Almost any discussion breaks down when one side stops listening to the other side.
Which is to say, almost every discussion.
You have points that you want to make and obviously the other side doesn’t have their facts straight. Because if they did, they wouldn’t be on the other side.
That’s what you believe, at any rate.
What’s missing from these types of conversation is an understanding of the other team’s values, and your own ability to consider that you might be wrong.
One person’s values determine what they think is important or moral. Is earning money important, so you can choose to help others? or is a higher-tax welfare state important, to help others without having to work around a rich individual’s greed?
Both cases have opportunities for failure and abuse, and we tend to only see the shortcomings of those that don’t agree with our own position.
More: we tend to think our values are fixed. They’re not, generally.
Instead, we’re influenced by the events around us.
For example, gun ownership is a hot-button topic in the US.
In the recent past, the political left has embraced gun control, while the political right tends to support gun rights.
After the recent riots and looting, people on the left are now buying guns to protect their homes and families.
Meanwhile, gun-ownership advocates such as the right-leaning NRA have been noticeably silent on the issue.
Understanding someone’s values is essential to crafting your message, but those values can change — based on the context.
That’s why a persuasive message must listen to the other side and find a common point of agreement before trying to shift anyone’s perspective.
In a sales letter, there’s an approach to doing this: identify a problem and agitate it, with examples and figures and testimonials, before you offer a solution.
In person, you can do this with pacing and leading.
Pacing and Leading
It’s no secret that you get along better when you’re in agreement with others.
After all, starting out a conversation with, “I disagree because…” causes people to feel personally attacked. Ego Investment means someone’s sense of self comes from their identity in a tribe with common beliefs.
If you feel personally attacked during a conversation, you may want to dig deeper into your own beliefs. Holding on to an idea so tightly is an indication of being brainwashed or indoctrinated, rather than being someone open to growth.
Ideas should be held based on merit and the available data. When data changes, or when we have a disagreement with someone, it’s the information that we have that may (or may not) be wrong. Not you, unless you’re stuck on that data.
Now, when we pace someone, we agree with their position as much as possible. We work to understand their position and we try to rephrase it in a fair way until they agree, “that’s right.” (A phrase straight out of George Thompson’s book Verbal Judo).
Once we’re in agreement with the other side’s position —we haven’t accepted it as our own, but we agree on their position— they feel comfortable that they’ve been heard, and as a result they’re no longer feeling attacked.
Now we can begin to lead the conversation.
We first find a common point of agreement, which Scott Adams calls the “High Ground Maneuver,” which Adams covers in Win Bigly.
With this high ground, in the Gun example, we can agree that everyone deserves to feel safe.
Once we have that high ground established, we can present our side of the issue, whichever it may be.
You lead others with your ideas to come to your conclusion. It doesn’t mean the other side will agree with that conclusion, but they’ll be more open to hearing your side.
Quick Change Agreements
In conversation it’s not always easy to discuss a rival’s position long enough to get a full understanding. We’re tempted to jump in to correct them, to present alternative information, to show them where they’re wrong.
This is difficult to resist, because if the supporting evidence goes against your understanding, the conclusion too is likely to differ from your own. Or it may be uncomfortable for you to even hold an ‘incorrect’ idea in your mind.
But agreement is essential to problem solving.
As I mentioned earlier, starting with “I disagree because…” will put someone on the defensive.
Much better to agree, summarize fairly, and get to that high ground as quickly as possible.
Even when you don’t agree, starting with “I agree…” will keep the other side open to what comes next.
Rintu Basu covers this early in his Persuasion Skills Black Book. Basu suggests starting with an agree statement whenever possible, to keep their ears open to what comes next.
“I agree that X, which is why Y and Z are so important.”
“I agree with some of what you said, and…”
or even,
“I agree that you said that. And I would add…”
This last example doesn’t even agree with someone’s words, only the fact that some words were used!
Agreement keeps the lines of communication open, which is necessary for empathy and cooperation to come to an eventual solution.
That’s why Thompson’s Verbal Judo suggests you you diffuse a confrontational situation with, “that’s right.” This simple phrase, even if you don’t believe it, takes away their expectations of an argument.
Be well,
Jeffrey
P.S. I have a Dale Carnegie Institute course coming up, titled How to Disagree Agreeably. I’ll see what comes from that and I’ll let subscribers know what I learn!