How to win ANY Argument?
By 'winning an argument', I mean the - "rendering your opponent speechless" type.
There are two paths to the same destination:
- With an excellent knowledge backed by examples and real life instances
Very instinctively, one with a really good understanding about the matter, easily dominates the conversation. Eventually, a majority from the ones against the particular idea and the ones with a neutral stand, accept the idea.
- Without any relevant knowledge
Now, this is a very interesting case and our main focus. Given an hypothetical situation, how often do you pick a fight with an infant when you are challenged? Exactly, you would never! It is this common nature which inhibits people from picking fights which are not worthy. This is why you sometimes do not attempt to contradict a point, even if you know better.
Words can be arranged in an order to make some sense. However, it is not necessary that the sentences should be logical. One could, with enough skill, manipulate the thoughts of others by connecting irrelevant sentences to culminate at the wrong idea. The sentences, individually, might make sense but together do not. A good analogy will be the long math proofs. A crowd interested in the result will only read through the steps and try to imbibe the flow. However, the only thing that will remain in the minds of the audience is the final result. Blind faith and the non-challenging nature of the crowd support the ambiguous intermediate statements. What makes this effective?
The response of the crowd is crucial in swinging the decision of the masses. Had you been listening to one such conversation, wouldn't you be involuntarily aligned to the thoughts of the person, right beside you, who gives his opinion? Not always, but with a huge probability. This is exploited in order to win the opinion of the masses without actually making sense. This becomes a part of the chain reaction.
When there is an argument and one does not come up with an opposing point, the audience psychologically accept the other as their winner, without truly understanding why it wasn't contradicted.
This tactic is used by various people who are successful in manipulating the crowds. Are you able to relate it someone you know?
Very instinctively, one with a really good understanding about the matter, easily dominates the conversation. Eventually, a majority from the ones against the particular idea and the ones with a neutral stand, accept the idea.
Now, this is a very interesting case and our main focus. Given an hypothetical situation, how often do you pick a fight with an infant when you are challenged? Exactly, you would never! It is this common nature which inhibits people from picking fights which are not worthy. This is why you sometimes do not attempt to contradict a point, even if you know better.
Words can be arranged in an order to make some sense. However, it is not necessary that the sentences should be logical. One could, with enough skill, manipulate the thoughts of others by connecting irrelevant sentences to culminate at the wrong idea. The sentences, individually, might make sense but together do not. A good analogy will be the long math proofs. A crowd interested in the result will only read through the steps and try to imbibe the flow. However, the only thing that will remain in the minds of the audience is the final result. Blind faith and the non-challenging nature of the crowd support the ambiguous intermediate statements. What makes this effective?
The response of the crowd is crucial in swinging the decision of the masses. Had you been listening to one such conversation, wouldn't you be involuntarily aligned to the thoughts of the person, right beside you, who gives his opinion? Not always, but with a huge probability. This is exploited in order to win the opinion of the masses without actually making sense. This becomes a part of the chain reaction.
When there is an argument and one does not come up with an opposing point, the audience psychologically accept the other as their winner, without truly understanding why it wasn't contradicted.
Comments
Post a Comment