Problem promise arguments solution conviction. Avoidance of the problem, distraction, joke

The third lesson of the course is devoted to argumentation and its practical features. But before we move on to the main material, let's talk a little about why in general from the position critical thinking it is necessary to be able to argue your opinion, and also to trust only reasoned opinions.

What is argumentation and why is it important

The term "argumentation" comes from the Latin word "argumentatio", which means "bringing arguments". This means that we give any arguments (arguments) in order to arouse confidence or sympathy for the thesis, hypothesis or statement put forward by us. The complex of such arguments is the argumentation.

The task of argumentation- make sure that the addressee accepts the theory put forward by the author. And by and large, argumentation can be called an interdisciplinary study of conclusions as a result of logical reasoning. Argumentation takes place in the scientific, and in everyday life, and in the legal, and in the political spheres; always used in conversations, dialogues, persuasion, etc.

The ultimate goal of argumentation consists in persuading the audience of the truth of any situation, inclining people to accept the author's point of view, prompting reflection or action.

Argumentation is a phenomenon of a historical nature, and it changes over time. For its expression language tools, such as spoken or written statements. These statements, their interrelationships and influence on a person are studied by the theory of argumentation.

Argumentation is a purposeful activity, and it can either strengthen or weaken someone's beliefs. It is also a social activity, because when a person argues his position, he influences those with whom he contacts. This implies a dialogue and an active reaction of the opposite side to evidence and evidence. In addition, the adequacy of the interlocutor is assumed, and his ability to rationally weigh the arguments, accept or challenge them.

It is thanks to argumentation that a person can clearly explain his point of view to someone, confirm its truth with strong arguments, and eliminate misunderstanding. Competently reasoned judgments minimize doubts, speak about the veracity and seriousness of the put forward hypotheses, assumptions and statements. In addition, if a person is able to make strong arguments in his favor, this is an indicator that he has more than once critically evaluated all the information he has.

For the same reason, it is worth trusting only those information that can be adequately argued. This will mean that they are verified, proven and true (or at least an attempt has been made to do so). Actually, this is the goal of critical thinking - to question something in order to find confirming or refuting facts.

From all that has been said above, we can conclude that argumentation is the most correct and open way to influence the opinions and decisions of other people. Naturally, in order for teaching critical thinking to give a result, and for argumentation to be effective, it is necessary to know not only its theoretical, but also its practical foundations. We will continue with them.

Practical foundations of argumentation: structure, basic rules, criteria for evaluating arguments

The scope of the concept of "argumentation" is very deep. Considering that this is perhaps the most difficult of the stages of persuasion, it requires a person to have knowledge and possession of the material, endurance and skill, assertiveness and correctness of statements. At the same time, it must be remembered that the author of the arguments always depends on his interlocutor, because the latter will decide whether the arguments are acceptable to him or not.

The argument has its own structure. It looks like this:

• Proposing a thesis - the formulation of one's position, proposal or opinion
• Bringing arguments - this includes evidence, evidence and arguments through which the author substantiates his position (arguments should explain why the interlocutor should believe or agree with you)
• Demonstration - meaning the demonstration of the relationship of the thesis with the arguments (it is at this stage that conviction is achieved)

With the help of argumentation, you can partially or completely change the opinion and point of view of the interlocutor. However, to achieve success, you need to follow a few important rules:

• It is necessary to operate with convincing, precise, clear and simple concepts.
• The information must be truthful (if the reliability of the data is not established, then you do not need to use them until everything has been verified)
• In the process of conversation, you need to select a certain pace and specific methods of argumentation, based on the characteristics of your character and temperament.
• All arguments must be valid; no personal attacks are allowed
• It is recommended to refrain from using non-business statements that make it difficult to understand the information; it is better to operate with visual arguments; when covering negative information, its source must be indicated without fail

For a person who is well acquainted with what he is talking about, it will not be difficult to find good arguments. But most often, if there is a task to convince your interlocutor, it is better to stock up on convincing arguments in advance. For example, you can sketch a list of them, and then analyze and determine the most effective ones. But here you should know how to identify strong and weak arguments. This is done using the criteria for their evaluation:

• Effective arguments are always based on facts. Based on this, from a list compiled in advance, you can immediately discard information that cannot be supported by facts.
• Effective arguments are always directly related to the subject of discussion. All other arguments must be excluded.
• Effective arguments are always relevant to the interlocutor. For this reason, it is necessary to find out in advance what interest the arguments will be for the addressee.

If you are sure that your arguments meet the proposed criteria, you can proceed directly to the argument. Based on this, the development of critical thinking involves the development of the main methods of argumentation.

Basic argumentation methods

Argumentation theory proposes to use a lot of argumentation methods. We will talk about the most effective of them from our point of view. They are suitable for both business and everyday communication.

fundamental method

The meaning of the method is to directly address the person to whom you want to acquaint the facts that represent the basis of your conclusions.

Of the greatest importance here is numerical and statistical information, which serves as an ideal background for confirming the arguments. Unlike verbal (and often controversial) data, numbers and statistics are much more convincing and objective.

But one should not be too zealous in applying such information. Too many digits are tiring, and arguments lose their effect. It is also important that incorrect data can mislead the listener.

EXAMPLE: A university teacher gives statistics about first-year students. Based on it, 50% of female students gave birth to children. The figure is impressive, but in reality it turns out that in the first year there were only two girls, and only one gave birth.

Ignore method

Most often, ignoring is used in disputes, disputes and conversations. The point is, if you can't disprove a fact your opponent is offering you, you can successfully ignore its meaning and value. When you see that a person attaches importance to something that, in your opinion, is not of particular importance, you simply fix it and let it pass by.

contradiction method

For the most part, this method can be called defensive. Its basis is to identify contradictions in the opponent's reasoning and focus attention on them. As a result, if his arguments are unfounded, you will easily win.

EXAMPLE (dispute between Pigasov and Rudnev on the topic of the existence of beliefs, described by I. S. Turgenev):

"- Wonderful! Rudin said. “So, in your opinion, there are no convictions?”

- No, it doesn't exist.

- Is that your belief?

How can you say they don't exist. Here's one for you, for the first time. Everyone in the room smiled and looked at each other.

"Yes, but" method

The presented method gives the best results when the opponent is biased towards the topic of the conversation. Considering that objects, phenomena and processes have both positive and negative sides, this method provides an opportunity to see and discuss alternative ways to solve a problem.

