
To tell someone they're wrong, first tell them how they're right - jonbaer
http://qz.com/778767/to-tell-someone-theyre-wrong-first-tell-them-how-theyre-right/
======
rayiner
Learning how to do this is an essential skill. Most people are not idiots. If
they disagree with you, it's probably not because they are being irrational,
but because they're starting from a different premise, making different
assumptions, or assigning different values to different aspects of the
problem. Only when you understand their argument well enough to articulate it
in your own words can you effectively present a counter-argument that has a
chance of being persuasive.

~~~
johngalt
Someone could also disagree with me because they are correct and I am in
error. They may have knowledge or perspective that I lack.

My first step is to try and find something they know that I don't before
crafting persuasive arguments. Maximize for total knowledge not winning
arguments.

~~~
zouhair
What I really dislike is when I calmly convince them that I am correct to just
check later and find out that I was completely wrong.

~~~
apathy
If you are interacting with the right people, a review of events will reveal
that they gently led you to discover this.

I'm kind of pissed that I guy I disagreed with seems to have been banned here,
for example. I was curious where he was coming from and whether my foundation
was as shaky as his appeared to me. (I think it was a guy, but I'll never
know)

The best teachers I've ever had simply laid out all the evidence they deemed
relevant and had us make up our own minds. The conclusion was never really in
doubt by the teachers, but the process of arriving at it independently was
more important than the destination.

~~~
chillacy
Unfortunately laying out the evidence is pretty powerful too. You have so many
choices, from omission/overplaying of evidence to mislead the availability
heuristic, to picking and choosing what sources are good and bad.

~~~
apathy
this is also why critical thinking is more important than specific technical
skills. The former allows you to generalize the latter, making them more
powerful.

I started out as a chemist (undergrad), became a statistician (grad), and
finally realized that I had to design, run, analyze and fund my own
experiments if I wanted something resembling "the truth", 9 times out of 10.

But my undergrad English teacher made me realize that it's more powerful to
plant the seed of an idea and water it with evidence (selectively presented or
not) than to try and outright convince people, when you have the luxury of
time. I hope that my students are smarter for it; I let them sink or swim by
their own wits and I expect them to ask for help if they find they're out of
their depth. It's how the real world tends to work anyways.

------
PakG1
While this is an important skill to have, I've also learned over time that
there are certain types of people where it's easier to let them "be right" and
accommodate the consequences. I didn't always think this way. In the past, I
would say that people are reasonable, it's always possible to figure out what
the truth is, especially if I acknowledge the possibility that I am often
wrong. But now I realize that some people have a very skewed view of the world
around them, either built up from a lifetime of emotional trauma, undesirable
upbringing, or something else. edit: it is unfortunate when their own skewed
perspective causes self-infliction of additional emotional trauma, it's a very
negative and constant feedback loop. And that skewed perspective causes any
and all disagreements to be perceived as personal attacks or worse. Every time
I feel like I make progress with these people to earn their trust enough to
get them to talk with me, it's back to square 1 when a new issue crops up, and
then it's once again obviously because the world is out to get them, and there
is no possible other explanation.

Eventually, I get to a crossroad: either I accept what these people are saying
as right (even when it's wrong and would require some absurd actions on my
part), or I navigate to exit that situation so I can minimize my future
interactions with those people. If neither are possible, it's perhaps time to
find new work. Of course, I'd love to get onto the same page as them. But I
think we have to acknowledge that sometimes it's not possible. I say this as
someone who believes that he has gotten pretty good at this skill after years
of experience.

As would probably be expected, these types of people are lifers at
organizations where they have used political means to entrench themselves, and
would likely not survive on the open market if they ever needed to look for
new employment.

