rhetoric disguises itself he
said Dorothy knew this instinctively she
has a biting tongue but knows how to
restrain it to win an argument still
Dorothy had it relatively easy we were
going to dinner one way or another all
she had to do was pull me toward her
choice goal number three in which you
get an audience to do something or to
stop doing it is the most difficult it
requires a different more personal level
of emotion one of Desire suppose I
didn't want to go to dinner at all
Dorothy would have had a lot more
arguing to do to get me out the door
that's like getting a horse to drink to
use an old expression you can give the
horse salt to stimulate its desire for
water arousing its emotions if you will
and you can persuade it to follow you to
a stream the choice part but getting it
to commit to drinking poses the toughest
rhetorical problem up until recently get
out the vote campaigns for young people
have been notoriously bad at this the
kids flock to rock concerts and grab the
free T-shirts they got all charged up
and maybe even registered as Democrats
or Republicans a Triumph of persuasion
as far as emotions and choice were
concerned but until such tribal media as
Facebook and Snapchat enter the picture
showing up at the polls on Election Day
was something else altogether youth
turned stubborn at the getting to drink
part I meant that metaphorically besides
using desire to motivate an audience you
need to convince it that an action is no
big deal that whatever you want them to
do won't make them sweat a few years ago
when I was an editorial director at the
rodel publishing company I heard that
some people in another division were
working on a diet book God I thought
another diet as if there weren't enough
already plus the title they planned for
the book made no sense to me it referred
to a particular neighborhood in a major
city a place most Americans probably had
never heard of the author a cardiologist
happened to live there but who would buy
a book called the South Beach Diet so
I'm a lousy prognosticator of best
sellers in retrospect however I can
explain why the title was not such a bad
idea after all South Beach conjures an
image of people you and bathing attire
it says vacation one of the chief
reasons people go on a diet the rodale
editor stimulated an emotion by making
readers picture a desirable and highly
personal goal you in a bathing suit
looking great so much for the desire
part the book subtitle employs the no
big deal tactic the delicious doctor
designed foolproof plan for fast and
healthy weight loss no suffering
perfectly safe instant results they hit
all the buttons except for so you can
eat like a glutton and get hit on by
lifeguards people took action in droves
the book has sold in the millions the
tools this chapter gave you basic
devices to determine the outcome of an
argument set your personal goal set your
goals for your audience do you want to
change their mood their mind or their
willingness to carry out what you want
3. control the tense Orphan Annie's law
the three basic issues of rhetoric deal
with Time March Homer it's very easy to
criticize Homer and fun two The Simpsons
you have your personal goal what you
want out of the argument and your
audience goals move food mind action now
before you begin arguing ask yourself
one more question what's the issue
According to Aristotle all issues boil
down to just three the Greeks were crazy
about that number blame values choice
you can slot any kind of issue involving
persuasion into one of these categories
who Moved My Cheese this of course is a
blame issue whodunit should abortion be
legal values what's morally right or
wrong about letting a woman choose
whether or not to end the budding life
inside her own body my choice of words
implies the values each side holds a
woman's right to her own body and the
sanctity of life should we build a plan
in Detroit choice to build or not to
build Detroit or not Detroit should
Angelina Jolie and Brad Pitt have split
up values not moral ones necessarily but
what you and your interlocutor value
were they just too hot to separate did
OJ do it blame shall we dance choice to
dance or not to dance why should you
care which question slots into which
core issue it matters because you will
never meet your goals if you argue
around the wrong core issue watch a
couple in their living room reading
books and listening to music she can you
turn that down a little he you're the
one who set the volume last she oh
really then who was a blasting free bird
all over the place this afternoon he so
that's what this is about you hate my
music what does she want out of this
argument quiet it's a choice issue she
wants him to choose to turn the music
down but instead of choices the argument
turns to blame then values blame you're
the one who set the volume last values
so that's what this is about you hate my
music it's hard to make a positive