EXAMPLE: “Like you, I am well aware of all the benefits you have listed. However, you did not take into account some shortcomings ... ”(Further on, the one-sided opinion of the interlocutor is consistently supplemented by arguments from a new position).

Comparison method

This method is highly efficient, because. makes the speech of the author bright and impressive. Also this method can be called one of the forms of the method of "drawing conclusions". Thanks to him, the argument becomes weighty and explicit. For reinforcement, it is recommended to use well-known analogies with phenomena and objects.

EXAMPLE: "Life in the Arctic Circle can be compared to being in a refrigerator whose door never opens."

Boomerang method

"Boomerang" allows you to use his own "weapon" against the opponent. The method lacks probative power, but despite this, it has the most serious effect on the listener, especially if wit is used.

EXAMPLE: During a speech by V.V. Mayakovsky to the residents of one of the Moscow districts about the solution of problems of an international nature in the USSR, someone from the audience suddenly asked: “Mayakovsky, what nationality are you? You were born in Baghdati, so you are Georgian, right?”.

Mayakovsky looked at this man and saw an elderly worker who sincerely wants to understand the problem and just as sincerely asks his question. For this reason, he kindly replied: "Yes, among Georgians - I am Georgian, among Russians - I am Russian, among Americans - I would be an American, among Germans - I am German."

At the same time, two guys from the first row decided to make fun of: “And among the fools?”.

To this Mayakovsky replied: “And among the fools I am for the first time!”.

Partial argumentation method

One of the most popular methods. Its meaning boils down to the fact that the opponent’s monologue is divided into clearly distinguishable parts using the phrases “this is clearly not true”, “this question can be looked at in different ways”, “this is for sure”, etc.

It is interesting that the well-known thesis serves as the basis of the method: if something dubious or unreliable can always be found in any argument and conclusion, then confident pressure on the interlocutor makes it possible to clarify even the most difficult situation.

EXAMPLE: “Everything you told us about how the treatment facilities theoretically perfectly correct, but in practice it is often necessary to make serious exceptions to the rules ”(The following are reasonable arguments in favor of your position).

Visible Support Method

Refers to the methods for which you need to prepare. You need to use it in situations where you are the opponent, for example, in a dispute. The essence of the method is as follows: suppose the interlocutor voiced his arguments to you about the problem under discussion, and the word passes to you. This is where the trick lies: at the beginning of your argument, you do not express anything in opposition to the words of your opponent; you even bring new arguments in support of it, surprising everyone present with this.

But this is only an illusion, because a counterattack will follow. It goes something like this: “But…. in support of your point of view, you forgot to cite several other facts ... (list these facts), and that's not all, because ... ”(Your arguments and evidence follow).

Your ability to think critically and argue your position will be seriously developed, even if you limit yourself to mastering the above methods. However, if your goal is to achieve professionalism in this area, this will not be enough. To start moving forward, you need to explore other components of the argument. The first of these is the rules of reasoning.

Argumentation rules

The rules of argumentation are quite simple, but each of them differs in a set of its own features. There are four of these rules:

Rule One

Use persuasive, precise, clear and simple terms. Keep in mind that persuasiveness is easily lost if the arguments being made are vague and abstract. Also take into account that in most cases people catch and understand much less than they want to show.

Rule Two

It is advisable to select the method of argumentation and its pace in accordance with the characteristics of your temperament (you can read about the types of temperament). This rule assumes:

• Evidence and facts presented individually are more effective than those presented together.
• A few (three to five) strongest arguments are more powerful than many average facts.
• Argumentation should not take the form of a "heroic" monologue or declaration
• With the help of well-placed pauses, you can achieve a better result than with the help of a stream of words.
• Active rather than passive construction of statements has a greater impact on the interlocutor, especially when evidence needs to be presented (for example, the phrase "we will do it" is much better than the phrase "it can be done", the word "conclude" is much better than the phrase "make a conclusion" etc.)

Rule Three

The argument must always look correct. This means:

• If the person is right, admit it openly, even if the consequences may not be good for you.
• If the interlocutor accepted any arguments, in the future try to use them.
• Avoid empty phrases that indicate a decrease in concentration and lead to inappropriate pauses to gain time or search for a thread of conversation (such phrases can be: “it was not said”, “you can do this and that”, “along with this”, “otherwise saying", "more or less", "as I said", etc.)

Rule Four

Adapt the arguments to the personality of the interlocutor:

• Build an argument, taking into account the motives and goals of the opponent
• Remember that so-called "over-persuasiveness" can cause rejection on the part of the opponent.
• Try not to use wording and expressions that make it difficult to understand and argue.
• Strive for the most visual presentation of your evidence, considerations and ideas with examples and comparisons, but remember that they should not diverge from the experience of the interlocutor, i.e. should be close and understandable to him
• Avoid extremes and exaggerations so as not to distrust your opponent and not to question your entire argument.

Following these rules, you will increase the attention and activity of the interlocutor, minimize the abstractness of your statements, link arguments much more effectively and ensure maximum understanding of your position.

Communication between two people, when it comes to disputes and discussions, almost always takes place according to the "attacker - defender" scheme. Obviously, you can end up in either the first or the second position. Argumentation structures are formed according to this principle.

Argumentation constructions and argumentation techniques

In total, there are two main constructions of argumentation:

• Evidential argumentation (used when you need to justify or prove something)
• Counterargumentation (used when you need to refute someone's statements and theses)

To use both structures, it is customary to operate with the same techniques.

Argumentation techniques

Whatever your persuasive influence, you should focus on ten techniques that will optimize your argument and make it more effective:

1. Competence. Make your arguments more objective, credible, and deep.
2. visibility. Use familiar associations to the maximum and avoid abstract formulations.
3. Clarity. Link facts and evidence and beware of understatement, confusion and ambiguity.
4. Rhythm. Intensify your speech as you get closer to the end, but don't lose sight of the key points.
5. Orientation. When discussing anything, stick to a specific course, solve clear problems and strive for clear goals, in advance in in general terms introducing them to the opponent.
6. Suddenness. Learn to link facts and details in an unusual and unexpected way, and practice using this technique.
7. Repetition. Focus the interlocutor's attention on the main ideas and provisions so that the opponent perceives the information better.
8. Borders. Define the boundaries of reasoning in advance and do not reveal all the cards in order to maintain the liveliness of the conversation and the active attention of the interlocutor.
9. Saturation. When presenting your position, make emotional accents that force your opponent to be as attentive as possible. Don't forget to lower your emotionality as well to reinforce your opponent's thoughts and give him and yourself a little breather.
10. Humor and irony. Be witty and joke, but don't be overbearing. It is best to act this way when you need to fend off the interlocutor's attacks or make arguments that are unpleasant for him.

