6 Verbal Tricks To Make An Aggressive Person Sorry

Summary

Le script de cette vidéo explore comment gérer une personne qui utilise des astuces subtils de conversation pour te faire passer pour un idiot. Il met en lumière les pièges de la conversation tels que le piège 'so-you're-saying', 'assuming the sale' et la technique 'smash'. Il offre des conseils pour identifier ces pièges et pour les éviter, ainsi que des techniques de persuasion efficaces, comme l'utilisation d'images visuelles et la montée en épingle des points de vue de l'autre personne. Le but est de gagner du respect dans une situation conflictuelle plutôt que de perdre le contrôle.

Takeaways

• 🗣️ Lors d'une conversation, il est important de reconnaître les tactiques de manipulation utilisées pour te mettre en position de faiblesse ou de subir une attaque sous-jacente.
• 👂 Pour contrer un harceleur conversationnel, il faut identifier et comprendre les signaux précurseurs de l'agressivité, tels que le ton de la voix et le choix des mots.
• 🪢 L'interview entre Cathy Newman et Jordan Peterson illustre plusieurs pièges de conversation, dont le piège 'tu-dis-donc', où l'on simplifie ou déforme ce que l'on a réellement dit.
• 🤔 Il est crucial de ne pas tomber dans le piège de la 'vente supposée', où l'on suppose une croyance ou une décision sans que l'on ne l'ait exprimée.
• 💡 Pour éviter les pièges de conversation, il faut identifier les présuppositions cachées et les dévoiler, comme le montre Jordan en répondant aux questions de Cathy.
• 🧘‍♂️ Adopter une posture détendue et donner du temps pour réfléchir aux questions peuvent aider à rester calme et en contrôle face à un harceleur conversationnel.
• 🎨 Utiliser des images visuelles et des exemples concrets peut rendre les points de vue plus compréhensibles et persuasives lors d'un débat.
• 🤝 Lors d'un débat, essayer de montrer que l'autre personne est déjà en accord avec vous plutôt que de changer leur esprit peut être une stratégie efficace de persuasion.
• 👀 Il est important d'essayer de comprendre les points de vue de l'autre personne et d'éviter de créer des caricatures de leurs idées (straw man).
• 🚫 Le 'smash technique' est une tactique où deux idées sont mélangées pour piéger l'interlocuteur, il est essentiel de ralentir le rythme de la conversation pour y répondre.
• 🤝 Jordan Peterson semble plus intéressé par le débat devant un public que par la persuasion directe de Cathy Newman, montrant comment promouvoir ses idées sans être agressif.

Q & A

Quel est le but principal de la vidéo mentionnée dans le script ?

Le but principal de la vidéo est de montrer comment gérer une personne qui utilise des astuces subtils de conversation pour te rendre paranoïaque et te faire passer pour un idiot.

Quels sont les trois principaux pièges de conversation évoqués dans le script ?

Les trois pièges principaux sont le piège 'so-you're-saying', l'astuce 'assuming the sale' et la technique 'smash'.

Comment la 'so-you're-saying trap' fonctionne-t-elle ?

La 'so-you're-saying trap' consiste en une personne qui reprend ce que vous avez dit de manière simplifiée ou déformée, pour ensuite vous attaquer sur cette interprétation erronée.

Quel est l'exemple donné d'une situation d' 'assuming the sale' dans le script ?

L'exemple donné est celui d'un vendeur de voiture qui demande si vous voulez un intérieur en cuir ou en tissu, sans que vous ayez encore décidé d'acheter la voiture.

Comment Jordan Peterson répond-il aux questions qui contiennent des présuppositions cachées ?

Jordan Peterson écoute attentivement les questions pour repérer les présuppositions cachées, puis il les dévoile et répond en s'appuyant sur ses propres points de vue.

Quelle est la stratégie conseillée pour faire face à la technique 'smash' ?

La meilleure stratégie pour faire face à la technique 'smash' est de ralentir le rythme de la conversation et de traiter une question ou un point à la fois.

Quels sont les conseils donnés pour persuader quelqu'un dans une situation conflictuelle ?

Les conseils incluent de ne pas caricaturer les idées de l'autre personne, de s'efforcer de comprendre les points de vue de l'autre, d'utiliser des images visuelles pour aider à la compréhension, et de montrer que l'autre personne est déjà en accord avec vous sur certains points.