~~~
jaywunder
> While this is an important skill to have, I've also learned over time that
> there are certain types of people where it's easier to let them "be right"
> and accommodate the consequences

Generally when that happens to me I've come across what I like to call a
"fundamental argument." Where neither party is correct and neither party is
wrong. A good example of this is "do you believe in religion" because nobody
can prove or disprove the existence of a higher being or a religion. But some
people will fundamentally be okay with believing in a higher power though. So
whatever side of the debate I'm on, when the conversation comes down to a
fundamental argument I let both parties be right.

~~~
PakG1
The type of people I am discussing don't have these "fundamental arguments" as
you describe them. They have diametric arguments like: "the reason you chose
the system you did is because you hate me" or "you're trying to sell me this
product because you want to see me suffer", etc. I am the center of the world,
the world revolves around me, and anyone who disagrees with me about anything
is out to get me, and every situation in the world is designed to be a
detriment to my personal and professional well-being; therefore, I must always
be in attack mode to prevent the world's population from hurting me. That type
of skewed perspective. I did not used to think that these types of people
existed. I do now.

~~~
pjc50
When it's that strong it could be called narcissistic personality disorder.
Sadly it tends to be prevalent in domestic abuse.

------
nate
A very similar effect is the "backfire effect"

[http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Backfire_effect](http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Backfire_effect)

I've been spending a lot of time focusing on this with customer support. When
a customer is hot about a problem it doesn't help at all to show facts about
anything. It really helps though to begin with a place of empathy of how you
understand how they feel if you were in a similar situation. For example, had
a great experience with Indinero recently when I was hot about a problem.
Their customer service rep though approached it exactly from how he would feel
the same way as me in such a place and here's how they'll fix it. If he just
started with the "here's how we'll do better" I don't think he have gotten
through to me in the situation. I've been using this a ton with problems
ranging from dealing with my 2 year old to hot topics for customer support,
and it's really impressive how well it works.

Yes, in many ways it's simply practicing empathy. But for some reason without
thinking about the tactic folks who want to be practicing empathy don't seem
to get to that point.

FWIW: I talk about this topic more in depth in video:
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tzGOdE92z9I](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tzGOdE92z9I)

~~~
dredmorbius
The simpering sympathising and apologising thing can go much too far as well.
My reaction to that is "stop apologising and fix the damned problem".

Experience teaches that it's almost always a sign of someone who's not
empowered, or worse, not capable, of actually improving the situation. At
worst their role is to actively impede the process, a circumstance far too
frequently encountered.

~~~
bonoboTP
If you watch the video in GP, he talks about situations where he can't or
doesn't want to fix anything. For example there's nothing to fix when
customers send out spam, it's the customer who has to change their behavior.
And people don't like being told that they are at fault. So the point is about
how to ease them into understanding that without becoming angry at the
company.

~~~
AstralStorm
Of course, he is dead wrong about nothing to do. He just does not want to
inconvenience his own customers.

------
danso
From a straightforward standpoint, having to think about how the other person
is right, and then to incorporate in a rebuttal, simply takes more _time_.
Which for me is helpful because that physical delay curbs the kinds of
reflexive emotional responses that I regret later.

~~~
mapt
It takes more time and a lot more patience and some common-ground factual
context. Which is why bomb-throwing is the game-theoretically preferred public
debate tactic with a mixed audience, such as the practice of politics.

------
RachelF
“The Relativity of Wrong”[1] by Isaac Asimov is a great read.

In it, he states that it’s possible to be mostly right, and partly wrong. Or
mostly wrong, and partly right. Someone's argument or design can have
components which are absolutely wrong while still ending up being right enough
for all practical purposes.

[1]
[http://chem.tufts.edu/answersinscience/relativityofwrong.htm](http://chem.tufts.edu/answersinscience/relativityofwrong.htm)

------
M_Grey
It's the complete opposite of what seems to be the increasingly reigning trend
online at least, and all too often offline. That is to say this is good
advice, but a really shocking number of people seem to unaware that the least
effective teacher is the one who informs you that you're a pointless moron
before trying to correct you. I'm constantly amazed at people who think their
genius is so valuable that anyone would put up with their rancid personality.

It can get even worse when there is no genius in play, just power or money and
a good social/professional bubble.

~~~
wamatt
_> I'm constantly amazed at people who think their genius is so valuable that
anyone would put up with their rancid personality._

Devils advocate here; Isn't this an example of displaying a superior attitude
and the sort of the thing you're claiming to be against?

~~~
M_Grey
Only if you think that I believe I'm dropping pearls of wisdom here, rather
than just sharing an opinion, and doing so in a "rancid" way. Do you think
that?