With the use of these techniques, your argumentative arsenal will be replenished with serious weapons. But, in addition to the methodological aspects, which for the most part include the technique of argumentation, the art of critical thinking and consistent reasoning is excellently developed by the tactics of argumentation.

Argumentation tactics

Mastering the tactics of argumentation is not as difficult as it might seem. To do this, you just need to learn its basic provisions.

Using Arguments

Arguments must begin confidently. There should be no hesitation. The main arguments are stated at any suitable moment, but it is better to do it constantly in a new place.

Choice of technique

Technique (methods) should be selected taking into account psychological characteristics opponent and your own.

avoidance of confrontation

In order for the argumentation phase to proceed normally, one should strive to avoid, because different positions and a tense atmosphere, like a flame, can spread to other areas of communication. And here we must point out a few nuances:

• Critical questions are considered either at the very beginning or at the very end of the argumentation stage.
• Delicate issues are discussed in private with the interlocutor even before the start of the conversation or discussion, because. tête-à-tête achieved much greater results than with witnesses
• When the situation is difficult, there is always a pause, and only after everyone has “let off steam”, communication continues.

Maintain interest

It is most effective to offer the interlocutor options and information to arouse his interest in the topic in advance. This means first describing the current state of affairs with an emphasis on likely negative consequences, and then pointing out possible solutions and detailing their benefits.

Bilateral Argumentation

With it, you can influence a person whose position does not coincide with yours. You need to point out the pros and cons of your proposal. The effectiveness of this method is affected by the intellectual abilities of the opponent. But, regardless of this, it is necessary to present all the shortcomings that could become known to him from other people and from other sources of information. As for one-sided argumentation, it is used when the interlocutor has formed his own opinion and when he has no objections to your point of view.

Sequence of pros and cons

Based on the conclusions, the main formative effect on the opponent's position is provided by such a presentation of information, where first they list positive sides and then negative.

Personified Argumentation

It is known that the persuasiveness of facts depends on the perception of people (people, as a rule, are not critical of themselves). Therefore, first of all, you need to try to determine the point of view of the interlocutor, and then insert it into your construction of the argument. In any case, one should try not to allow contradictory arguments of the opponent and own argumentation. The easiest way to achieve this is to directly refer to your counterpart, for example:

• What do you think about this?
• You're right
• How do you think this issue can be resolved?

When you recognize the correctness of the opponent and show attention to him, you will encourage him, which means that he will be more receptive to your argument.

Drawing conclusions

It happens that the argument is excellent, but the desired goal is not achieved. The reason for this is the inability to generalize information and facts. Based on this, for greater persuasiveness, it is imperative to independently draw conclusions and offer them to the interlocutor. Remember that the facts are not always obvious.

Counterargument

If suddenly you are presented with arguments that seem to you impeccable, there is no need to panic. On the contrary, you should keep your cool and apply critical thinking:

• Are the given facts correct?
• Can this information be refuted?
• Is it possible to identify contradictions and inconsistencies in the facts?
• Are the proposed conclusions wrong (at least in part)?

The presented tactics can be the final element of your entire argumentation strategy. And by and large, the information that you got acquainted with is quite enough to learn how to professionally argue your point of view, position and arguments. But still, this tutorial won't be complete unless we give a few more suggestions.

We want to conclude the third lesson of our course with a small talk about persuasive arguments - another important element of influencing the opinion of a person and a group of people.

A few persuasive arguments

What is persuasion? If you do not understand the mass of all kinds of interpretations and interpretations, persuasion can be called the use of such words that will incline a communication partner to accept your point of view, believe your words or do as you say. And how can this be achieved?

The famous American radical organizer and public figure Saul Alinsky created a completely simple theory of persuasion. It says that a person perceives information from the standpoint of personal experience. If you try to get your point across to another without taking into account what he wants to tell you, you may not even count on success. To put it simply, if you want to convince someone, you need to give them arguments that match their beliefs, expectations, and emotions.

Referring to this, there are four main options for action when arguing:

• Factual data. While statistics can sometimes be wrong, the facts are almost always undeniable. Empirical evidence is considered one of the most persuasive tools for building the basis of an argument.
• emotional impact. As one of the best American psychologists Abraham Maslow said, people respond best when we turn to their emotions, i.e. we touch on such things as family, love, patriotism, peace, etc. If you want to sound more convincing, express yourself in such a way as to hurt a person to the quick (of course, within reason and preferably in a positive way).
• Personal experience. Stories from own life and information verified by personal experience are wonderful tools for influencing the listener. Actually, you yourself can see this for yourself: listen to a person who tells you something “according to the textbook”, and then listen to someone who himself has experienced or done what he is talking about. Who do you trust more?
• Direct appeal. Of all the existing words, you can choose the one that people will never get tired of listening to - this is the word "You". Everyone asks himself the question: “What is the use of this for me?”. Hence one more: when trying to convince someone of something, always put yourself in his place, and when you understand his way of thinking, contact him with the help of “You” and explain what you need in “his” language.

Surprisingly, these four simple techniques do not apply in life and work. huge amount people, in particular those who, for some reason, downplay the virtues of personalization, appeal to emotions and direct communication with people. But this is a gross mistake, and if you want to become convincing in your words, you should by no means allow it. Combine everything in this lesson into a single whole - and you will be amazed at how easily and quickly you can learn to be persuasive in any life situation.

Developing critical thinking and reasoning skills will provide you with a huge number of advantages in family, daily and professional life. But then again: there are things that can get in your way. What are these obstacles? We will answer this question in the next lesson, where we list most of the potential interference and give a lot of interesting examples.

Do you want to test your knowledge?

If you want to test your theoretical knowledge on the topic of the course and understand how it suits you, you can take our test. Only 1 option can be correct for each question. After you select one of the options, the system automatically moves on to the next question.

AT law enforcement The most widely used methods of influence, which are based on verbal means. These methods include:

Persuasion (argument);

Compulsion;

Suggestions;

Informing.

Method of persuasion (argumentation)

Persuasive influence in professional communication is achieved through argumentation. Argumentation is a logical and communicative process aimed at substantiating the position of one person for the purpose of its subsequent understanding and acceptance by another person.

