How To Confidently Defend Yourself In A Disagreement

Spread the love

changing someone’s mind is hard part of the problem is that we often trigger one another’s emotional defenses before the content of our arguments can be evaluated and that is why in this video I want to give you five do’s and don’ts to actually change someone’s minds who may vehemently disagree with you and we will be using Steven Crowder’s change my mind segment to do it two caveats before we begin first I will only be showing Steven for the examples of behavior that I’m referring to he’s had guests who have Illustrated both the do’s and the don’ts but he’s the face so he is the one that I will be using second this has nothing to do with who is right either morally or logically sound logic is of course important especially when it comes to forming your own beliefs but this video focuses on the inner personal guidelines so that you can learn to communicate more productively so our first point is that when it comes to persuasion you are best served to go slow just about anything that gives you and the other person a rest from barrage of point/counterpoint can do the trick steven has an opportunity built into the beginning of the segment where he explains what’s about to happen this is designed to be a discussion that hopefully opens a civil dialogue I believe in searching for the truth I my presupposition is that there are two genders and if you would like to change my mind on that but Steven also catches when people are making points that aren’t responding to one another and he often suggests that people cause to catch up to one another ask you a question I want to because we like we just know I appreciate you taking the time and I appreciate you being civil um I think we’re maybe missing each other here can you explain to me someone crosses the let’s say Mexican American border right you can do the same thing if you’re ever feeling lost there an argument or if it ever looks like the person that you’re talking to isn’t quite understanding the point that you’re trying to make this far less effective from a persuasion standpoint is going quickly not from a logical perspective this may sound counterintuitive after all if you know that your point requires four supporting pillars you may be tempted to get them all out there ASAP so that you can save time and wrap the discussion up but this is actually counterproductive because when people are offered information that clashes with their belief systems they’ll often disagree reflexively if they aren’t given time to integrate the new information this leads us to our second point which is a particular form of slowing down that is the most import piece of changing someone’s mind and that is building rapport because if someone doesn’t like you the odds that you change their mind approach zero and then we see Stephen build rapport in a number of ways that to a magician might seem entirely useless for instance in those situations where you might know just a little about someone establishing the basics of their life can be essential now let me ask you this you said you come from a dear first-generation immigrant and so could you tell me a little bit about your family and your parents similarly if you have something positive to say you don’t need to hold back because you’re in an argument in fact it’s best to let those compliments fly dig the shoes okay also incredibly useful is establishing commonalities it might seem silly but sharing a hobby an acquaintance or a location that you’ve lived in immediately makes people feel that you are like them which makes them view your position with less suspicion I grew up in Longview Texas I have an in-law from Longview actually Longview would go to Tyler Wright that where they had the big escalator yeah yeah okay to be clear rapport building is not something that should be done simply at the beginning of an interaction and then cast aside in favor of syllogisms especially when things get heated it is important to allow the flow of argument to break this communicates that the relationship is more important than who is right watch Steven break after 10 minutes of discussion in this next clip very welcoming people very welcoming and food was a big thing doing we’ve sinned and we I learned the squishy bread all that stuff yes I didn’t like it at first the texture was a little weird now the opposite of building rapport is breaking rapport and while it might sound obvious you don’t want to do this if your goal is to persuade the person with whom you’re talking yes breaking rapport can get a crowd behind you and that’s partially why Christopher Hitchens is hitch slap compilations have become so popular you give me the awful impression of hate have to said of someone who hasn’t read any of the arguments against your position ever if it’s of interest we can cover the insult argument in the future but for the purposes of this video we won’t dime any deeper because those hitch laps don’t change the mind of the person with whom you are speaking similarly these insults do not work when it comes to changing someone’s mind so don’t do stuff like this who are you arguing with your Don Quixote fighting windmills man if you’re if you guys I know you like to sound really intelligent us being in paragraphs one thing you’ve misused words several times and if someone were to call you on it and be as rude as you are you might look