------
h4nkoslo
This is also known as the "shit sandwich" (when leavened with another helping
of praise on the other end), and is instantly recognizable once you see the
pattern. The risk is that your initial praise is seen as disingenuous by its
recipients, or that it goes too far and reifies their underlying value system
when it actually is contradictory to yours.

Incidentally, Barack Obama was particularly good at this construction in his
first term, but fell victim to the first trap. Pre-Trump Republicans in
general fall victim to the second, when they have any effective rhetoric at
all.

Like most rhetorical devices, it works better in person than in print.

~~~
douche
I hate this pattern. If something is fucked up, tell me, so I can fix it.
Don't waste my time buttering me up first and patting me on the back
afterwards, just get to the point.

It's one thing I do kind of miss about working shitty, dangerous construction
and logging jobs summers in college. There's no time for pussyfooting around
when a miscommunication means somebody gets crushed or mangled by heavy
equipment. Brusque, unambiguous, often profanity-laced communication is more
effective getting the point across rapidly...

~~~
dredmorbius
I'm with you on most of that (the sandwich), but (the shit) it requires a
community of trust, and some healthy functioning people, at least within that
specific context.

I've had a recent online experience in a community in which _all_ interaction
is anonymous -- but the anonymity isn't persistent, rather, identities are
created and assigned for each discussion.

This almost perfectly destroys any and all sense of community. It also
interacts poorly with several other site dynamics, but the result is
phenomenally toxic.

I do know online communities, usually smallish (5-50 people, occasionally
more, but rarely >150) where that kind of banter can develop. I've seen it in
workplaces, but rarely, and even then often only between a few people. Like
you I've seen it in jobs involving physical work, close quarters, and danger,
and those were some of the most awesome times of my life. There's a strong
sense of missing that in much technology and online interaction.

I've also seen places which are almost the antithesis of this. Where there's
no trust, or camarderie, or sense of shared purpose. Financial industry and
political environments seem to be the epitome of this. In banking, the culture
permeates _inside_ organisations, in politics, it's _usually_ confined to
rivalries _across_ party lines, though not always. In either case, though, you
find that there's an excessive need for formality, protocol, and ego-buttering
which isn't so necessary elsewhere.

And which apparently you and I both find tedious.

~~~
flukus
> I've had a recent online experience in a community in which all interaction
> is anonymous -- but the anonymity isn't persistent, rather, identities are
> created and assigned for each discussion.

I'd like to experience that, it's pretty much how I read reddit/hn anyway. I
would be a good way to eliminate group think.

~~~
LoSboccacc
eh doesn't 4chan work that way?

~~~
flukus
I was thinking something more like Reddit with the curation voting provides,
threaded comments, etc.

~~~
Natanael_L
So, reddit with more throwaway accounts

Using automoderator and/or other moderation bots in your own sub, you could
automatically only accept contributions from young accounts that haven't
posted in other subreddits

------
guscost
A few more tips for arguing on the Internet:

1) Be polite. Nobody wants to listen to or learn from a rude person.

2) Avoid signaling your values, knowledge, or status. Write for the person you
are addressing, not other members of your in-group. Proofread your writing and
delete anything that does not serve this purpose.

