6 Verbal Tricks To Make An Aggressive Person Sorry

Summary

This video explores conversational tactics used by bullies, using an interview between Cathy Newman and Jordan Peterson as an example. It teaches viewers how to recognize and counter strategies like the 'so-you're-saying trap,' 'assuming the sale,' and the 'smash technique,' ultimately gaining respect in aggressive conversations.

Takeaways

• 🗣️ Conversational bullying often begins subtly, with tone and word choice signaling an aggressive intent.
• 🕵️‍♂️ Recognizing the early signs of passive-aggressive behavior is crucial to avoid being caught off guard in a discussion.
• 🪤 The 'so-you're-saying trap' is a tactic where someone oversimplifies or mischaracterizes your statements to set up a counter-argument.
• 🤔 'Assuming the sale' is another trick where a person implies beliefs you do not hold, often without directly stating them.
• 🔍 It's important to identify and call out hidden presuppositions in a conversation to avoid being led astray.
• 🧘‍♂️ Adopting a relaxed posture and taking time to pause after each question can help maintain control during a heated discussion.
• 🎨 Using visual imagery can make abstract points more persuasive by adding relatable and concrete examples.
• 🤝 Persuasion is not always about changing someone's mind but can be about showing alignment and common ground.
• 🚫 Avoid 'straw manning' the other person's ideas; instead, engage with their actual points to foster understanding.
• 🔄 The 'smash technique' combines different terms or points to create a rapid-fire effect that can overwhelm and pressure agreement.
• 🤝‍♀️‍🤝‍♂️ Finding and emphasizing shared values can be a powerful method to persuade someone who is resistant to change.

Q & A

What is the main purpose of the video script discussing the interview between Cathy Newman and Jordan Peterson?

The main purpose is to analyze the conversational tactics used by Cathy Newman and how Jordan Peterson handles them, teaching viewers how to deal with aggressive conversational tactics and earn respect in difficult discussions.

What is the 'so-you're-saying trap' and how can it be identified and avoided?

The 'so-you're-saying trap' occurs when someone oversimplifies or mischaracterizes what you've said, often by starting with 'So you're saying...'. It can be avoided by restating your actual point clearly and concisely after the trap is sprung.

What is the conversational tactic similar to 'assuming the sale' in business, and how does it work in a conversation?

The tactic is when someone implies you believe something you don't by embedding presuppositions in their questions or statements. It works by making you answer as if you agree with the presupposition, which can be countered by identifying and calling out the hidden presupposition.

How does the 'smash technique' work in conversation and what is the best way to handle it?

The 'smash technique' involves quickly combining different terms or points, making it difficult to address each one separately. The best way to handle it is to slow down the conversation and address one point or question at a time.

What is the importance of maintaining a relaxed posture during a heated conversation according to the script?

Maintaining a relaxed posture helps you think less frantically and signals to your brain that you are in control, which can prevent you from being overwhelmed in aggressive situations.

Why is it important to pause after each question in a conversation, as demonstrated by Jordan Peterson?

Pausing allows you time to collect your thoughts and formulate a clear response, which is crucial for maintaining control and avoiding being trapped by conversational tactics.

What is the significance of using visual imagery when trying to persuade someone in a debate?

Visual imagery helps make abstract points more relatable and emotionally compelling, making it easier for the audience to understand and connect with your argument.

How can you show that you are genuinely engaging with the other person's points in a debate?

By making an honest attempt to understand their perspective, asking for clarification when needed, and responding to their actual points rather than creating a straw man of their argument.

What is the strategy of showing that the other person already agrees with you in a debate, and how can it be effective?

This strategy involves pointing out that the other person's behavior or previous statements align with your argument, demonstrating that they don't need to change their position to agree with you. It can be effective because people have a strong desire to remain consistent with their past statements and actions.

Why might Jordan Peterson's use of the 'gotcha' phrase not be the best approach in persuasion, according to the script?

The 'gotcha' phrase can make the other person feel silly or wrong rather than appreciated for discovering common ground, which may not be conducive to a positive and persuasive outcome.

What is the role of Jordan Peterson in the interview as per the script's interpretation?

Jordan Peterson's role is not necessarily to convince Cathy Newman of anything but to debate in front of an audience and promote his book, which he does effectively.