choice about turning the volume knob
when you argue about a pass noise
violation and the existential qualities
of free bird Dot and quad the examples I
gave of the core issues blame values and
choice show a certain pattern the blame
questions deal with the past the values
questions are in the present tense and
the choice questions have to do with the
future blame equals past values equals
present Choice equals future if you find
an argument spinning out of control try
switching the tents to pin blame on the
cheese thief use the past tense to get
someone to believe that abortion is a
terrible sin use the present tense the
future though is the best tense for
getting peace and quiet in the living
room Aristotle who devised a form of
rhetoric for each of the tenses like the
future best of all the rhetoric of the
past he said deals with issues of
Justice this is the judicial argument of
the courtroom Aristotle called it
forensic rhetoric because it covers
forensics our music challenged couple
uses the past tense for blaming each
other he you're the one who set the
volume last she then who was at blasting
free bird if you want to try someone on
charges of volume abuse not to mention
bad taste you're in the right tense
forensic argument helps us determine who
done it not who's doing it or who will
do it watch Law and Order or CSI and
you'll notice that most of the dialogue
is in the past tense it works great for
lawyers and cops but a loving couple
should be wary of the tense the purpose
of forensic rhetoric is to determine
guilt and meet out punishment couples
who get in the habit of punishing each
other suffer the same fate as the doomed
marriages in Dr gottman's Love job how
about the present tense is that any
better it can be the rhetoric of the
present handles praise and condemnation
separating the good from the bad
distinguishing groups from other groups
and individuals from each other
Aristotle reserved the present for
describing people who meet a community's
ideals or fail to live up to them it is
the communal language of commencement
addresses funeral orations and sermons
it celebrates heroes or condemns a
common enemy it gives people a sort of
tribal identity we're great terrorists
are cowards when a leader has trouble
confronting the future you hear similar
tribal talk Aristotle's term for this
kind of language is demonstrative
rhetoric because ancient orders used it
to demonstrate their fanciest techniques
our argumentative couple uses it to
divide each other he so that's what this
is about you hate my music you might say
that the man Bears Soul blame for
switching tenses from past to present
but let's not get all forensic on each
other okay the man may be right after
all perhaps the argument has to do with
the guy's thing for Leonard Skinner to
not the volume knob in any case their
dialogue has suddenly turned tribe Bible
I like my music you hate it if the man
happened to be a politician he would
find it hard to resist adding and that's
just wrong we use the present tense to
talk about values that is wrong this is
right detesting Freebird is morally
wrong if you want to make a joint
decision you need to focus on the future
this is the tense that Aristotle saved
for his favorite rhetoric he called it
deliberative because it argues about
choices and helps us decide how to meet
our mutual goals deliberative arguments
Chief topic is the advantageous
According to Aristotle this is the most
pragmatic kind of rhetoric it skips
right and wrong good and bad in favor of
expedience present tense demonstrative
rhetoric tends to finish with people
bonding or separating past tense
forensic rhetoric threatens punishment
future tense deliberative argument
promises a payoff you can see why
Aristotle dedicated the rhetoric of
decision making to the Future our poor
couple remains stranded in the present
tense so let's rewind their dialogue and
make them speak deliberatively in the
future tense that is she can you turn
that down a little he
sure I'd be happy to wait shouldn't he
say I'll be happy to I will not I would
well sure you're probably right he could
but by using the conditional mood would
instead of Willie leaves himself an
opening he but is the music too loud or
do you want me to play something else
she well now that you mention it I'd
prefer something a little less hair
Bandy ouch he plays nice and she insults
the entire classic rock genre that makes
him feel Justified and retaliating but
he does it moderately he something more
elevator-ish you mean that doesn't
really turn me on want to watch a movie
by turning the argument back to choices
the man keeps it from getting too
personal and possibly keeps her off
balance making her a bit more vulnerable
to persuasion she what do you have in
mind he we haven't seen that Avengers
movie in ages she Avengers I hate that
movie as he well knows this is a little
off topic but I can't resist giving you
another rhetorical trick propose an