3) Don't value winning more than understanding.

~~~
tedmiston
> Don't value winning more than understanding.

Over time I've learned that when arguing, some people are convinced they must
win, and they value that over correctness or logic. With those types, I simply
back off with a neutral stance and save myself the time of arguing with
someone not interested in changing their position.

------
EGreg
Daniel Dennett is a curious character. A philosopher at Tufts, he wrote this:

How to compose a successful critical commentary:

You should attempt to re-express your target’s position so clearly, vividly,
and fairly that your target says, “Thanks, I wish I’d thought of putting it
that way. You should list any points of agreement (especially if they are not
matters of general or widespread agreement). You should mention anything you
have learned from your target. Only then are you permitted to say so much as a
word of rebuttal or criticism.

------
zeeshanm
This is a classic technique for influencing people. The rule of thumb is
nobody likes to be criticized in any situation whatsoever. The worst thing you
can do is to tell them they are wrong. One way to get a difficult message
conveyed is to get the other person say "yes" a few times before being told
things as they are.

Anyone interested in learning more I would recommend reading:
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/How_to_Win_Friends_and_Influen...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/How_to_Win_Friends_and_Influence_People)

------
cyphar
There is a modification of this idea which forms a teaching technique that my
parents used with me, and I use with everyone I teach or tutor. Essentially
you ask them to make predictions (what will happen here). You then try to
figure out their process of coming to that conclusion (why do you say that).
It's important that you ask them this question even if they're correct. Then
you emphasise the parts of their reasoning which make sense, and focus on the
parts that were mistaken. You then ask them to make the prediction again with
what they've learned. Bonus points if you give a third, different example to
reinforce the concepts. Rinse and repeat.

While some people (especially children who aren't used to this method) might
not enjoy it at first because it seems to be harder and takes longer than
"just giving the answer", it actually helps people learn how to reason about
things (which is something that is lacking in a lot of people these days IMO).

------
Xcelerate
It would be incredibly difficult, but I've always wished we could develop a
(formal) axiomatic system of morality, such that with independent axioms that
each person takes as true by default, all of that person's positions on the
major issues would be immediately derivable from the axioms and would
essentially be indisputable. Heated emotional debates that last for hours
would instead turn into each party running a short computer program to
determine whether their views are compatible.

For example, one such axiom (not being rigorous here) may be "human life is
valuable". If someone else takes "human life has no inherent worth", then
you're kind of at an impasse, as each statement forms the basis of entirely
different systems of morality.

~~~
xupybd
Another example is the abortion debate, every one is quick to show the evils
of the other side of the debate. But often they simply disagree on when human
life starts and fail to ever identify that as the issue. Because of this most
discussions on this topic become far more vitriolic than productive.

~~~
tomjen3
Even then the argument can actually be solved by the "famous violinist"
argument ([http://www.patheos.com/blogs/hallq/2012/02/the-under-
rated-f...](http://www.patheos.com/blogs/hallq/2012/02/the-under-rated-famous-
violinist-defense-of-abortion/)) and by pointing out that humans are not
forced to donate a kidney, even though doing so has a great chance of saving
the life of the recepient, and a live-donation results in a much higher
quality of life for the receiver. In this case we value the body integrity of
the first person more than the life of the second - even though both are
undeniably human.

~~~
Natanael_L
OTOH in the case of abortion you have the difference that you take direct
action against the fetus in favor of the mother, instead of just being passive
and "letting nature take its course". In terms of ethics that's a huge
difference.

In fact I'd argue that an uncontradictory absolutist position for body
integrity is impossible in the case of abortion (assuming the fetus is
considered human!), since the only absolute resolution technically isn't
abortion, but rather premature birth and artificially keeping the fetus alive.

Of course the disagreement between camps remains on when a fetus becomes
human...

------
overcast
This is one of the essential points outlined in Dale Carnegie's seminal "How
to win friends and influence people". This should be required reading for
EVERYONE before graduating high school, and revisited regularly. I read it at
least once a year.

Begin with praise and honest appreciation. People will do things begrudgingly
for criticism and an iron-fisted leader, but they will work wonders when they
are praised and appreciated.

------
orsenthil
I had this failure to make a family member see a particular point of view. The
person had taken a stance, that would be harmful to the family, but yet
rational arguments did not work out. The person had something to gain, I don't
know what, by causing this harm, the person went ahead with that.

Have you ever encountered this? If yes, does rational argument and persuation
work with people who don't care?

~~~
kibwen
Rationality is relative. People do tend to make decisions based on reason,
even seemingly irrational people, but 1) people possess differing information,
from which two rational actors can draw contradictory yet individually-logical
conclusions, and 2) everyone is susceptible to flawed logic. In the case of
the latter, trying to directly "correct" someone's logic is often unwelcome
(especially in a heated emotional context). Furthermore, sometimes people
become invested in a particular decision for foregone reasons, possibly due to
information that is secret or inexpressible (e.g. the degree of suffering one
experiences from a mental illness, which is very hard to intuitively empathize
with for people who are neurotypical).

So the answer is no, rational argument doesn't always work. Sometimes the best
that you can do is simply minimize harm to a relationship by not letting the
argument escalate or letting anyone burn any bridges. Depending on context,
sometimes it might even be worth yielding to a seemingly-irrational argument
if it means preserving a valuable relationship (this should be done with
caution, obviously). And sometimes things really are just irreconcilable
(though hopefully not too often).