what you might refer to as stupid okay so you really get an insulting way okay a little bit of yeah well we don’t call that friendly banter generally we call that being a dick may have noticed that Steven mentioned that he felt he had been disrespected first and I’m not trying to say whose fault it is but I do want to highlight that if you get to a point where insults have been hurled you’re no longer changing minds but competing in a dominance game and I’d recommend our video on Russell Brand for how you can go about disarming these attacks without insulting someone back instead with humor and get back to genuine persuasion but for this video it’s enough to say that insults aren’t doing anything to help you change someone’s mind and winning an insult argument isn’t going to get you very far in that department now as the conversation moves along inevitably you run into areas where you’re going to disagree that’s kind of a point of these types of arguments and the instinct here is to fact-check or push back at every single opportunity in fact that’s what many of the people who sit down with Steven do they immediately disagree despite knowing only a three to five word summary of Stevens position a better strategy is to resist the urge to point fight and instead wait until you deeply understand the other person’s position before you begin to disagree concretely you should attempt to concisely summarize how the other person feels like you see Steven do hear that so you’re saying so you’re saying that that sex and gender are very different yes okay I understood that’s your premise Phil re-transformation of society based on from what I’m hearing from you and less a mistaken abstract I haven’t heard a number I haven’t heard what defines male or female only how people feel and I just that’s to me that’s not very convincing or conducive toward a productive Society defend so I want to make sure that I’m understanding your reasoning for why it is a baby outside versus inside the womb even though it’s the same age you are saying that location and that determines whether it’s a human life because in fact when it’s inside the womb it is not a separate human being it is a part of the mother yes okay I’m not misrepresenting you there I understand you correctly yeah only does this technique prevent you from wasting time debating positions your partner doesn’t even hold but it satisfies a core emotional need for anyone who might change their mind and that is to feel that they’ve been personally validated repeating their position back to them asking for clarification that is an effective way to do that for illustration of how the opposite can hamper discussion watch the students face here when Stephen tells him he leans left politically even when that student has previously said that he doesn’t know and I think that’s because again this is a more of a leftist view I know you said you’re not really liberal but I can tell you by your worldview and economics that you do lean more left because you’re seeing it as a zero-sum game wealthy people can’t get wealthy off of the backs of poor people if they make them more poor so if you find someone verbally or visibly disagreeing with your characterization of their stance pause and clarify if you don’t it won’t matter how many points you score you’re not going to change their mind similarly when it comes time to share your own perspective no matter how certain you may be it is usually best not to state your beliefs as objective truths instead use language that makes clear you’re speaking from your individual perception of reality like here based on from what I’m hearing from you and less I’m mistaken abstract I haven’t heard a number I haven’t heard what defines male or female only how people feel and I just that’s to me that’s not very convincing or conducive toward a productive society seemed pretty upset I would say that you were shouting but I guess you don’t see it that way and that’s okay by the way I don’t provide you what is it that you wanted to clarify for me great phrases for this can include the way that I see things or unless I’m wrong or according to the studies that I’ve read these make people less likely to get defensive at being flatly told that their position is objectively wrong the opposite of this would be laying claim to objective reality that contradicts the other person okay so everything you just said is inaccurate this can sound frustrating especially if you are certain that you are right and the other person is wrong why would you want to not claim objective truth but it’s important because presenting your beliefs as tentative understandings rather than unchanging truths is more than just rhetorical your study may in fact be misleading the research that you’re citing may be upturned in five years time and the words that you heard that other persons say just a moment before might be misremembered there is always a chance that you are mistaken so it’s not only more persuasive but also more precise to add these types of qualifiers one caveat here is that people on the fence will often be persuaded by constant and proclamations that reveal no doubt but when you’re talking to someone who disagrees with you it’s much better to use qualifiers now when it comes to winning the problem here is that if there is a clear winner there is necessarily a clear loser so try not to highlight your opponents concessions or