extreme Choice first it will make the
one you want sound more reasonable I use
the technique myself in getting my wife
to agree to name our son after my Uncle
George I propose lots of Alternatives my
personal favorite was Herman Melville
heinrichs until she finally said you
know George doesn't really sound that
bad Dot and quad I kissed her and told
her how much I loved her and notched
another argument on my belt back to our
couple he well then how about Titanic he
knows she would prefer a different movie
she gets seasick easily but it doesn't
sound that bad after the first choice
she okay Titanic it is which happens to
be the movie he wanted in the first
place the distinctions between the three
forms of rhetoric can determine the
success of a democracy a business or a
family remember the argument I had with
my son George Emmy who used all the
toothpaste George that's not the
question is it Dad the question is how
are we going to keep it from happening
again sarcasm aside the kid deserves
credit for switching the rhetoric from
past to Future from forensic to
deliberative he put the argument in
decision-making mode what choice will
give us the best Advantage for shocking
an endless supply of toothpaste and he's
pretty sure bet hold on the future
sounds lovely but isn't civil discourse
supposed to be about sticking to the
facts The Future Has No facts right
doesn't it simply speculate correct
facts do not exist in the future we can
know that the sun came up yesterday and
that it shines now but we can only
predict that the sun will come up
tomorrow when Little Orphan Annie sings
that god-awful tomorrow song she doesn't
make a fact-based argument she bets like
a proper Aristotelian Annie even admits
the case bet your bottom dollar that
tomorrow they'll be sun and he concedes
that the sunrise has not yet become a
fact call it Orphan Annie's law the sun
only may come up tomorrow a successful
argument like anything about the future
cannot stick to the facts deliberative
argument can use facts but it must not
limit itself to them while you and I can
disagree about the capital of Burkina
Faso we're not arguing deliberatively we
simply dispute a fact neither of us can
decide to make it wagadugu we merely
look it up I just looked it up all we
have for the future is conjecture or
choices not facts when Homer Simpson
argues with his wife in the future tense
of deliberative argument facts have
nothing to do with it Marge Homer I
don't want you driving around in a car
you built yourself Homer you can sit
there complaining or you can knit me
some seat belts instead of helping us to
find some elusive truth deliberative
argument deliberates weighing one choice
against the other considering the
circumstances choices Beach or mountains
this summer should your company replace
its computers or hire a competent Tech
staff should a 10 year old be on
Snapchat does it make sense to go to
Mars when you argue about values you use
demonstrative rhetoric not deliberative
if you rely on a cosmic Authority God or
Beyonce then the audience has no choice
to make
Eternal truths will answer these is
there a god is homosexuality immoral is
capitalism bad should all students know
the Ten Commandments in each case the
argument has to rely on morals and
metaphysics and it takes place mostly in
the present tense the language of
demonstrative rhetoric it can be
particularly maddening in a marital
dispute cute because it comes across as
preachy demonstrative rhetoric is the
rhetoric of preachers after all besides
it is far more difficult to change
someone's values than to change her mind
after all Eternal truths are supposed to
be
Eternal caller I don't know much about
the Democrats but candidate m is a jerk
next caller I'm unbelievably angry at
that caller if she saw what a good
Christian candidate m is she'd shut her
mouth host put her in a borka baby
practical concerns are open to
deliberative debate because deliberation
has to do with choices everything about
it depends on the circumstances the time
the people involved and whatever public
you mean when you talk about public
opinion deliberative argument relies on
public opinion not a higher power to
resolve questions the audience's opinion
will answer these should the state
legislature raise taxes to fund decent
schools should you raise your kids
allowance when should your company
release its newest product if you reply
that's just wrong to an argument you use
demonstrative values rhetoric if you
reply lie on the other hand then your
argument has a chance of making a choice
father our kid could break her neck on
those old monkey bars mother on the
other hand she may not besides the
coordination she learns might prevent
future accidents and it might not
choices are full of these what-if
scenarios and deliberative discourse
deals with their probabilities in The
Simpsons and endless source of
rhetorical material Ned Flanders a