Argumentation is the statement and discussion of arguments in favor of the proposed solution or position in order to form or change a person's attitude to this decision or position.

The argumentation structure includes the thesis, arguments and demonstration. The thesis is the formulation of your position (your opinion, your proposal to the other side). Arguments are the arguments, positions, evidence that you give to justify your own point of view. Arguments answer the question: "Why should we believe in something or do something?" Demonstration is the connection of the thesis and argument (i.e., the process of proof, persuasion).

Conditions for constructive reasoning:

A. The employee must be clearly aware of the purpose of the argument and openly formulate it for the object of influence, for example: "I will now try to convince you of the advantages of my proposal ^", "I will still try to convince you ...". If the purpose of the impact is not proven to the addressee, he may perceive it as cunning, manipulation, deceit.

B. Before making an attempt at argumentation, it is necessary to obtain the consent of the addressee to listen to the employee, for example: "does it make sense to convince you, do you agree to listen to my arguments first ...?".

Argumentation should be carried out in a state of "emotional calm" of the addressee, for which it is necessary to carry out preliminary work on the formation of a state of psychological comfort.

D. One cannot be persuasive at all. You can be persuasive for someone in particular, persuasiveness arises in the process of interaction with specific person, given the logic of this interaction and relationships.

General rules of reasoning.

1. Politeness and correctness. With any statements of a person, the employee must remain polite. Statements that degrade the dignity of a person are unacceptable. Irony and sarcasm should also be avoided, for example: "I thought you had at least average intelligence." Such statements violate emotional comfort and reduce the effectiveness of the impact.

2. Simplicity. All statements should be simple, understandable to the interlocutor, not contain abstruse expressions. It is unacceptable, for example, like this: "Let's approach the problem of testimonies of witnesses ontologically ...".

3. General speech. In the process of argumentation, you need to use a language that is understandable to both interlocutors. In some cases, it is allowed to speak with the object of influence in his language, even if it is too simple and contains elements of profanity.

4. brevity. you can not force a person to listen to his long statements. Brevity is one of the criteria of respect for the interlocutor.

5. visibility. When arguing in favor of his proposal, the employee can, if necessary, illustrate his statements clearly: with photographs, examples, objects, figurative comparisons.

6. Prevention of over-persuasiveness. Excessive persuasiveness challenges the interlocutor's sense of importance of his intellect and provokes a reaction of resistance. Direct indications of errors in judgment, as well as an excessive number of arguments, can become suspicious. It is necessary to act according to the principle: "Better less is more."

Argumentation Techniques and Counterargumentation Technique of Socrates' Positive Answers is a consistent proof of the proposed solution. Each step of the proof begins with the words: "do you agree that ...". If the person answers positively, this step can be considered completed and proceed to the next one. If - negative, the employee continues with the words: "Sorry, I did not formulate the question very well. Do you agree that ..." until the person agrees with all the steps of the proof or the decision as a whole. "Do you agree to confirm this in court?".

When using this method, asking questions other than "Do you agree that..." is not recommended. Especially dangerous are the questions: "Why do you object to the obvious facts?".

Technique of Two-Way Argumentation - this is an open presentation of both the strengths and weaknesses of the proposed solution. Wherein strengths should prevail. This enables the person to weigh the positive and negative aspects of the decision himself, which will avoid problems in the future when negative sides will become obvious.

Argument rewriting technique. Tracking the progress of the solution to the problem or task proposed by the opponent, together with him until a contradiction is found, indicating the validity of the opposite conclusions.

Aerobatics method: help the person come to the conclusion: "I was wrong."

Argument separation technique. Separating the arguments of the object of influence into true, doubtful and erroneous and discussing them according to the formula:

2. "It's true, I'm already less sure that ..." or "I can not get rid of some doubt that ..." or "I wish it were that way, but as it shows ..., this is not always...." (followed by a dubious argument).

With the help of arguments, you can completely or partially change the position and thoughts of your interlocutor.

If you have experience, know the situation, understand personality traits, are observant, attentive to details, then you already have some arguments at your disposal. However, in most cases, if you are going to convince someone of something, you need to stock up on convincing arguments in advance. To do this, you can, for example, make a list of them, evaluate each argument and choose the strongest.

There are several criteria for evaluating arguments:

1. Strong arguments must be based on facts. Therefore, from the list of your arguments, you can immediately exclude those that you cannot support with factual data.

2. Your arguments must be directly relevant to the case.

3. Your arguments must be relevant to your opponents, so you need to find out in advance how interesting and timely they can be for them.

Rhetorical methods of argumentation. Consider the most significant rhetorical methods for situations of professional communication.

1. Fundamental method. Its essence is in a direct appeal to the interlocutor whom you acquaint with the facts, which is the basis of your evidence. Numerical examples and statistical data play an essential role here. They are the perfect backdrop to support your thesis.

2. Method of contradiction. It is defensive in nature. This method is based on identifying contradictions in reasoning, as well as the argument of the interlocutor and focusing on them.

3. Method of figurative comparison. It is of exceptional importance in cases where comparisons are well chosen.

4. Method "yes, .. but ...". It is best used when the interlocutor treats the topic of conversation with some prejudice. Since any process, phenomenon or object has both positive and negative aspects in its manifestation, the "yes, .. but ..." method allows us to consider other options for resolving the issue.

5. The method of "pieces" is similar to the method of rearranging arguments. The essence of the method is to divide your interlocutor's monologue into clearly distinguishable parts: "this is for sure", "doubt", "there are all kinds of points of view", "this is clearly wrong".

6. Boomerang method. Gives the opportunity to use the "weapon" of the interlocutor against him. This method has no force of proof, but it has an impact on the audience, especially if it is used with a fair amount of wit.

7. Method of ignoring. As a rule, it is most often used in conversations, disputes, disputes. Its essence: the fact stated by the interlocutor cannot be refuted by you, but its value and significance can be successfully ignored.

8. Output method. It is based on a gradual subjective change in the merits of the case.

9. Method of visible support. It requires especially careful preparation. It is most appropriate to use it when you are acting as an opponent (for example, in a discussion).

False arguments. In the process of solving the problems of professional communication, a law enforcement officer may encounter a situation where false arguments are used against him.

Psychologist D. Halpern identified the twenty-one most common false arguments:

The influence of associations. If two events occur close to each other in time and / or space, then a connection is formed between them in the human mind. Therefore, when one of these events occurs, a person begins to expect that the other will also occur. The person may begin to feel associated states.