Outlines

00:00

🗣️ Handling Conversational Bullying Tactics

This paragraph discusses the challenges of dealing with conversational bullies who use manipulative tactics to make their opponents appear foolish or unprepared. It introduces the concept of 'so-you're-saying trap', where the bully misrepresents or oversimplifies the other person's argument. The paragraph also touches on the importance of recognizing aggressive cues early in a conversation, such as tone of voice and word choice. The speaker, Cathy Newman, is shown using the word 'admit' to imply wrongdoing by Jordan Peterson, setting the stage for a confrontation. The paragraph emphasizes the need to be aware of these tactics and to respond carefully to avoid being trapped into a false narrative.

05:00

🧐 Detecting and Countering Conversational Manipulation

This section delves into the subtler forms of conversational manipulation, such as 'assuming the sale', where the bully implies agreement on a point that hasn't been agreed upon, and the 'smash technique', where unrelated issues are combined to create a false impression. The paragraph illustrates these tactics with examples from the interview between Cathy and Jordan. It advises viewers on how to counter such tactics by identifying hidden presuppositions and addressing them directly. The speaker also suggests adopting a relaxed posture and taking time to pause after each question to maintain control and clarity of thought. Additionally, the importance of understanding 'frames' and 'frame games' in conversation is highlighted, with a reference to a related video for further insights.

10:03

🤝 Persuasion Techniques in Heated Debates

The final paragraph focuses on persuasion strategies in the context of a debate, using the Cathy and Jordan interview as a case study. It emphasizes the importance of not straw manning the opponent's arguments and instead seeking to understand and engage with their actual points. The use of visual imagery is highlighted as a persuasive tool, making abstract points more tangible and emotionally resonant. The paragraph also discusses the effectiveness of showing common ground and agreement as a means to persuade, rather than trying to change the other person's mind directly. The 'gotcha' moment is presented as a potential pitfall, as it can make the opponent feel cornered rather than part of a shared understanding. The paragraph concludes with a critique of Jordan's approach, suggesting that addressing Cathy's deeper concerns could have led to a more productive conversation.

Keywords

💡Conversational bully

A conversational bully is someone who uses aggressive or manipulative tactics in a discussion to undermine or discredit the other person's point of view. In the video, this concept is central as it explores how individuals can be caught off guard and manipulated in conversation, and how to recognize and counter these tactics. For instance, Cathy Newman is portrayed as using such tactics to challenge Jordan Peterson's views.

💡Subtle conversational tricks

These are indirect methods used in conversation to manipulate or deceive, often without the other person's awareness. The video discusses how these tricks can be used to 'bully' someone into a corner, such as by twisting their words or setting up a 'straw man' argument. An example from the script is when Cathy implies Jordan's audience being predominantly male is divisive, which is a form of a subtle trick to put him on the defensive.

💡Straw man

A straw man is a common logical fallacy where someone misrepresents an opponent's argument to make it easier to attack. The video explains how a conversational bully might use this tactic to trap the other person into defending a distorted version of their own views. An example in the script is when Cathy asks if Jordan is saying that 'women have some sort of duty to help fix the crisis of masculinity,' which is a misrepresentation of his actual argument.

💡Presupposition

In the context of the video, presuppositions are assumptions made within a question or statement that imply certain beliefs or facts without them being explicitly stated. The video highlights how these can be used to set traps in conversation, as seen when Cathy's question assumes that Jordan thinks women should 'put up with' something, which he does not.

💡Assume the sale

This term, borrowed from sales techniques, refers to the act of implying that a sale or agreement has already been made, even though it hasn't. The video uses this concept to describe a conversational trick where one party assumes a belief or agreement that the other party has not explicitly stated. An example is when Cathy asks why women should 'put up with' certain reasons, assuming that there is something to put up with and that Jordan believes they should.

💡Smash technique

The smash technique is a conversational tactic where two or more unrelated or only tangentially related points are quickly combined in a question or statement, making it difficult for the other person to address each point individually. The video describes how this can be used to pressure someone into accepting a hidden premise. An example is when Cathy combines 'abuse' and 'anger' in a question, implying that Jordan's followers are abusive, which he must address before answering the question.

💡Persuasion

Persuasion in the video refers to the art of influencing someone's opinion or actions through communication. The script discusses various tactics for effective persuasion, such as avoiding straw man arguments, using visual imagery, and showing common ground. An example is when Jordan attempts to persuade by pointing out that Cathy is already exercising her freedom of speech, which aligns with his point about the importance of free speech.