~~~
AstralStorm
People often act according to heuristics rather than truly rational analysis.
These heuristics are rational on their own, just misapplied at times.

------
Nursie
It's funny, I remember from some years ago reading similar advice under the
heading "How to disagree with Americans", the implication being that American
speakers could not take direct disagreement, and required a little ego-massage
first. And of course that we British had no such foolish pride.

I think probably it's a little more universal than that :)

------
orblivion
I don't see how that's a trick. It just seems considerate to me. That's how I
would prefer to be persuaded. First validate my thinking, and convince me that
you understand it. Then your new perspective will be credible.

I also think Pascal made the point better in his quote than the rest of the
article did.

------
ojosilva
This is very shallow. Negotiation theory is not helpful when you're plainly or
partially wrong, or just in a very weak position to defend.

Here's a classic negotiation example that I just can't crack:

Her: I've told you, please don't leave your socks on the floor.

Him: (mirroring) Leave my socks on the floor?

Her: Yes. Please throw them in the laundry bin right after you take them off.

Him: (open-ended question) How am I supposed to do this if I'm in a hurry?

Her: After you take off your socks, pick them up. Then throw them into the
bin. Two seconds and you're are done.

Him: (Pascal's empathy) Yes, you're right. Leaving socks on the floor is just
annoying. But understand that when I get home sometimes I'm in a hurry or I'm
tired and I don't feel like picking up the socks.

Her: Please just do it. It annoys the hell out of me.

There's just no good way to negotiate your way out of this. Typically
negotiation courses and books always focus on how the reader will bargain to
win, not to minimize losses or just accept to lose but compromise on an
ongoing basis (give-and-take).

~~~
AstralStorm
Sometimes, a game cannot be won. Negotiation cannot be done if the other party
is not willing.

~~~
ojosilva
One way to break such a stalemate is to increase your empathy to the point you
become the psychiatrist and the other party the patient.

Here he could debase Her argument as being a manifestation of an obsessive
compulsive disorder. If she agrees to that "diagnosis" just a little, he might
be able to move to a kill by proposing that the socks remain on the floor as a
form of therapy that will help Her treat her overwhelmingly obsessive
behavior.

------
lordnacho
A related question that I've been grappling with is how do you tell someone
that they don't understand something, and that they really need to work a lot
harder to do so? That an attitude change is required in order to get to where
the actual experts are.

\- Extra points if you can do this without sounding patronising.

------
haxel
This seems to underscore the need for criticisms to seem credible in order to
be accepted.

For example, if I write an article and I get a drive-by critical comment that
offers no substantial detail drawn from the article itself, I have no idea
whether or not the critique is based on a misunderstanding of what I wrote.
I'm likely to dismiss the critique because it lacks credibility. I achieve
nothing by reacting to a random person's hallucination of what I wrote.

But when there's a clear indication of understanding (or misunderstanding) in
the critique, which to me also indicates respect, I'm happy to receive the
criticism, respond to it, and perhaps adapt to it. Because then it's a real
thing from a real person who cares at least a little bit about both the ideas
I've expressed and me as a person.

------
ollifi
I find that most of this discussion is framed through being right and needing
to school someone. That is pretty easy special case. The useful thing to learn
in conversation would be to actually have power to adjust your own beliefs.
It's better to be in that end of learning.

------
arkj
Unless the person has serious emotional issues this kind of approach only
makes conversations too tedious and artificial.

A simpler approach could be, accept the fact that you are wrong (may do great
good) or learn to ignore the bully (some bullies get a thrill to tell everyone
they are wrong)

------
jgalt212
_Why prove to a man he is wrong? Is that going to make him like you? Why not
let him save face? He didn 't ask for your opinion. He didn't want it. Why
argue with him? You can't win an argument, because if you lose, you lose it;
and if you win it, you lose it. Why? You will feel fine. But what about him?
You have made him feel inferior, you hurt his pride, insult his intelligence,
his judgment, and his self-respect, and he'll resent your triumph. That will
make him strike back, but it will never make him want to change his mind. A
man convinced against his will is of the same opinion still._