You should be very careful about messages based on associations. If this argument is revealed, another part of the message should be analyzed, because it can be based on an appeal to the emotional, rather than the rational component of the personality.

Arguments against personality. This term is adopted to mean "calling by proper names". With this form of persuasion, one can speak against the people who support an idea, and not against the idea itself. The false argument is based on antipathy for the person, not for the idea itself.

Emphasis on pity (empathic influence). It is very easy to single it out in the proposed premise: "Do this because we need your help." Such parcels can often be used in court by the defense. At the same time, the question of the real guilt or innocence of the suspect is not discussed, but it is said what a hard life he had, how it left him, how sad the circumstances were. AT Everyday life this type of argumentation is remarkably used by people with an external type of locus of control.

Popularity and recommendations. You are being urged to support a position or take an action because everyone is doing it. It is implicitly assumed that "if everyone does it, it must be right". A variant of this method is the use of recommendations. The fallacy is exacerbated when the recommendations do not even address the area in which popular personality has competence. In the latter case, the false argument intersects with "recourse to authorities."

Wrong dichotomy. So "sometimes called the simplification of the problem or black-and-white arguments, when a person is asked to choose one of two positions, without offering him other options or" gray areas ".

The main mistake of a person who is faced with a similar situation is that she begins to choose "from what is offered", thus limiting her own field of consideration of this problem.

Appeal to pride or vanity. In this case, reliance on praise or flattery is used. While flattery in and of itself may not be "evil intent," it can be used to confuse the issue.

Fraud or concealment of information. It is a method of persuasion by withholding information supporting an undesirable position.

Vicious circle. In this type of reasoning, the premise is a differently formulated conclusion. If you construct a structural diagram of this type of argument, you get a circle, since the restatement of the conclusion serves as support for the conclusion. For example: "The victim needed to increase the speed limit because the current speed limit is too low."

Irrelevant arguments. In Latin, this type of false argument is called non sequitur, which means "it is not a consequence." In other words, the argument or premise is unrelated to the conclusion. The most important criterion for the persuasiveness of an argument or recommendation is the presence of premises associated with the conclusion.

"Slope" or continuum. One of the arguments against accepting judgments about the unification of schools for different ethnic groups inhabiting the region was that if we allow the court to decide which schools our children will attend, then the court will also begin to specify whom we will let go to church, whom we will invite to visit and even whom we will marry. The argument is that if we place events at one end of this continuum under the jurisdiction of the court, then the court will take over the other events included in it. Most life events can be arranged in a row. But it does not at all follow from this that actions concerning one part of this series will be applicable to others as well.

"Straw Scarecrow". The straw man is unstable and easily knocked over. This is the name of the method when the opponent's conclusion is presented in the weakest form, and then it is easily refuted. At the same time, an opponent who opposes a certain conclusion distorts the arguments in favor of this conclusion and replaces them with much weaker ones.

"Part is whole". Wrong arguments like "part - whole" is reverse side the same error. In using this argument, one assumes that judgments that are true of the whole are also true of all its parts, and that judgments that are true of the parts are also true of the whole.

Use of ignorance. The peculiarity of using ignorance is that in this way it is often possible to support two or more completely different conclusions. This should serve as a sign that the arguments presented are erroneous. Our ignorance is used to prove that the conclusion is wrong because there is no evidence to support it. Our ignorance of the matter can also be used to support a conclusion by arguing that it is true because there is no evidence against it.

Weak and inappropriate analogies. Using analogies is one of the basic thinking skills. We turn to analogies when we encounter something new and try to make sense of it based on what we already know. While analogies are an extremely useful tool for understanding, they can be misused. Two objects or events are similar if they have certain properties in common. When we reason by analogy, we assume that statements that are true for one object or event are true for another.

incomplete comparisons. Incomplete comparisons often use evaluative expressions like "better", "safer". it a special case consideration of the missing components of the inference. What is "better"? How to measure it? Who measured? Compared to what?

Knowing what cannot be known. "We need to increase the number of law enforcement agencies, as the number of unreported rapes has increased dramatically", "At the moment, 150,000 drug addicts have been recorded, but the real figure is 1,000,000." There is no way we can know what cannot be known.

False reason. A fallacious argument occurs when someone claims that because two events occur simultaneously or follow one another, one of them is the cause of the other. "Simultaneously with the increase in the number of churches in the city, the number of prostitutes also increases."

Reducing the credibility of the source. There is a decrease in the status of the opponent's authority, often due to humiliation, appeal to emotions. "Only a fool would support this candidate." Thus, supporting this point of view, you automatically fall into the category of fools, people devoid of patriotic feelings or mind.

Appeal to traditions. "We've always done that." Anyone who has tried to change any rules has heard this phrase, or a variant of it: "Don't try to fix what's not broken yet." It may be that the current system is indeed better than the proposed changes, but it may also be that it is not. The fact that "we have always done this" does not mean that it is a good or The best way goal achievement. One of the qualities of a critical thinker is flexibility.

False accusations in false arguments. This is a false premise! It seems that some people, having learned to recognize erroneous reasoning, immediately call everything that others say wrong.

Persuasiveness of speech and conviction. Persuasiveness depends on taking into account the attitudes, beliefs, interests, needs, way of thinking and individual style of speech inherent in the object of influence.

If you want to convince someone, you must follow certain rules:

The logic of persuasion must correspond to the intellect of the object of influence;

Persuasion must be evident, based on facts known to the object;

In addition to specific facts and examples, information should contain generalized provisions (ideas, principles);

Persuasive information should look as believable as possible;

It is better to comprehend what is presented in small meaningful parts (blocks);

Reported facts and general provisions must be such as to cause an emotional reaction of the object of influence;

The more dynamic the text and the facts that are clearly manifested in it, the more it attracts attention;

It is better perceived that which is close to the interests and needs of the object of influence;

It is better to perceive, comprehend and assimilate the material that is presented in accordance with the national traditions of the perception of the object.

The criterion for the effectiveness of persuasive influence is conviction. This is a deep confidence in the truth of the learned ideas, ideas, concepts, images. It allows you to make unambiguous decisions and implement them without hesitation, to take a firm stand in assessing certain facts and phenomena. Thanks to conviction, attitudes are formed that determine human behavior in specific situations.

An important characteristic of conviction is its depth. It is directly related to awareness, life experience of a person, the ability to analyze the phenomena of the surrounding reality. Deep confidence is characterized by great stability. As practice shows, in order to shake it, logical conclusions alone are not enough. Arguments must evoke an emotional reaction.