born-again Christian attacks Mo the
bartender with demonstrative present
tense rhetoric and Moe makes a weak
attempt at the conjectural language of
deliberative rhetoric Ned Flanders you
ugly hate-filled man Mo hey I may be
ugly and I may be hate-filled but ah
what was the last thing you said
deliberation is the rhetoric of choice
literally it deals with decisions and
decisions depend on particular
circumstances not Eternal truths and
cold facts if life were free of
contingencies then we could live by a
few rules written in stone that would
apply to all our decisions every baby
would come with an operating manual the
same guy that worked for her older
brother ever every rule of thumb would
apply to every situation the early bird
would always catch the worm everything
would be Cheaper by the Dozen and the
world would come in two colors black and
white but alas it doesn't sometimes
under some circumstances say jumping out
of an airplane for the first time it's a
very bad idea to look before you leap
sometimes the enemy of your enemy makes
a terrible friend besides people like
choices more than they like being told
they don't measure up what if I had
ignored George's focus on the future and
brought the argument to the present Emmy
a good son wouldn't use up all the
toothpaste good Sons show consideration
I'm guessing I would have been without
toothpaste hearing me imply he was a bad
son George would have done his best to
confirm that reputation the past
wouldn't get me toothpaste neither would
the present only the future will get my
teeth clean Girl vs Turkey a husband and
wife debate over whether to invest more
in stocks or in bonds he let's get
aggressive with growth stocks she the
experts predict the market will tank
this year I say we stay conservative Why
argue because they can't predict the the
economic future they can only take their
best guess today what would that
argument look like in the present tense
he my dad always said blue chips are the
way to go that's the right kind of
investment she well that's just wrong my
astrologer says blue chips are evil the
same couple argues over whether to
provide orthodontia for their
ten-year-old she straight teeth will be
good for his self-esteem he yeah but if
we put the money into a college fund
we'll have a debt-free college graduate
she a buck-toothed college graduate is
there a right choice maybe but they
don't know what it is and have to make a
decision nonetheless these questions
deal with probabilities not facts or
values suppose your Uncle Randy decides
to divorce your aunt on their 30th
Anniversary so he can marry a surfing
instructor he met a Club Med you have
two issues here one moral and the other
practical the moral issue is inarguable
by our definition your uncle is either
wrong or right you could remind him that
he is breaking a wonderful woman's heart
but you would be sermonizing not arguing
you could threaten to borrow him from
Thanksgiving dinner but that would be
coercion not argument assuming he would
prefer your turkey to a cruise buffet
with his Club Med hottie the Practical
debatable issue in your uncle's case
deals with the likely consequences of
ditching your aunt for the trophy wife
you she'll leave you within the year and
you'll be lonely and miserable forever
Uncle no she won't and a young woman
will make me feel younger which means
I'll live longer which prediction is
true neither of you has a clue but Uncle
Randy might persuade you that he has
good practical reasons for remarrying
will he ever convince you that he is
morally in the right not a chance morals
are an arguable and deliberative
rhetoric arguments rule number one never
debate the undebatable instead focus on
your goals the next chapter tells you
how to achieve them the tools we expect
are arguments to accomplish something
you want a debate to settle an issue
with everyone walking away in agreement
with you this is hard to achieve if no
one can get Beyond who is right or wrong
good or bad why do so many arguments end
up in accusation and name calling the
answer may seem silly but it's crucial
most arguments take place in the wrong
tense choose the right tense if you want
your audience to make a choice focus on
the future tenses are so important that
Aristotle assigned a whole branch of
rhetoric to each one we'll get into
tenses in much greater detail in the
chapters to come you'll see how you can
use values to win an argument about
choices meanwhile remember these tools
control the issue do you want to fix
blame Define who meets or abuses your
common values or get your audience to
make a choice the most productive
arguments use Choice as their Central
issue don't let a debate swerve
heedlessly into values or guilt keep it
focused on choices that solve a problem
to your audiences and your advantage
control the clock keep your argument in
the right tense in a debate over choices
make sure it turns to the Future 4.