💡Visual imagery

Visual imagery is the use of descriptive language that helps create mental images, making abstract concepts more tangible and relatable. The video suggests that using visual imagery can be a powerful tool in persuasion, as it can add emotional impact to arguments. An example is when Jordan talks about 'one-third of a billion years of evolutionary history,' which is made more impactful by adding the imagery of a time before trees existed.

💡Consistency

Consistency refers to the psychological principle that people prefer to remain consistent with their previous statements or actions. The video discusses how pointing out this consistency can be a persuasive technique, as it shows that the other person already agrees with your point. An example is when Jordan suggests that Cathy values free speech, as evidenced by her willingness to risk offending him in the pursuit of truth.

💡Emotional concern

Emotional concern is an underlying feeling or worry that influences a person's perspective or behavior. The video suggests that addressing the other person's deeper emotional concerns can be more effective than just answering their questions. It implies that Cathy's emotional concern is that Jordan is her adversary, which could be addressed to find common ground.

Highlights

The video discusses tactics to handle conversational bullies who use subtle tricks to manipulate and intimidate.

Common tricks include the 'so-you're-saying trap', 'assuming the sale', and the 'smash technique'.

To counteract these tactics, one must first recognize the signs of an aggressive conversational approach.

The use of words like 'admit' can indicate an attempt to assign guilt or wrongdoing.

Passive-aggressive language often precedes an attack, signaling the need for caution.

The 'so-you're-saying trap' involves oversimplification or mischaracterization of one's statements.

To avoid this trap, clarify your actual position by restating what you meant.

'Assuming the sale' is a tactic where presuppositions are made without explicit agreement.

Identify and call out hidden presuppositions to avoid being misled in a conversation.

The 'smash technique' combines different terms to embed hidden statements and overwhelm the respondent.

Slow down the conversation tempo and address one point at a time to counter the 'smash technique'.

Persuasion involves avoiding straw man arguments and engaging with the real points of the other person.

Visual imagery can enhance understanding and persuasion by making abstract points more concrete.

Showing that the other person already agrees with you can be a powerful persuasion technique.

The 'gotcha' moment can backfire, making the other person feel wrong rather than aligned.

Jordan Peterson's role in the interview was to debate and promote his book rather than necessarily convince Cathy Newman.

The video suggests that addressing deeper unstated emotional concerns could have led to a less argumentative discussion.

The transcript analysis provides insights into conversational tactics and persuasion strategies in debates.

Transcripts

We've all found ourselves in conversation and felt attacked

like we started off talking about one thing and then the other person twisted

our words and before we knew it, we lost our cool, lost respect in their eyes, and maybe even acted like a jerk.

Now, I don't normally do the same person twice in a row but

this interview between Cathy Newman and Jordan Peterson

was just too interesting of an opportunity to discuss how you can handle someone

who uses subtle conversational tricks to bully you into looking dumb.

So in this video, you're gonna see firsthand some of the most common tricks

that people might be using on you and you're also gonna learn

how to reverse those so that you can walk out of a kind of aggressive situation

having earned more respect than you had going in.

So first off, to stop a conversational bully,

you have to realize what's going on before it's too late.

Now, typically, a person will reveal their aggressive attitude early on

with their tone of voice and their word choice — kind of like this —

...but I wasn't specifically aiming this message at young men to begin with;

it just kind of turned out that way but—

And it's mostly, you admit, it's mostly men listening.

In this case, Cathy is indicating very clearly that she thinks Jordan has done something wrong.

Otherwise, why would she use the word "admit?"

She makes her stance clear a moment later when she implies that he should be bothered for being divisive. Just watch.

Does it bother you that your audience is predominantly male? Is that a bit divisive?

The point here is that even when they're being passive-aggressive,

people will often indicate that they're about to attack you before they actually do.

So if you hear someone say something like,

"Well, what do you have to say for yourself?" be prepared.

That person thinks that you've done something wrong and you need to be

very careful what you say next not because you did do something wrong

but because a conversational bully may be trying to trap you into saying

something that you disagree with so that they can attack that straw man.

And the first way that this often happens is called the "so-you're-saying trap." Here's what it looks like.

So you're saying women have some sort of duty to sort of help fix the crisis of masculinity?

Women want to dominate — is that what you're saying?

So you're saying that anyone who believes in equality whether you call them feminists or whatever you want to call them

should basically give up because "it ain't gonna happen."