Persuasive influence is advisable to carry out in the following cases:

When the object of influence is able to perceive information;

When the object is psychologically ready to agree with our opinion;

In the case when the object is able to compare different points of view, analyze the system of argumentation. In other words, the impact is effective only if the person is able to understand and appreciate what is being said to her;

If the logic of thinking of the subject of influence, the arguments used by him are close to the features of the thinking of the object. Hence the importance of taking into account the national-psychological characteristics of the object, social, national-religious, cultural factors that determine the perception of the content of the message;

If you have time to convince. In order to convince people of something, especially that which is beneficial to the opposite side, it takes time. Changes in the sphere of rational thinking of people occur only after comparing and considering the facts.

Persuasive influence typically includes:

Impact of the source of information;

Impact of information content;

The impact of the informing situation. coercion method.

It is not always possible to achieve success by influencing a person with persuasion. Sometimes you have to use coercion. It is important that the object of influence realizes the inevitability of coercive measures taken against him. And this is achieved when coercion precedes persuasion. This provision is the basis for choosing coercion as a method of influencing a person in law enforcement (Chufarovsky Yu.V.).

Coercion is that kind psychological impact, which openly suppresses the ability to resist. This allows you to achieve a goal that is contrary to the desires, intentions and interests of a person.

They allow you to expose, discredit the opponent who used them. They are:

Judgments based on rigged facts;

Decisions that have lost their validity;

conjectures, conjectures, assumptions, fabrications;

arguments based on prejudice, ignorance;

conclusions drawn from fictitious documents;

Promises and promises issued in advance;

false statements and testimony;

Forgery and falsification of what is being said.

1. During the argument, use only those arguments that you and your opponent understand the same way.

2. If the argument is not accepted, find the reason for this and do not insist on it further in the conversation.

3. Don't downplay the opponent's strong arguments. Better, on the contrary, emphasize their importance and your correct understanding.

4. Bring your arguments that are not related to what the opponent or partner said after you have answered his arguments.

5. Accurately measure the pace of argumentation with the characteristics of the partner's temperament.

6. Excessive persuasiveness always causes a rebuff, since the superiority of a partner in a dispute is always insulting.

7. Give one or two striking arguments and, if the desired effect is achieved, limit yourself to them.

Laws of argumentation and persuasion

The law of embedding (introduction). Arguments should be built into the logic of the partner's reasoning, and not hammered in (breaking it), not stated in parallel.

The law of the general language of thought. If you want to be heard, speak in the language of your opponent's main informational and representational systems.

Argument minimization law. Remember the limitations of human perception (five to seven arguments), so limit the number of arguments, it is better if there are no more than three or four.

The law of objectivity and evidence. Use as arguments only those accepted by your opponent. Do not confuse facts and opinions.

The law of demonstration of equality and respect. Present arguments showing respect for the opponent and his position. Remember that a "friend" is easier to convince than an "enemy".

The law of reframing. Do not reject the partner's arguments, but, recognizing their legitimacy, overestimate their strength and significance. Strengthen the significance of the losses in case of accepting his position or reduce the significance of the benefits expected by the partner.

Gradual law. Do not try to quickly convince your opponent, it is better to go in gradual but consistent steps.

Feedback law. Give feedback in the form of an assessment of the opponent’s condition, a description of your emotional state. Take personal responsibility for misunderstandings and misunderstandings.

The law of ethics. In the process of argumentation, do not allow unethical behavior(aggression, arrogance, etc.), do not touch the "sore spots" of the opponent.

CLASSICAL RULES OF PERSUASION

Homer's Rule

The order in which arguments are presented affects their persuasiveness. The following order of arguments is most convincing: strong - medium - one strongest. The strength (weakness) of arguments should be determined not from the point of view of the speaker, but from the point of view of the decision maker.

It follows from this rule that it is better not to use weak arguments: having identified them in the process of preparation, do not use them for persuasion. They will do harm, not good.

Indeed, the interlocutor pays more attention to the weaknesses in your arguments. Therefore, it is important not to make a mistake. It is not the number of arguments that decides the outcome of the case, but their reliability.

One very important circumstance should be noted. The same argument for different people can be both strong and weak. Therefore, the strength (weakness) of the arguments must be determined from the point of view of the interlocutor.

Socratic Rule

To get a positive decision on an issue that is important to you, put it in third place, prefixing it with two short, simple questions for the interlocutor, to which he will easily answer you “yes”.

This rule has existed for 2400 years, it has been tested by hundreds of generations educated people. It is alive because it is true.

And only relatively recently, the deep physiological reasons explaining the effectiveness of this technique have been clarified. It has been established that when a person says or hears “no”, the hormones of norepinephrine enter his bloodstream, setting him up to fight. Conversely, the word “yes” leads to the release of “pleasure hormones” (endorphins). Having received two portions of “hormones of pleasure”, the interlocutor relaxes, tunes in benevolently, it is psychologically easier for him to say “yes” than “no”. One portion of endorphins is not always enough to overcome the bad mood in which the interlocutor may be. In addition, it is impossible for a person to instantly change from one mood to another; one must give him more time and more “pleasure hormones” to ensure this process.

Preliminary questions should be short so as not to tire the interlocutor, not to take up a lot of his time.

3. Pascal's rule. Do not drive the interlocutor into a corner. Give him the opportunity to "save face", to preserve dignity. Nothing is more disarming than the terms of an honorable surrender.

The necessary decisions are not always made by us, very often important decisions for us are made by other people. Even if they are subordinates, they can also "do things", what can we say about business partners. The conclusion is simple - we need to convey our beliefs, the method of arguments and arguments is the most correct and open way to influence the decision-making of another person.

Management decisions, argumentation tactics.

Argumentation

Persuasive influence on partners in business communication is achieved through argumentation. Argumentation is a logical and communicative process aimed at substantiating the position of one person for the purpose of its subsequent understanding and acceptance by another person.

Argumentation structure - thesis, arguments and demonstration.

Thesis is the formulation of your position (your opinion, your proposal to the other party, etc.).

Arguments- these are the arguments, provisions, evidence that you give to substantiate your point of view. Arguments answer the question why we should believe or do something.

Demonstration- this is the connection of the thesis and argument (i.e., the process of proving, persuading).