soften them up at the age of seven my
son George insisted on wearing shorts to
school in the middle of winter we live
in icy New Hampshire where playground
snow has all the fluffy goodness of
ground glass my wife launched the
argument in the Classic Family manner
you talked to him she said so I talked
to him being a student of rhetoric I
employed Aristotle's three most powerful
tools of persuasion argument by
character argument by Logic argument by
emotion in this chapter you will see how
each of these tools works and you'll
gain some techniques the persuasive use
of decorum argument Jiu Jitsu tactical
sympathy that will put you well on the
way to becoming an argument Adept the
first thing I used on George was
argument by character I gave him my
Stern father act Emmy you have to wear
pants and that's final George why Emmy
because I told you too that's why but he
just looked at me with tears in his eyes
next I tried reasoning with him using
argument by Logic Emmy pants will keep
your legs from chapping you'll feel a
lot better George but I want to wear
shorts so I resorted to manipulating his
emotions following Cicero who claimed
that humor was one of the most
persuasive of all rhetorical passions I
hiked up my pant legs and pranced around
Emmy doe-to-do look at me here I go off
to work wearing shorts don't I look
stupid George yes continues to pull
shorts on me so why do you insist on
wearing shorts self George because I
don't look stupid and they're my legs I
don't mind if they get chaffed Emmy
chapped Superior vocabulary and all I
seem to be losing my case besides George
was making his first genuine attempt to
argue instead of cry so I decided to let
him win this one Emmy all right you can
wear shorts in school if your mother and
I can clear it with the authorities but
you have to put your snow pants on when
you go outside deal George deal he
happily fetched his snow pants and I
called the school a few weeks later the
principal declared George's birthday
shorts day she even showed up in
culottes herself it was mid-February was
that a good idea for the sake of
argument an agreement I believe it was
Aristotle's big three I used my best
arguments by character logic and emotion
so how did George still manage to beat
me by using the same tools I did it on
purpose and he did it instinctively
Aristotle called them logos ethos and
pathos and so will I because the
meanings of the Greek versions are
richer than those of the English
versions together they form the three
basic tools of rhetoric logos is
argument by Logic if arguments were
children logos would be the brainy one
the big sister who gets top grades in
high school logos isn't just about
following rules of logic it's a set of
techniques that use what the audience is
thinking ethos or argument by character
employs the persuader's personality
reputation and ability to look
trustworthy while logo sweats over its
GPA ethos gets elected class president
in rhetoric a sterling reputation is
more than just good it's persuasive I
taught my children that lying isn't just
wrong it's unpersuasive an audience is
more likely to believe a trustworthy
Persuader and to accept his argument a
person's life persuades better than his
word said one of Aristotle's
contemporaries this remains true today
rhetoric shows how to shine a flattering
light on your life then you have pathos
or argument by emotion The Sibling the
others disrespect but who gets away with
everything logicians and language snobs
hate pathos but Aristotle himself the
man who invented logic recognized its
usefulness you can persuade someone
logically but as we saw in chapter 3
getting him out of his chair to act on
it takes something more combustible
logos ethos and pathos appeal to the
brain gut and heart of your audience
while our brain tries to sort the facts
our gut tells us whether we can trust
the other person and our heart makes us
want to do something about it they form
the essence of effective persuasion
George instinctively used all three to
counter my own arguments his ethos put
mine in check me you have to wear pants
because I told you too George they're my
legs his logos also canceled mine out
even if his medical terminology didn't
me pants will make your legs feel better
George I don't mind if they get chaffed
finally I found his pathos irresistible
when he was little the kid would
actually stick his lower lip out when he
tried not to cry Cicero loved this
technique not the lip part but the
appearance of struggling for
self-control it serves to amplify the
mood in the room Cicero also said a
