5 receptions in a dispute that use passive aggressors
A Life / / December 19, 2019
Robert Green
Author of the popular and journalistic literature on psychology and the mechanism of functioning of power in society and politics.
During the debate and discussion you are sure to encounter people whose opinions do not coincide with yours. Intentioned you begin to defend their point of view, because you truly believe in it. You will take to enumerate the facts and evidence, but soon notice that the conversation turns into an unexpected direction, and emotions run high. Interlocutor hurt your feelings, you do not remain in debt and forget soon, why do it all began.
What happened? Most likely, you are faced with a passive aggressor. Such people are plotting an argument with dishonest intentions. They advance stocking tricky techniques that do not appear in the conversation wrong. They are usually characterized by thin-skinned and vulnerable ego.
Their advantage is directly related to their views, so the dispute is more important to them to assert his rightness and superiority than to get to the truth.
Therefore, they skillfully divert attention from their flimsy allegations and confuse the audience. Learn to recognize their tactics. Robert Green listed the five most frequent.
1. An appeal to the senses
To do this, they go in the course of emotive words that advance hint listeners to the required output of the Wrangler. Or claim that he is trying to prove. For example, the adjectives "vicious", "reactionary", "preferred", "power-hungry", "unscrupulous", "immoral", which will automatically cause emotional reaction listeners.
Suppose the source calls the book or its author's cynical, not explaining the reasons. The use of this word implies knowledge of the motives of the writer condemned, which in itself is quite difficult to prove. But one would look for information, and to give examples already on the basis of this to make a statement. However, the passive aggressor knows what the word negatively colored, and uses it to pre-configure the audience against the person under discussion, without referring to any examples.
What to do: enter the opponent on emotive words in his speech and ask them to explain exactly what he meant by them. If, in response, he throws you other similar adjectives or even avoid the answer, do not give up. Do not let him get rid of empty high-sounding phrases. Keep asking until it becomes clear to all that the person is simply appealing to the "cheap" emotions.
2. Reductio ad absurdum
Skillful passive-aggressive debaters tend to bring your argument to the extreme, to devalue it. For example: "If you allow gay marriage, then why not let more human union with the animal?" They like the design like "If you believe in X, therefore, must believe in the Y". Or list the worst possible consequences of your statement, exposing them to the inevitable.
And if you refer to someone, be sure to mention the aggressor is the worst, which is associated with that name, as if it were part of your argument. For example, if you quote NietzscheHe says that he was loved by the Nazis.
So you can turn any of your argument, and the passive aggressor will do it quickly to the surrounding not have time to ponder his words.
What to do: do not let the other party to the next argument. Go back to his statement and show that it is irrational. For example, Nietzsche opposed the dictators and anti-Semites, with more than thirty years before the advent of the Nazis, so to connect it with them makes no sense.
Try to bring the interlocutor to the absurd argument, to show how it is manipulated by your own statement.
3. call transfer to another topic
If the passive aggressor feels that you come out on top, he will try to discreetly turn the conversation to another topic. This makes it possible to use a strong (but irrelevant) argument. Suppose discussed immigration in the United States. You say that America is a nation of immigrants in general, and cited statistics that show that they actually contribute to its economy. And your companion in response starts a conversation about the high level of unemployment among native-born Americans in some regions, hinting that you care about their fate. And it puts you in a bad light.
If you discuss sexual violence against women, the caller asks, "What about violence against men? "If you take on a tax increase, you will hear the question, are you willing to personally pay more.
If you scold the evil one, you point to even the worst and take an interest, why you do not try to fight it.
Also, the source can be set very vague or abstract question to you baffled and confused answers. For example, in a conversation about global warming You may ask: "If you're so sure about that, tell me what percentage of climate change caused by human activities?" And in this case it is impossible to accurately answer, you have to get rid platitudes or say something, not vindicated facts.
What to do: stay calm and return the conversation to the original track. Do not let the other party to avoid. Show the audience that he is trying to bring down all confused.
4. Attempts to withdraw itself from the opponent
The purpose of such a maneuver - to annoy you, would you say something rash. And the passive aggressor in this time will be calm, to put you over-emotional. In response to your reasonable proposition he can sarcastic look at you and say something sharp, it does not prove his point of view, but it's annoying you. Or even go to the insults and slander. If you get down to his level, you still will not win: the source is much better than you trained in mudslinging.
What to do: in such a situation, the best defense - peace of mind. The only way you will be able to think rationally and to find an adequate response. If you show that you do not touch the words of the interlocutor, it will cease to incite you not to look stupid.
5. References to authorities
Passive-aggressive debaters refer to Statistics and research that can not be verified, or the generally accepted opinion. Because their statements seem more reliable, and the opponent - the arrogant, going against all known truths. They use rashozhie slogans to show that they are on the side of truth. And mention respected personalities like Gandhi, like the association with this man enough to prove the correctness of the speaker.
What to do: ask the call source or statistical research, which refers opponent. Ask to list more details, explain the specific value of slogans. Most likely, he will not. Do not disregard references to an authority figure. Ask how it relates to the statement. And always be prepared to indicate the sources of their own data.
In any case, your goal - to return the conversation to the original topic, and to show that the other person is trying to confuse you and to distract attention from the failure of their arguments.
see also🧐
- How to argue with the interlocutor: Blaise Pascal about the art of persuasion
- How to win in a dispute and understand when to retreat
- How to become a master in the art of dispute: Tips Arthur Schopenhauer