With the help of arguments, you can completely or partially change the position and opinion of your interlocutor. To achieve success in a business conversation, you must adhere to some important rules:

Rules for Success in Business Communication

• use simple, clear, precise and convincing terms;
• tell the truth; if you are not sure that the information is true, do not use it until you check it;
• the pace and methods of argumentation should be chosen taking into account the characteristics of the character and habits of the interlocutor;
• the argument must be correct in relation to the interlocutor. Refrain from personal attacks on those who disagree with you;
• non-business expressions and formulations that make it difficult to perceive what has been said should be avoided, however, speech should be figurative, and arguments should be visual; if you provide negative information, be sure to name the source from which you take your information and arguments.

Bizkiev

If you are very familiar with your subject, then you most likely already have some arguments at your disposal. However, in most cases, if you are going to convince your partners, it will be useful for you to stock up on convincing arguments in advance. To do this, you can, for example, make a list of them, weigh and choose the strongest.

But how to correctly assess which of the arguments are strong and which should be discarded? There are several criteria for evaluating arguments:

Criteria for evaluating arguments

1. Good arguments must be based on facts. Therefore, from the list of your arguments, you can immediately exclude those that you cannot support with factual data.

2. Your arguments must be directly relevant to the case. If they are not, discard them.

3. Your arguments must be relevant to your opponents, so you need to find out in advance how interesting and timely they can be for them.

In modern scientific and educational literature, many methods of argumentation are covered. Consider the most important, in our opinion, for situations of business communication.

1. Fundamental Method of Argument. Its essence is in a direct appeal to the interlocutor, whom you acquaint with the facts that are the basis of your evidence.

Numerical examples and statistical data play an essential role here. They are the perfect backdrop to support your thesis. After all, unlike the information stated in words - often controversial! - the figures look more convincing: this source is usually more objective and therefore attractive.

When using statistics, it is necessary to know the measure: a pile of numbers tires the listeners, and the arguments do not make the necessary impression on them. We also note that carelessly processed statistical materials can mislead listeners, and sometimes even deceive.

For example, the rector of the institute provides statistical data on first-year students. It follows from them that during the year 50% of female students got married. Such a figure is impressive, but then it turns out that there were only two students on the course, and one of them got married.

In order for statistics to be illustrative, they must cover a large number of people, events, phenomena, etc.

2. Method of contradiction in argumentation. It is defensive in nature. Based on the identification of contradictions in reasoning, as well as the argument of the interlocutor and focusing on them.

Example. I.S. Turgenev described the dispute between Rudin and Pigasov about whether beliefs exist or not:

"- Wonderful! Rudin said. - So, in your opinion, there are no convictions?

No and does not exist.

Is this your belief?

How do you say they don't exist. Here's one for you, for the first time. Everyone in the room smiled and looked at each other.

3. Method of comparison in argumentation. Very effective and of exceptional value (especially when the comparisons are well chosen).

Gives the speech of the initiator of communication exceptional brightness and great power of suggestion. To a certain extent, it actually represents a special form of the “drawing conclusions” method. This is another way to make the statement more "visible" and weighty. Especially if you have learned to use analogies, comparisons with objects and phenomena that are well known to listeners.

Example: "Life in Africa can only be compared to being in a furnace, where, moreover, they forgot to turn off the light."

4. Method of argumentation "yes, .. but ...". It is best used when the interlocutor treats the topic of conversation with some prejudice. Since any process, phenomenon or object has both positive and negative aspects in its manifestation, the “yes, ... but ...” method allows us to consider other options for resolving the issue.

Example: “I also imagine all the things you listed as benefits. But you forgot to mention a number of shortcomings ... ". And you begin to consistently supplement the one-sided picture proposed by the interlocutor from a new point of view.

5. Method of argumentation "pieces". It is often used - especially now, when dialogue, conversation, discussion are actively introduced into our lives instead of monologues. The essence of the method is in dividing your interlocutor's monologue into clearly distinguishable parts: “this is for sure”, “this is doubtful”, “there are a variety of points of view”, “this is clearly erroneous”.

In fact, the method is based on a well-known thesis: since in any position, and even more so in a conclusion, one can always find something unreliable, erroneous or exaggerated, then a confident “offensive” makes it possible to a certain extent “unload” situations, including the most complex.

Example: “What you reported about the model of modern warehouse operation is theoretically absolutely correct, but in practice there are sometimes very significant deviations from the proposed model: long delays from suppliers, difficulties in obtaining raw materials, slowness of the administration ...”.

6. Boomerang method of argumentation. It makes it possible to use the "weapon" of the interlocutor against him. It does not have the force of proof, but it has an exceptional effect on the audience, especially if it is used with a fair amount of wit.

Example: V.V. Mayakovsky speaks to the inhabitants of one of the districts of Moscow on the issue of solving international problems in the Land of Soviets. Suddenly someone from the audience asks: “Mayakovsky, what is your nationality? You were born in Baghdati, so you are Georgian, right? Mayakovsky sees that in front of him is an elderly worker who sincerely wants to understand the problem and just as sincerely asks a question. Therefore, he answers kindly: "Yes, among Georgians - I am Georgian, among Russians - I am Russian, among Americans - I would be an American, among Germans - I am German."

At this time, two young men sitting in the front row sarcastically shout: “And among the fools?”. Mayakovsky calmly replies: “And among the fools I am for the first time!”.

7. Method of argumentation "ignoring". As a rule, it is most often used in conversations, disputes, disputes. Its essence: the fact stated by the interlocutor cannot be refuted by you, but its value and significance can be successfully ignored. It seems to you that the interlocutor attaches importance to something that, in your opinion, is not so important. You state it and analyze it.

8. Method of argumentation "conclusions". It is based on a gradual subjective change in the merits of the case.

Example: "Wealth has no boundaries when it goes abroad in large amounts"; “The small fry knows best who will get the profit. But who will listen to the small fry?

9. Method of argumentation "visible support". It requires very careful preparation. It is most appropriate to use it when you are acting as an opponent (for example, in a discussion). What is it? Let's say the interlocutor stated his arguments, facts, evidence on the issue of the discussion, and now the floor is given to you. But at the beginning of your speech, you do not contradict or object to him at all. Moreover - to the surprise of those present, come to the rescue by bringing new provisions in his favor. But all this is just for show! And then comes the counterattack. Approximate scheme: “However ... you forgot to cite such facts in support of your thesis ... (list them), and this is far from all, since ...”. Now comes the turn of your counterarguments, facts and evidence.

Rules for the argumentation of managerial decisions

1. Operate with simple, clear, precise and persuasive concepts, since persuasiveness can be easily "drowned" in a sea of ​​words and arguments, especially if they are unclear and inaccurate; the interlocutor "hears" or understands much less than he wants to show.