Let me just get this straight; you're saying that we should organize our societies along the lines of the lobsters.

The general pattern here is that someone says, "So you're saying..."

and then proceeds to oversimplify or mischaracterize what you actually said.

I won't spend too long here because it's very easy to spot

and it's rather simple to avoid and get around by saying,

"Well, actually, what I was saying is..." and then repeat yourself.

...along the lines of the lobsters.

I'm saying that it's inevitable that there will be continuity

in the way that animals and human beings organize their structures.

But there's a much sneakier way that people may mischaracterize your beliefs and then attack them.

Basically, it's when someone's words imply that you believe something you don't and they don't actually say it.

So in business, they call this "assuming the sale" like when a car salesman says,

"So would you like that with the leather interior or with the fabric interior?" before you even decided to buy the car.

Now, with the several thousand dollar purchase, you're likely to notice this and say,

"Whoa, whoa, whoa. Who said I was buying in the first place?"

But it's very likely that this is happening to you in conversation all the time and you don't even notice. Here's how it might look.

[Cathy talks over Jordan] Yeah, but why? Why should woman put up with those reasons?

Embedding the question "why should women put up with it?" are several important presuppositions; namely —

one, that there is something to put up with and two, that Jordan thinks woman should put up with it.

Now, the trap here for Jordan would be to answer Cathy's question directly

and many of us fall into it in similar situations

then we start arguing for things that we don't even really believe just out of habit.

Instead, you need to identify that hidden presupposition and then call it out.

So watch how carefully Jordan listens to Cathy's questions

so that he can catch what she's not saying.

"Why should women put up with it?" I'm not saying they should put up with it. I'm saying that the claim—

Here's another example of assuming-the-sale from later in that conversation.

See if you can spot the hidden presupposition and ask yourself what you might say to respond to it.

...which women do a lot of.

But why shouldn't women have the right to choose not to have children?

So what's the hidden presupposition —

that Jordan thinks women must have children. And of course, he defends a woman's right to make any decision about that.

...the right to choose and demand it, correct?

They do. They can. Yeah, that's fine.

But you're saying that makes them unhappy.

Here's one more example. See if you can spot the hidden presupposition here.

[Cathy talks over Jordan] So you want to say to your followers now, "Quit the abuse. Quit the anger."

Did you catch it? The presupposition is that Jordan's followers are abusing people.

Now, he can't answer that question directly; he has to address that hidden point first and he does.

Well, we'd need some substantial examples of the abuse and the anger before I could detail that question.

There's a lot of it out there.

When I cut the clips like this, it makes it very easy to see these hidden presuppositions but in real time, this can be difficult.

One simple thing that you can do to make it easier on yourself is to purposely

assume a relaxed posture as Jordan does throughout this entire conversation.

Now, this posture actually helps you to think less frantically because your body

is signalling to your brain that everything is okay; you're in control.

You'll also want to give yourself some time to pause after each question

which Jordan definitely does. In addition,

you're going to want to study up on frames and frame games because

there's a clearly a whole level of conversation that is going on behind the words.

Now, I've talked about this in other videos

specifically the one on Tyrion Lanister from Game of Thrones

and I'll leave a link to that in the description if you want to check it out.

Moving along though, the last clip contains a small example of the third conversational bully tactic

in this video which I'm naming the "smash technique." Take a look.

[Cathy talks over Jordan] So you want to say to your followers now, "Quit the abuse. Quit the anger."

It's subtle here but Cathy smashes together two very different terms — abuse and anger.

Now, by ending on anger, it would be easier for Jordan to just forget it and answer the question.

But that would tacitly accept that his followers were abusing people.

That's why the smash technique is so frustrating; people are embedding hidden statements that you actually disagree with and

then moving through them before you have the time to voice that disagreement.

You may also have seen people barrage you with questions

just to overwhelm you into having to accept their points like this —

...otherwise, why would that only be seven women running FTSE 100 companies in the UK?

Why would there still be a pay gap... [Jordan talks over Cathy]

Why are women at the BBC saying that they're getting paid illegally less than men—

It can be easy to get overwhelmed and to lose focus as you try to answer

all of these questions but with the smash technique in general, the best policy is

to slow down the tempo of conversation

and tackle one question or one point at a time.

Let's just go to the first question; those both are complicated questions.

So hopefully, now you're more aware of the so-you're-saying trap

when people "assume the sale" and of course, the smash technique.