\--Dale Carnegie

For the above reasons, in social situations, I avoid every argument that I
can.

~~~
GFischer
Good quote. I should re-read How To Win Friends and Influence People.

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/How_to_Win_Friends_and_Influen...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/How_to_Win_Friends_and_Influence_People)

------
lutusp
> To tell someone they're wrong, first tell them how they're right

Yes, sometimes, but in many cases this only plays into the hands of
narcissists. Remember that narcissists listen to you when you tell them
they're right, then shut down completely and/or go on the attack when you try
to offer constructive criticism.

Nobody showed this behavior more dramatically than Steve Jobs, with whom I
briefly tried to work in the early 1980s. A classic malignant narcissist,
Steve just absorbed people's energy and his behavior never improved.
Eventually I refused to try to work with him.

The tl;dr -- the title's suggestion sometimes backfires spectacularly.

------
WWKong
Here is a method to get the other person on your side of the issue: ask them
the reasons the counter point could be reasonable.

"Could you think of some reasons why one would vote for Trump? Seriously."

Use responsibly.

~~~
AstralStorm
The way you phrased it makes the question sound like a trap. It presumes one
couldn't think of any reason.

Try "What are some reasons one would vote for Trump?" Neutral tone of voice
included.

~~~
WWKong
Agreed. That is what I was aiming for. You worded it better.

------
espeed
Empathy and perspective. Empathy [1] (cognitive empathy) is the ability to put
yourself in someone's shoes and see things from their perspective. Not
everyone has the ability to empathize -- we often believe our level of empathy
is like that of everyone else, but this is not the case.

Cluster B personality types [2], those with Asperger's [3] or on the autistic
spectrum, and some with ADHD lack the ability to empathize. Recent research
out of Berkeley has show than medication can help those with ADHD access their
Executive Function and gain their ability to empathize [4].

In one of the comments on [4], Dr Charles Parker describes empathy as a "two-
step process": "Empathy is a higher order function, more evolved with
effective PFC [prefrontal cortex] activity than sympathy. Why? Sympathy
indicates a certain subjective, feeling level, ability to emotionally reach
across the room and identify with the pain of another. The only problem for
those practicing sympathy is that, more often than not, they only take that
first identification step, and too often get stuck in the other person’s pain.
They can’t leave, and become emotionally lost over there. Empathy, on the
other hand, requires good PFC Executive Function, with a metacognitively
active two step process: 1. Trial identification with the other, and 2. Return
to one’s full self for objective management of the other’s challenges. Good
next-step advice doesn’t often arise from sympathy, but does often arise from
empathetic considerations more objectively managed outside of a purely
emotional reaction."

[1]
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Empathy](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Empathy)

[2]
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cluster_B_personality_disorder...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cluster_B_personality_disorders)

[3]
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Asperger_syndrome](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Asperger_syndrome)

[4] [http://adhdrollercoaster.org/adhd-and-relationships/adhd-
imp...](http://adhdrollercoaster.org/adhd-and-relationships/adhd-impaired-
empathy-and-dopamine/)

~~~
morbidhawk
My wife is literally the DSM definition of borderline personality disorder
(one of the cluster b personality types) and she does have empathy, a lot of
it actually. I'm not sure about the other cluster-B types though. Everything
is about feelings for her, because her emotions are extreme and hard to
regulate. She's the friend that gets called when their life is falling apart
because she knows what that feels like almost 100% of the time. Her decisions
are always based on emotions. Naturally, because of her lack of emotional
health she has unrealistic expectations of me but it's not because she can't
empathize with me, it's because she has the emotional health of a child and is
afraid of abandonment.

------
NumberCruncher
Pascal was using this method:

[https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Socratic_method](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Socratic_method)

Really Bad article by the way.

~~~
morbidhawk
I was just about to point this same thing out. Asking good questions works so
much better than trying to tell them how they are wrong, so after validating
them start questioning their logic (or lack of logic). I actually learned
about this in therapy to assist in communicating better with my wife (who has
a personality disorder) and then later realized it's the Socratic method.
Validating the things you agree with is still important too, but this article
is missing the second part where you question their claims.

~~~
NumberCruncher
PG had an essay about non intuitive things like skiing. IMO the socratic
method is the best non intuitive solution for situations when you disagree
someone.