contradictions with uproar you want to frame the discussion not as a tug-of-war which you have won but as a search for agreements to which you both contributed for example we both agree if someone sought to nationalize the press that would be a problem that’d be a step toward fascism right well we both agree on that yes okay good the opposite of this practice would be dunking on someone making a show of the moments where they’ve contradicted themselves or moved to your side take a look at the students reaction here it’s reflexively defensive and unconvinced what no read the upper class it’s a different classism Hitler’s you know we say the 1% Hitler said the Jews so the point is no no it’s not a false equivalency just know that if you do dunk and you make a big deal out of these moments you’re very likely to take all that hard work that you put in and throw it away so even if you feel the other person has been a jerk or they’ve debated in bad faith or insulted you don’t gloat in victory just calmly call out that it seems like you agree it doesn’t matter that you’ve been perceived to win if your goal was to change someone’s mind because that has been accomplished now as I was finishing this video Stephen released another change my mind and at the end of it the professor with whom Stephen is speaking has one of the more profound reversals of opinion that I’ve seen in all to change my minds that I’ve watched should be the one who gets into school I agree so again at the beginning of this thing I said it’s not racist and now I’m thinking maybe it could be what’s most interesting here is that Steven and the professor spent most of their time just talking about life their stories joking around even having the students do a hip hop wave at the end they barely touched on statistics and as mentioned this is possible because one of the most powerful ways to change someone’s mind is to build strong rapport building rapport creates trust mutual understanding and likeability and without those you can’t be influential persuasive or inspiring and this goes beyond just debating whether you’re asking for a raise selling a product trying to land a date or leading a team your success heavily depends on how well you can build rapport and if you want the ability to quickly build rapport with just about anyone that you want you should definitely check out charisma University Kris muna versity is our flagship step by step guided program that is guaranteed to make you more charismatic and confident in just 30 days and when you are extremely charismatic and confident building rapport being persuasive and influencing people can become second nature now charisma diversity also comes with a daily action guide that makes it super simple for you to form charismatic habits so this is all second nature you don’t have to think about it all that you have to do is follow the guide and you will get the results and we’ve had thousands of people go through this program and get life-changing outcomes and this is what some of the members have to say so the first one comes from a guy who got promoted to a senior position very early in his career and he says I don’t even have a Bachelor diploma yet they want me to fill this position and when I asked why this was the answer they said you have great social skills which is rare for an engineer you can think quick on your feet and you are open and self-assured in your demeanor thank you so much for all that you have taught me you have truly changed my life because without charisma diversity I wouldn’t have qualified for that position in a million lifetimes now this next member writes thank you so much for creating charisma University this is a game changer that changed how I approach my boss my peers and strangers it gave me the guts to stand up for myself and others start a business and engage others even after the 30-day program I still feel like there’s so much track to run on and I’m just getting started and now this last member for today says I’ve always been bad at expressing myself in situations that weren’t one-on-one even one on I’d struggle to make connections half the time but after charisma niversity I am way more confident in saying what I think and feel even in bigger group settings I feel much more happy all the time I was even able to talk to a woman that I’ve had a crush on for a year and make a great first impression overall I love this course and I keep coming back to it whenever I need a refresher thank you so much for making it now this is just the tip of the iceberg you can see many more success stories like these in our course comments if you do decide to join now Chrisman Aversa tea also comes with a 60-day money-back guarantee which is 100% for any reason whatsoever and it’s 60 days even though the course is only 30 so that you can go through risking absolutely nothing if you decide to join and that means you either become a more charismatic and confident version of yourself in 30 days or if you’re not satisfied you can of course get every single penny back so go ahead click on the link on your screen or the link in the description to find out more about Kris muna versity if that is appealing to you also with New Year’s coming up this can be one of the best resolutions that you ever make anyway I hope that you’ve liked today’s video I wish you a Happy New Year in advance and as always I look forward to seeing you in the next one



Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

  1. I cant have an argument with my family, i do have autism i know that – i tend to argue logically while my family is in the mindset of "the more i feel im right im actually right"

    I can explain logically, premis premis conclusion and lead them there but if i do they will get EVEN MORE emotional and angry at me.

    I had an issue with a relative and told them i was hurt by past actions against me, the answer i got was "i really dont remember that"

    Tried to explain that it happened none the less.

    But if i dont remember something i did my feet still is held to the fire

    I just cant logically make myself understood to my family members, anyone else got the same problem? Solutions?

  2. Go Slow for Persuasion: Take a slower approach in discussions to give both parties time to process information, avoiding rapid point/counterpoint that can trigger defensive reactions. Use opportunities to explain the discussion's purpose and ensure mutual understanding.

    Build Rapport: Establishing a positive connection is crucial, as people are unlikely to change their minds if they don't like or respect you. Techniques include showing interest in the other person's background, giving compliments, and finding commonalities to reduce suspicion towards your viewpoints.

    Avoid Breaking Rapport: Insults and confrontational behavior can harm your ability to persuade, turning the interaction into a dominance contest rather than a constructive dialogue. Focus on maintaining civility and respect, even when disagreements arise.

    Understand Before Disagreeing: Resist the urge to immediately counter every point made by the other party. Instead, ensure you fully understand their position by summarizing their arguments back to them, which validates their perspective and can open them to reconsidering their stance.

    Use Qualifiers and Seek Common Ground: Present your beliefs as personal perspectives rather than objective truths to avoid triggering defensive responses. Highlight areas of agreement and contribute to a collective search for truth, rather than focusing on winning the argument.

  3. If you want to see a master of good faith argumentation and effective changing of minds, I highly recommend you checkout Anthony Magnabasco. He does street epistemology, where he sets a timer and has a conversation with a persserby who's willing to discuss something they believe. At the start he asks them how confident they are that the belief they've selected is true. He then talks to them about why they believe and the potential pitfalls of their epistemology, or possible alternative explanations. After the timer goes off, he asks if they want to continue and most of them do. At the end, he asks them if their level of confidence has changed. Most of them say it's come down, and in some cases a lot. There are no raised voices, and he is one of the most polite and respectful people you'll ever see.

  4. The so-called "Hitchslap" is pathetic 99% of the time. Hitchens was a piss-poor debater, and his "arguments" were lame. He never convinced me of anything. I don't recall a single recorded debate he won.

  5. Chowder’s whole bit is pretending to have his mind open to change while stacking the deck enough that he never has to. That’s not to say that he isn’t a good debater or isn’t charismatic because he certainly is. Not really related to the video but that is what he does.

  6. How to defend yourself in argument
    If you have to defend yourself
    In argument you are always behind
    In any argument
    You start on the offense
    And don’t allow them to put you on the defence
    Then you loose
    Stay on the offence
    Don’t fall into their trap
    Make them prove their
    Their argument
    Put them on the defence
    And another point is logic
    The problem logic
    Is not considering and recognizing their are variables
    Which are unknowns
    That affect logic
    Rennet start on the offence and stay on point

  7. One of Crowder's problems is that his nature to be a comedian and entertainer while wanting to win a debate comes out while he's supposed to be letting the guest change his mind.

  8. for the example with the back professor, it wasn't so much crowders ability to change someones mind as it was the professor openness and ability to accept change and more information. He didn't let his ego get in the way.

  9. Always remember kids: Just because someone won an argument doesn't mean they are correct. If you feel you are fundamentally correct but you are unable to communicate that effectively than you are at a disadvantage. As a business consultant I see it happen all the time in meetings, someone gets steam rolled by a more charismatic and assertive person. Not only can the 1 on 1 argument be "won" by the person in the wrong, that charismatic person can convince the rest of the people in the meeting that the wrong thing is the right thing to do. Same thing happens in politics and social debates.

  10. Gloating in victory is a MUST with those who's argument is to despise and discredit people. These are usually narcissistic, and the only thing that can get the attention of a narcissist is if you target their image or their money (that is why they go after everyone's reputation and funds).
    So, YOU HAVE TO EXPOSE THE PSYCHOPATY, and a good way to do that is to GLOAT. The narcissist will lose it and finally ridicule HIMSELF, BY HIS OWN STUPIDITY.
    THAT makes a great point to the audience, especially those on the fence. You sacrificed your rapport with the interlocutor, but this type of interlocutor CANNOT BE CONVINCED anyways because their position is nothing more than an ADD-ON to THEIR IMAGE.
    That is why they go berserk when you disagree with "them", they feel you attack their image. Indeed, by trying to lay down sound arguments against their craziness, to them, you are actually trying to take away the very foundation of their identity, as they use these ignorant opinions to justify their grandiose sense of self and impression of superiority… the very ones that make them despise and discredit people as an argument….

  11. I don’t really agree with most of Stevens politics, but I actually think he’s a pretty decent guy at the core and he’s a very skilled conversationalist, so I enjoy watching him.

  12. I wish I was here 2 years ago when all the people that hate crowder because he's not a lefty were prancing around in the comments.

  13. I think the only thing I could learn from this guy, would center around the possibility that someone has changed HIS mind. Otherwise…it's not about constructive debate…it's about him show-casing his ability to dominate people, regardless of what's right or wrong. The seeds of propaganda and leading people down paths that lead to either nothing, or misinformation.

    I'll admit he does what he does well…but is it really constructive ?