This moves us to the second section of this video which is

how to persuade someone in these kinds of situations.

And I will say, it seems to me that it doesn't look like Jordan is necessarily

trying to change Cathy's mind but simply to debate in front of an audience.

There are still some valuable tips to be gleamed from this video and a few things that I'd add

First, do not straw man the other person's ideas even if they're doing it to you.

And to be clear, I don't know if I mentioned this,

straw manning is when you create a caricature of their ideas and then attack those rather than what they truly believe.

Instead, show the other person that you are truly engaging in their real points,

attempt to understand them, and sometimes this mean that you have to ask them to repeat themselves so that you can.

Seven? Seven women... repeat that one—

Seven women running the top FTSE 100 companies in the UK.

Well, the first question might be.

After you've made an honest attempt to understand them, you need to make sure

that they can understand you which is necessary for persuasion.

And to do that, you often have to use the visual imagery.

For instance, here's a very abstract point without any images that Jordan makes.

...that it's inevitable that there will be continuity in the way that animals and human beings organize their structures.

It's absolutely inevitable. And there is one-third of a billion years of evolutionary history behind that.

Now, maybe you can understand that but it kind of lacks any emotional oomph.

But notice how the addition of a concrete example makes that one-third of a billion years just feel different.

That's so long that a third of a billion years ago, there weren't even trees; it's a long time.

So adding concrete examples especially ones that people can easily imagine

is a smart persuasive move and lastly, when you're arguing, oftentimes

the best way to get someone to change their position is not by changing their mind

but by gently showing them that they are already agreeing with you.

I talked about this in the frame video but here's an example from this interview.

Why should your rights to freedom of speech trump a trans-person's right not to be offended?

Because in order to be able to think, you have to risk being offensive.

I mean, look at the conversation we're having right now.

You know, like, you're certainly willing to risk offending me in the pursuit of truth.

Why should you have the right to do that? It's been rather uncomfortable.

This is huge. Jordan is no longer arguing that her point is wrong;

he's arguing that she already agrees with him — her behavior and her previous statements demonstrate

that she cares more about free speech than not offending people.

And then Jordan doesn't try to make this point wrong; he shows her how they're actually very much in alignment.

You're doing what you should do which is digging a bit to see what the hell's going on.

And I gave you what you should do but you're exercising your freedom of speech to certainly risk offending me.

And that's fine. I think — more power to you as far as I'm concerned.

And then of course Cathy feels stumped because she does actually agree with Jordan and she's proven it herself.

People have a strong desire to remain consistent

with things they've already said and done so oftentimes, this becomes

one of the few ways to persuade someone who's really dug in their heels.

You're basically showing them that they don't have to move

in order to agree with you; they already do right where they're dug in.

And then of course, Jordan hits her with the "gotcha."

...uh, and... [sighs] I'm just trying to work that out but I mean... [sighs]

Jordan: Hah. Gotcha. Cathy: You have got me. You have got me.

Even though I laughed at that phrase at the time I was watching the interview,

I have to say that last bit "gotcha" does not improve Jordan's persuasive case.

It actually makes Cathy feel silly and wrong as opposed to

happy to discover that she and Jordan are really on the same team all along

and if I had to give one last point of constructive criticism,

it would be that Jordan answered all of Cathy's questions

rather than trying to proactively address her deeper unstated emotional concern.

And in my opinion, that emotional concern is that Jordan is her enemy —

that if he believes something, it must be against her interests.

If Jordan could have found that and pointed to a more common ground

that they share which we all of course have, I don't think the interview

would have continued in such an argumentative fashion but

Jordan's role isn't necessarily to convince Cathy Newman of anything —

it's to debate for an audience and to promote his book

which I think he did at an A+ level.

If you think that I missed something or you just want to discuss,

leave a comment below. I'm actually to be checking periodically but

I will be most active in the comments for that first hour after the video goes live

which is now 2 p.m. Eastern on Mondays so hit subscribe and hit the notification bell

to make sure that you're notified when I am here and chatting.

That way you can hop on if you want to discuss anything with me

or if you have a question that you'd like to ask.

I also think that this video makes a very strong companion for both the Tyrion video

that I mentioned about frames which are super interesting

and the previous Jordan Peterson video which will teach you how to get respect

without being a bully so click the screen if you want to check either of those out.

Hopefully, you guys enjoyed this video and I will see you in the next one.