------
vog
Was this really confirmed just know in psychology?

At least here in Germany this is ubiquitous. "Start criticism with the
positive" is taught everywhere from elementary school to university, from
self-help groups to management courses. This is so normal that it is usually
not attributed to Pascal, but to common-sense psychology and good social
behaviour in general.

I alway thought this was well-established in science for decades - not
something we verified just now.

~~~
AstralStorm
It is generally safer to start with neutral inquisitive stance. Some people
take the easy positive them attempt to browbeat you because "you have agreed".

------
jondubois
I think it's not something you can fake. You have to genuinely understand and
value the other persons's opinion.

Also, for this to work in the long term, you have to allow yourself to lose
the argument from time to time.

Sometimes you have to fold on purpose (even if you think your idea is better).
Of course you have to do so strategically - You have to fold arguments when
the consequence isn't very important - That gives you the ammunition to be
very firm in your stance when the decision is important.

You don't want to be perceived like a 'cunning mule'.

I had a boss who used this trick of agreeing first and then disagreeing but
they did it for EVERY argument - After spending a few months with this person,
you notice the pattern. If someone wins every argument, it becomes noticeable
and the trick doesn't work anymore - The workplace environment becomes tense.

------
GarvielLoken
What did I just read? Some unheard of psychologist distorted and dumbified a
perfectly understandable passage from the famous Pascal. And because he, as a
psychologist, did that; the statement is now considered truth and valid "for
realz". Am I getting this right?

Scientist are really our times high priests.

~~~
98Windows
I think it resonates because we've all seen both methods in action, and the
proposed one (at least for me) has always lead to a better outcome.

The psychologist has also most likely seen even more examples in all the
literature he has read and so can add a bit more weight to the argument.

What would convince you of the hypothesis? A quantitative study?

~~~
GarvielLoken
I think you misunderstood me 180 degrees. I was not advocating stronger
evidence. I was questioning our culture need for "Now scientist have finally
proven the old x is correct/incorrect".

Wasn't Pascal beautiful passages already obvious true before this psychologist
made his statement?

~~~
98Windows
But lots of things seem obviously true but turn out to be wrong or
problematic. It is nice to get more than one opinion.

------
Mendenhall
Always start from common ground and that which can be agreed upon.

Although I do disagree that there was no formal study of "persuasion" before
then. Socrates was trolling sophists long before then. Rhetoric = persuasion
and thats what the sophists got paid to do.

Read Gorgias.

~~~
danielam
You're headed in the right direction, but your characterization isn't
accurate. Strictly speaking, Socrates wasn't trolling the sophists so much as
drawing attention to their manipulative practices. The sophists weren't
infamous for employing rhetoric, but rather sophistry and eristic. Here,
rhetoric is to sophistry what polemic is to eristic.

Where rhetoric is an art that emphasizes logical, sound, effective and clear
communication for the purpose of persuading someone of a position that the
rhetor believes to be true, the sophist employs fallacies, flattery and other
methods of appeal to manipulate someone into accepting a position, regardless
of the truth of that position, for other ends. The highest value for the
sophist was oratory excellence and skillful use of language, not the
attainment of truth. Analogously, the polemicist aims to dispute a position,
but he does so while maintaining the same ethos as the rhetor, i.e., by
attacking what he deems to be false for the sake of the truth. The eristic, on
the other hand, shares the ethos of the sophist, i.e., he is unconcerned with
the truth and aims only dispute for some other end. Josef Pieper's puts it
well in his essay "Abuse of Language, Abuse of Power" when he says that when
language is disconnected from truth, it becomes an instrument of power.

Both rhetoric and polemic are useful during intellectual exchanges. Indeed,
the most successful philosophical arguments often consist of disputation of a
previously stated position, followed by argumentation in favor of another
position and here both rhetoric and polemic may be used.

I was rather annoyed by what appears to be the author's ignorance of these
ancient arts.

------
kelukelugames
Aka criticism sandwich aka shit sandwich.

[http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=Shit%20Sandwi...](http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=Shit%20Sandwich&defid=1424344)

------
Ind007
There is a recent article on real life incident practicing the same.

[http://urbanconfessional.org/blog/howtodisagree](http://urbanconfessional.org/blog/howtodisagree)

------
vintermann
To tell someone how they're right, you first have to understand and accurately
represent their position. That's a step that's usually skipped with
ideological opponents.

------
Hydraulix989
I noticed I receive far fewer downvotes whenever I do this on HN.

------
helthanatos
I've always felt more persuasive when doing that. I've also felt more
persuaded when I'm not flat told I'm wrong.