Quelle est la critique constructive donnée sur la manière dont Jordan Peterson a mené l'entretien ?

La critique est que Jordan Peterson aurait dû chercher à aborder les préoccupations émotionnelles sous-jacentes de Cathy Newman plutôt que de simplement répondre à toutes ses questions.

Quel est l'effet de la technique 'gotcha' utilisée par Jordan Peterson sur Cathy Newman ?

La technique 'gotcha' a fait que Cathy Newman se sente bête et dans l'erreur au lieu de se sentir heureuse de découvrir qu'elle et Jordan Peterson sont déjà sur la même longueur d'onde.

Quel est le conseil final donné pour améliorer la compréhension et la persuasion dans les conversations conflictuelles ?

Le conseil final est d'étudier les cadres et les jeux de cadres, car il y a souvent un niveau entier de conversation qui se déroule derrière les mots.

Outlines

00:00

🗣️ Gestion des conflits de conversation

Le premier paragraphe aborde la manière de gérer les situations où l'on se sent attaqué dans une conversation. Il décrit l'entretien entre Cathy Newman et Jordan Peterson comme une opportunité d'examiner comment faire face à quelqu'un qui utilise des astuces subtils pour te rendre stupide. Le texte présente des techniques telles que le piège 'so-you're-saying', où l'on déforme les propos de l'autre, et montre comment s'en défendre en répétant ce que l'on a effectivement dit. Il met également en évidence l'importance de reconnaître les attitudes agressives précocement à travers le ton et le choix des mots.

05:00

🧐 Détection des pré-suppositions cachées

Le deuxième paragraphe se concentre sur la détection des pré-suppositions cachées dans une conversation, qui peuvent être utilisées pour manipuler ou piéger quelqu'un. Il explique comment, dans une interaction commerciale ou dans une discussion, les pré-suppositions implicites peuvent être dangereuses si on y répond directement sans les identifier. L'exemple donné est celui d'un vendeur de voiture qui suppose la vente avant même que l'achat ne soit décidé. L'importance d'un posture détendue et d'une pause réfléchie entre chaque question est soulignée pour aider à démêler ces pièges et à ne pas se retrouver à défendre des propositions erronées.

10:03

🤝 Persuasion et alignement des points de vue

Le troisième paragraphe traite de la persuasion dans les situations conflictuelles. Il suggère d'éviter de déformer les idées de l'autre personne (straw man) et de montrer une véritable compréhension de leurs points de vue. Il insiste sur l'utilisation d'images visuelles pour aider à la compréhension et à la persuasion, ainsi que sur l'importance de montrer que l'autre personne est déjà en accord avec vous sur certains points, plutôt que de chercher à changer leur esprit. L'exemple donné est l'entretien entre Jordan et Cathy, où Jordan montre à Cathy qu'elle est déjà en accord avec lui sur la liberté d'expression, ce qui la laisse sans voix. Cependant, le paragraphe conclut que l'utilisation du terme 'gotcha' par Jordan pourrait être contre-productive pour la persuasion.

Keywords

💡Conversational bully

Un 'conversational bully' est une personne qui utilise des tactiques de conversation subtiles pour intimider ou ridiculiser l'autre partie, les amenant à perdre leur calme ou leur respect. Dans la vidéo, il est question de reconnaître et de gérer ces comportements agressifs en conversation. Par exemple, Cathy Newman est décrite comme utilisant une attitude agressive avec son ton de voix et son choix de mots pour faire pression sur Jordan Peterson.

💡Tromperie de conversation

La 'tromperie de conversation' est un terme utilisé pour décrire la manipulation délibérée des paroles de quelqu'un afin de les faire paraître dans un mauvais jour. Dans le script, cela est illustré par l'utilisation du mot 'admettre' par Cathy, suggérant que Jordan a commis une erreur, ou bien par la façon dont elle simplifie ou déforme les propos de Jordan pour les rendre plus faciles à attaquer.

💡Straw man

Le 'straw man' est une technique de débat où l'on déforme ou exagère la position de l'adversaire pour la critiquer plutôt que de répondre à leur argument réel. Dans le script, il est expliqué que les interlocuteurs peuvent tenter de piéger l'autre dans un 'so-you're-saying trap' en déformant ce qu'il a dit. Par exemple, Cathy demande si Jordan 'admet' que son public est principalement masculin, ce qui est une forme de straw man.

