Chapter 4. Golden Rule 4: Listen and listen again

The goal of an argument is to explain to another person your concerns or views about something and hopefully to win them over to your way of thinking. Expressing yourself clearly is therefore crucial and we shall be talking about that later. But, if you’re to persuade another person, you must listen to what they’re saying.

Listen, listen, listen. It’s such good advice I mention it thrice.

There are three important reasons for this:

• You will only persuade someone of something if you address the concerns they have.

• You must present your arguments in terms that the other person will find convincing.

• By keeping quiet (when listening) you’re giving the other person time to present their arguments. The weakness of their view may become more apparent to them and to others, and they might very well “shoot themselves in the foot.”

As a general rule, you should spend more time listening than talking. Aim for listening for 75 percent of the conversation and giving your own arguments for about 25 percent.

Listening to someone is not just keeping quiet while they’re talking. It involves trying to understand what the person is saying and why. If you don’t understand, then ask for clarification. Some people will need help explaining their view. As we said earlier, some people just state their conclusions and need to be encouraged to explain their reasoning.

“That’s really interesting. I’ve never met someone who thought that the world was flat. Why do you think that?”

Asking a question of the other person is important because it reveals to you where they’re coming from and what are the foundations of their arguments. Only once you know these can you seek to challenge them.

You might find that the person doesn’t know why they think what they do. You may even need to help them:

“You say you think cousins who marry are disgusting. Is that because of religious reasons? Or are you worried about any children they may have with birth defects?”

Of course some (maybe most) people haven’t thought through why they have a particular view.

This argument is not going well. The problem, for both Sheila and Brian, is that they’re not listening to what the other person is saying. Brian is not addressing Sheila’s real objection to the proposed dismissal. He can make as many points as he likes about the financial wisdom of the decision, but none of those are addressing Sheila’s central concern, which is about Lucy’s children. Similarly, Sheila can make as many points as she wants about the children, but that’s not considering the issue from Brian’s perspective. It’s as if they’re trying to play tennis together, but each is hitting a different ball. The argument is not going to get anywhere. Brian needs to persuade Sheila that the dismissal is not going to be harsh on Lucy and her family, or to think of a way of lessening the blow. Perhaps, for example, the dismissal could be postponed until after Christmas. Sheila needs to suggest other ways of saving money if Brian is to be persuaded not to fire Lucy.

So a key part of winning an argument is listening to the statements that the other person is making and addressing them. If you don’t, you’ll keep making points that the other person won’t agree with, and you’re not addressing the reason for your disagreement.

Consider this discussion between Alison and Charles:

This argument highlights a common problem when people argue. There are some people who focus on the big picture. They find statistics and studies very convincing. Others prefer looking at issues in relation to an individual case.

In the argument between Alison and Charles, Charles is the kind of person who finds it easier to consider issues by focusing on individual cases. So, if Alison wants to persuade him of her point of view she should give him examples of cases of people who are “lazy scroungers.” Similarly, if Charles wants to persuade Alison of his point of view he needs to find studies or the views of experts to support it. She seems to be the kind of person who is not convinced by the stories of individuals.

In fact, most people probably find a mixture of personal stories and statistics convincing. So, especially if you’re talking to a group of people or to a person you don’t know very well, try to give arguments based on the broad picture as well as on an individual scenario—as in this example:

Here, the arguer has focused on the general figures and statistics, but has also given an individual example of the benefit of the proposal.

Remember that the person you’re listening to may have core beliefs that you’re not going to shake in the course of a short argument. You will not persuade a patriotic American that his country’s foreign policy in the past two decades has been profoundly wrong. And a religious person may be more likely to be sympathetic to a religious-based argument than to one based on the assumption that there is no God.

There are less obvious points to bear in mind, too. We all have views about ourselves. We have a particular image of ourselves and can get most disturbed when it’s apparent that others do not see us as we see ourselves. In an argument it can be a good idea to appeal to values that a person holds dear.

In this argument Bob is appealing to Sanjev’s sense of identity as a person who is trustworthy. Most people care deeply about their reputations and how they are thought of by others. Appealing to a person’s core values and seeking to connect your arguments with those will be persuasive.

This is important too when considering which statistics you should use. If you know the person is a keen supporter of a particular children’s charity, say, then see if you can find a study by them supporting your conclusion. At the very least avoid statistics from organizations that the person you’re arguing with opposes. A militant atheist is not going to be convinced by a report on the power of prayer prepared by the Church of England. They would be more convinced if you could find a report from an atheist concluding that prayer can do some good.

This argument worked well. It could easily have gone wrong. Mom did well to move to establish some facts they could agree on. Dad, once he saw the key facts, agreed and they were able to find a solution.

There’s another lesson from this argument. The use of pronouns can be important. Talking of “we” can bring in the other person, and is a useful way to highlight what you agree on.

Link up with a person’s positives. Where possible find areas of agreement:

“I agree you’ve made some great points in that presentation. However, we do need to weigh the disadvantages with the benefits.”

Everyone likes compliments and, even though it sounds old-fashioned, flattery. Just because you’re in an argument with someone doesn’t mean you can’t be nice to them!

Sometimes it’s useful to proceed in a discussion on the basis that a particular fact is true. For example, you might say: “Look, let’s assume that X is true, if so I agree with you.” You make it clear that you do not necessarily agree that X is true, and indeed if X turns out not to be true you will not agree.

This is particularly helpful if you think you have a strong case, even if your claim is wrong.

Unless Bob makes this tactical move the argument may be stonewalled on the debate over whether or not there was a lie. However, if Bob succeeds in his argument that Lisa should be kept on whether or not she lied, then it matters much less whether or not there was a lie.

A similar tactic can be used to find a “contingent solution” to the argument:

In a case like this, where the facts are unknown or disputed, there’s not much point carrying on the argument until the facts are known. It’s better either to stop the argument until the facts are known, or to reach an agreement that will depend on the facts once they are known.