genuine emotion persuades more than a
faked one and George's tears certainly
were genuine trying not to cry just made
his eyes well up more I wish I could say
my pathos was as effective but George
failed to think it funny when I hiked my
pants up he just agreed that I looked
stupid I had been studying rhetoric
pretty intensively at that point and to
be thrown to the mat by a seven-year-old
was humiliating so was facing my wife
afterward Dorothy Sr so did you talk to
him Emmy yeah I handled it George picked
that moment to walk into the room with
his shorts on Dorothy Sr a deal which
somehow allows him to wear shorts to
school Emmy I told you I handled it so
what if his legs look like stalks of
rhubarb when he came home while I was
moderately concerned about the state of
his skin and more apprehensive about
living up to Dorothy's expectations
neither had much to do with my personal
goal to raise persuasive children if
George was willing to put all he had
into an argument I was willing to
concede that time I like to think we
both won in high school he expressed his
individuality in the opposite way he
wore ties to school and even pants Logos
Pathos and Ethos usually work together
to win an argument debates with
argumentative seven-year-olds accepted
by using your opponent's logic and your
audience's emotion you can win over your
audience with greater ease you make them
happy to let you control the argument
logos use the logic in the room later on
we'll get into rhetoric's more dramatic
logical tactics and show how to bowl
your audience over with your eloquence
first though let's Master the most
powerful logos tool of all concession it
seems more Jedi Knight than Rambo
involving more self-mastery than Brute
Force but it lies closer to the power
center of logos than rhetoric's more
grandiloquent methods even the most
aggressive Maneuvers allow room for the
opponent's ideas and the audience's
preconceptions to persuade people to
make them desire your choice and commit
to the action you want you need all the
Assets in the room and one of the best
resources comes straight from your
opponent's mouth in the comic strip
Calvin and Hobbes Calvin concedes
effectively when his dad tries to teach
him to ride a bike Dad look Calvin
you've got to relax a little your
balance will be better if you're loose
Calvin I can't help it imminent death
makes me tense I admit it clever boy
perched atop a homicidal bike he still
manages to gain control of the argument
by agreeing that he's tense he shifts
the issue from nerves to Peril where he
has a better argument sales people love
to use concession to sell you stuff I
once had a boss who came from a sales
background he proved that old habits die
hard the guy never disagreed with me yet
half the time he got me to do the
opposite of what I proposed Emmy our
research shows that readers love
beautiful covers without a lot of type
boss beautiful covers sure Emmy I know
that clean covers violate the usual
rules for selling magazines on the
newsstand but we should test dual covers
half of them will be crammed with the
usual headlines and half of them with a
big bold image very little type Boss
clean covers great idea how that affect
your budget me it'll cost a lot I'm
gambling on selling more magazines boss
so you haven't budgeted for it Emmy ah
no but I tell you boss I'm pretty
confident about this boss sure I know
you are well it's a great idea let's
Circle back to it at budget time Emmy
but that's nine months from boss so what
else is on your agenda my covers never
got tested if a circle in hell is
reserved for this kind of salesman it's
a pretty darn Pleasant one and despite
myself I never stopped liking the guy
arguments with him never felt like
arguments I would leave his office in a
good mood after losing every point and
he was the one who did all the conceding
you'll find much the same technique if
you take a class in improv your teachers
will almost certainly School you in the
practice of yes and dot dot dot and quad
this entails accepting what the other
person says in building on it imagine
yourself on stage with a partner she
starts partner look the penguins are
taking off from our roof so how do you
respond sensibly you they can't be
penguins penguins can't fly plus we live
in Florida did you mean Pelicans you can
just hear the break squealing on that
little dialogue let's try a yes and
instead you yes and it makes me so glad
we built that catapult on top of our
Igloo the cool thing about this
improvisational method is that it lets
you nudge the conversation in a