~~~
whistlerbrk
it flatters the ego, which can be belittling at times.

~~~
danharaj
I think it is that by stating how someone is right, you are demonstrating a
comprehensive understanding of their views which justifies your disagreement.
It grounds your points in theirs, creating a shared position which is easier
to understand than two positions that are simply smashed against each other
until the more solid one prevails.

I think someone who flatters the ego is cargo culting persuasion. It may work
when people are more invested in the power relationship than the discussion,
like a discussion between a worker and their boss, but otherwise yes I think
it is belittling and someone trying to have a genuine dialogue is going to
find it obnoxious and insincere.

------
drjesusphd
A worthwhile goal of arguments is not to convince your opponent that he/she is
wrong, but to convince spectators.

------
shunyaloop
Quoting Charlie Munger on this subject -

You’re not entitled to take a view, unless and until you can argue better
against that view than the smartest guy who holds that opposite view. If you
can argue better than the smartest person who holds the opposite view, that is
when you are entitled to hold a certain view.”

------
known
First check
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_cognitive_biases](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_cognitive_biases)

------
sharemywin
My favorite was arguing with my brother and I said "logically ...." he replied
I don't believe in logic. He won the argument I had nothing to work with.

------
amelius
A better way is to first teach them logic. Then tell them they're wrong.

------
SimeVidas
“…since the perceptions of our senses are always true”

Like we all saw all 12 black dots in that image yesterday, right?

------
muzster
This article is a fantastic read.

However, the images are way too big and unnecessary.

------
dilemma
Plot twist: You start off telling someone about the ways in which they're
right to then proceed to telling them they're wrong, and realize that _they_
are actually right and _you_ are wrong.

~~~
1_player
That's the best kind of discussion: when one learns something from the other,
instead of just exposing different point of views.

------
andrewclunn
This is a very interesting and well written piece, but I'm going to have to
disagree, as (like false modesty) the tactic quickly becomes identifiable as
such and turns people off.

~~~
smallnamespace
The key is to honestly want to find common ground with the other person, just
like the antidote to false modesty is to actually be modest.

------
tmptmp
Good article and great advice. But I wish to make a qualification to the
statement: To tell "someone" they're wrong, first tell them how they're right
and make sure that the "someone" is not a psychopath or sociopath or a
brainwashed person.

Still as a liberal, I would start with an open mind (null hypothesis) but I
will keep my analysis running and will keep on adjusting the hypothesis
accordingly. Also depending on what is at stake, I will cut the analysis
shorter and come to conclusion faster (and potentially wrong) so that I can
take some action that is needed in time.

Unfortunately, there are enough people in the world who are completely
convinced of their superiority or of the superiority of their views/beliefs
and if you tell them they are right they just use your statement as a
testament to their advantage and if you later even try to tell them they are
wrong then they will not hesitate to kill you. Some examples that come to mind
are Hitler (blinded by Nazism) [1], prophet Muhammad (blinded by Islamism)
[2], Stalin (blinded by communism) [3].

Because with such people it doesn't matter what you tell first or later.
Sadly, that's the main reason why we need (have to face) wars.

[1]
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adolf_Hitler](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adolf_Hitler)
[2] [http://www.faithfreedom.org/understanding-muhammad-free-
down...](http://www.faithfreedom.org/understanding-muhammad-free-download/)
[3]
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joseph_Stalin](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joseph_Stalin)

------
jsprogrammer
Buzzfeed-style click bait. We are better than psychological tricks.

------
khattam
If and when I want to tell you that you're wrong, I no longer want you to
agree with me or win you over. I just want to tell you to go fuck yourself. At
that point, nothing you believe or stand for or identify as will be remotely
right in any imaginable stable universe.

------
petters
That's only one part. Another is realizing that _you_ may be the one who
should change your mind.