💡Assumption

L'assumption fait référence à la présomption ou à l'hypothèse sous-jacente dans une déclaration ou une question, souvent utilisée pour manipuler la conversation. Dans le script, il est montré que Cathy pose des questions qui incorporent des présomptions, comme 'Pourquoi les femmes devraient-elles tolérer cela?', qui implique que Jordan pense que les femmes devraient tolérer quelque chose.

💡Smash technique

La 'smash technique' est une tactique de débat où deux termes ou idées sont combinés de manière à ce que l'interlocuteur doive accepter l'un comme vrai pour répondre à l'autre. Dans le script, Cathy utilise cette technique en mélangeant 'abus' et 'colère', suggérant que les partisans de Jordan sont des abuseurs, ce à quoi Jordan doit d'abord répondre pour clarifier sa position.

💡Persuasion

La persuasion est l'art de convaincre quelqu'un de changer d'avis ou d'adopter une certaine position en utilisant des arguments ou des preuves. Le script explore comment persuader dans un contexte conflictuel, en suggérant de ne pas déformer les idées de l'autre personne, en utilisant des images visuelles pour aider à la compréhension, et en montrant que l'autre partie est déjà en accord avec vous sur un certain point.

💡Frame

Un 'frame' est un cadre conceptuel qui détermine comment on perçoit et on interprète les informations. Dans le contexte de la vidéo, il est question d'apprendre à reconnaître et à gérer les 'frame games' dans les conversations, car cela peut influencer profondément la dynamique de la discussion. Jordan par exemple, utilise des cadres pour montrer que Cathy est déjà en accord avec lui sur la liberté d'expression.

💡Consistance

La consistance fait référence à la cohérence ou à la continuité dans les actions ou les croyances d'une personne. Dans le script, il est expliqué que montrer à quelqu'un qu'ils sont déjà en accord avec vous sur un point particulier peut être une stratégie efficace pour la persuasion, car les gens ont un désir fort de rester cohérents avec ce qu'ils ont déjà dit ou fait.

💡Gotcha

Le terme 'gotcha' est utilisé pour décrire un moment où l'on pique du nez à quelqu'un, montrant qu'ils se sont pris dans leur propre piège logique ou ont été démasqués. Dans le script, Jordan utilise ce terme pour dire à Cathy qu'elle s'est prise dans son propre argument, ce qui peut être perçu comme une victoire dans le débat mais qui peut aussi faire sentir l'autre partie comme étant stupide ou incorrecte.

💡Présupposition cachée

Une 'présupposition cachée' est une croyance ou une hypothèse non explicite qui est incorporée dans une question ou une déclaration. Dans le script, il est expliqué que reconnaître et appeler ces présuppositions est une étape clé pour éviter de se faire manipuler en conversation. Par exemple, lorsque Cathy demande à Jordan si les femmes devraient tolérer certaines choses, cela présuppose que Jordan pense que les femmes devraient les tolérer.

Highlights

The interview between Cathy Newman and Jordan Peterson serves as an example of handling subtle conversational tricks used to undermine someone.

Common tricks used by conversational bullies are identified and strategies to counter them are discussed.

Aggressive attitudes in a conversation can often be detected early through tone of voice and word choice.

The use of the word 'admit' by Cathy Newman implies Jordan Peterson has done something wrong.

Passive-aggressive behavior often signals an impending attack in a conversation.

The 'so-you're-saying trap' involves oversimplifying or mischaracterizing what someone has said.

To counter mischaracterization, one can clarify by repeating their actual point.

The 'assuming the sale' technique is used to imply beliefs that the person does not hold.

Identifying and calling out hidden presuppositions is a key strategy in countering manipulative questioning.

Jordan Peterson demonstrates careful listening to catch hidden presuppositions in Cathy's questions.

The 'smash technique' combines different terms to create a trap that's hard to counter without careful attention.

Slowing down the tempo of conversation can help counter rapid questioning or the 'smash technique'.

Persuasion can be achieved by avoiding straw man arguments and engaging with the other person's real points.

Visual imagery can make abstract points more persuasive by adding concrete examples.

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

Jordan Peterson uses the 'gotcha' moment to highlight Cathy's agreement with his point.

The 'gotcha' moment may not always be the best approach as it can make the other person feel wrong.

Addressing the other person's deeper unstated emotional concerns can lead to more productive conversations.

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

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.