direction you want suppose you disagree
that penguins are flying off your roof
instead of pointing out that Penguins
don't fly simply assume a catapult
aren't we being agreeable while your
conversations probably won't take such
avian Flights of Fancy the same approach
can work in a political argument
politics makes an excellent test of
concession in part because the tactic is
so refreshing see if you can go through
an entire discussion without overtly
disagreeing with your opponent she I'm
willing to give up a little privacy so
the government can keep me safe you
safety is important she not that they're
going to tap my phone you no you'd never
Rock the Boat she of course I'll speak
up if I disagree with what's going on
you I know you will and let the
government keep a file on you you may
see a little smoke come out of your
friend's ears at this point do not be
alarmed it's simply a natural sign of
mental gears being thrown in reverse the
Greeks loved concession for this very
reason it lets opponents talk their way
right into your corner but there's
something bigger to concession it's a to
what I call agreeability by arguing
without appearing to argue agreeability
takes anger out of Confrontation and it
helps change a fight into an argument
agreeability requires getting inside
your opponent's head you may find that
argumentative brain a pretty messy place
but every head has its attractive Parts
which is the greatest thing about
concession and agreeability ultimately
it's an act of sympathy pathos start
with the audience's mood sympathize
align yourself with your listeners
pathos don't contradict or deny the mood
instead rhetorical sympathy shows its
concern proving as President George H.W
bush put it I care Dot and quad so when
you face that angry man look Stern and
concerned do not shout whoa decaf when a
little girl looks sad sympathy means
looking sad too it does not mean
chirping cheer up this reaction to the
audience's feelings can serve as a
baseline letting them see your own
emotions change as you make your point
Cicero hinted that the great order
transforms himself into an emotional
role model showing the audience how it
should feel little girl I lost my
balloon you aha did you little girl
cries louder you still trying to look
sad while yelling over the crying what's
that you're holding little girl my mom
gave me a dinosaur you cheering up a
dinosaur being a naturally sympathetic
type my wife is especially good at
conceding moods she has a way of playing
my emotion back so intensely that I'm
embarrassed I felt that way I once
returned home from work angry that my
employer had done nothing to recognize
and award my magazine had won Dorothy Sr
not a thing not even a group email
congratulating you Emmy no Dorothy Sr
they have no idea what a good thing they
have in you Emmy well Dorothy Sr an
email wouldn't be enough they should
give you a bonus Emmy it wasn't that big
an award she agreed with me so much that
I found myself siding with my lousy
employer I believe her sympathy was
genuine but its effect was the same as
if she had applied all her rhetorical
skill to make me feel better and I did
feel better if a bit sheepish and then
there's the concession side of ethos
called decorum this is the most
important Jiu Jitsu of all which is why
the whole next chapter is devoted to it
the tools thus use your frog Isaac
Walton says in the complete angler put
your hook through his mouth and out at
his gills and in so doing use him as
though you loved him Dot and quad that
pretty much sums up this chapter which
teaches you to use your audience as
though you loved it all of these tools
require understanding your opponent and
sympathizing with your audience logos
argument by Logic the first logical
tactic we covered was concession using
the opponent's argument to your own
Advantage pathos argument by emotion the
most important pathetic tactic is
sympathy registering concern for your
audience's emotions and then changing
the mood to suit your argument ethos
argument by character Aristotle called
this the most important appeal of all
even more than logos logic emotion and
character are the mega tools of rhetoric
you're about to learn specific ways to
wield each one read on
تصفح المزيد من مقاطع الفيديو ذات الصلة
上から目線を叩き潰す論破テク【アナロジー乱用】を解説
【今すぐできる】人から好かれるために身につけるべき人間関係の鉄則まとめ【フェルミ/切り抜き】
【本がなくても学べる】「3秒で伝える コンサルが使う[シンプルな言葉で相手を動かす]会話術」をガチ解説!
【フツーに会社で使えます】ベストセラー「答えのないゲーム」を楽しむ思考技術を元に、優しくスマートな論破術を解説してみた【実用的】
『コンサルが「最初の3年間」で学ぶコト』の著者もBCG時代にハマった罠を13個を紹介。2年前にアップして、すでに2万再生。そう、「ポンコツ」ダメコンサルがハマる罠13
【思考の癖を作る】天才を超える論理的思考の頭の使い方と毎日の訓練法
5.0 / 5 (0 votes)