2. The method and pace of argumentation must correspond to the temperament of the performer:

• arguments and evidence, explained separately, reach the goal much more effectively than if they were presented all at once;
• three or four bright arguments achieve a greater effect than many average arguments;
• argumentation should not be declarative or look like a monologue of the "protagonist";
• finely spaced pauses often have more impact than the flow of words;
• the interlocutor is better influenced by the active construction of the phrase than the passive one when it comes to evidence (for example, it is better to say “we will do it” than “it can be done”, it is more appropriate to say “conclude” than “make a conclusion”).

3. Conduct arguments should be correct in relation to the employee. It means:

• always openly admit that he is right when he is right, even if this may have adverse consequences for you. This gives your interlocutor the opportunity to expect the same behavior from the performing side. Also, by doing so, you are not violating the ethics of management;
• you can continue to operate only with those arguments that are accepted by the employee;
• avoid empty phrases, they indicate a weakening of attention and lead to unnecessary pauses in order to gain time and catch the lost thread of the conversation (for example, “as was said”, “or, in other words”, “more or less”, “along with the noted” , “it is possible both so and so”, “it was not said”, etc.).

4. It is necessary to adapt the arguments to the personality of the performer, i.e.:

• build an argument taking into account the goals and motives of the interlocutor;
• do not forget that “excessive” persuasiveness causes a rebuff from the subordinate, especially if he has an “aggressive” nature (“boomerang” effect);
• avoid non-business expressions and formulations that make argumentation and understanding difficult;
• try to present your evidence, ideas and considerations to the employee as clearly as possible. Remember the proverb: "It is better to see once than hear a hundred times." When making vivid comparisons and demonstrative arguments, it is important to remember that comparisons should be based on the performer’s experience, otherwise there will be no result, they should support and strengthen the manager’s argument, be convincing, but without exaggerations and extremes that cause distrust of the performer and thereby put under doubt all the parallels being drawn.

The use of visual aids increases the attention and activity of the employee, reduces the abstractness of the presentation, helps to better link the arguments and thus ensure a better understanding on his part. In addition, the clarity of the arguments makes the argument more persuasive and documentary.

There are two main reasoning structures:

• evidence-based argumentation, when it is necessary to prove or substantiate something;
• counterargumentation, with the help of which it is necessary to refute the theses and statements of the performer.

For both designs, the same basic techniques apply.

Argumentation techniques

In relation to any persuasive impact or speech, there are 10 parameters, the observance of which makes this impact the most optimal.

1. Professional Competence. High objectivity, reliability and depth of presentation.
2. Clarity. Linking facts and details, avoiding ambiguity, confusion, understatement.
3. visibility. The maximum use of visibility, well-known associations, a minimum of abstractness in the presentation of thoughts.
4. Constant direction. During a conversation or discussion, it is necessary to adhere to a certain course, goal or task, and to some extent familiarize the interlocutors with them.
5. Rhythm. It is necessary to increase the intensity of a business conversation as it approaches its end, while paying special attention to key issues.
6. Repetition. The emphasis on the main points and thoughts has great importance so that the interlocutor can perceive the information.
7. The element of surprise. It is a thoughtful, but unexpected and unusual for the interlocutor, linking details and facts.
8. "Saturation" reasoning. It is necessary that during communication emotional accents are made that require maximum concentration of attention from the interlocutor, and there are also phases of lowering emotionality, which are necessary for a break and fixing the interlocutor's thoughts and associations.
9. The boundaries of the issue under discussion. Voltaire once said: "The secret to being boring is to tell everything."
10. A certain dose of irony and humor. It is useful to apply this rule of business conversation when you need to express thoughts that are not very pleasant for the performer or to parry his attacks.

Argumentation tactics

Let us dwell on the tactics of argumentation. The question may arise: how does it differ from the technique of argumentation, which covers methodological aspects, how to build an argument, while tactics develops the art of applying specific techniques? In accordance with this, technique is the ability to give logical arguments, and tactics are the ability to choose psychologically effective ones from them.

Consider the main provisions of argumentation tactics.

1. Applying Arguments. The argumentation phase should begin confidently, without much hesitation. State the main arguments at any opportunity, but, if possible, each time in a new light.

2. Choice of technique. Depending on the psychological characteristics of the interlocutors, various methods argumentation.

3. Avoiding confrontation. Avoiding aggravation or confrontation is very important for the normal course of the argument, since the opposing points of view and the tense atmosphere that have arisen during the presentation of one of the points of the argument can easily spread to other areas. There are some subtleties here:

• recommended to consider critical questions either at the beginning or at the end of the argumentation phase;
• it is useful to discuss particularly sensitive issues with the executor in private before the discussion begins, since “eye to eye” can achieve greater results than at a meeting;
• in exceptionally difficult situations, it is useful to take a break to "cool heads" and then return to the same question again.

4. "Appetite Stimulation". This technique is based on the following position of social psychology: it is most convenient to offer the performer options and information to preliminary awaken his interest in it. This means that we first need to describe Current state cases with an emphasis on possible negative consequences, and then (on the basis of “provoked appetite”) indicate the direction of possible solutions with a detailed rationale for all the benefits.

5. Bilateral Argumentation. It will have a greater impact on an employee whose opinion does not coincide with yours. In this case, you point out both the benefits and the weak sides proposed solution. The effectiveness of this technique depends on the intellectual abilities of the performer. In any case, as far as possible, any shortcomings that he could learn about from other sources of information should be pointed out. One-sided reasoning can be used in cases where the employee has his own opinion or he openly expresses a positive attitude towards your point of view.

6. Order of advantages and disadvantages. In accordance with the conclusions of social psychology, such information has a decisive influence on the formation of the interlocutor's position, when the advantages are listed first, and then the disadvantages.

7. Personification of argumentation. Based on the fact that the persuasiveness of evidence primarily depends on the perception of subordinates (and they are not critical of themselves), you come to the idea that you need to first try to identify their position, and then include it in your construction of argumentation, or, at least at least not to allow it to contradict your premises. The easiest way to do this is to contact the employee directly:

• "What do you think of this offer?"
• “How do you think this problem can be solved?”
• "You're right"

Having recognized his correctness, showing attention, we thereby encourage a person who will now accept our argument with less resistance.

8. Drawing up conclusions. It is possible to argue with brilliance, but still not achieve the desired goal if we fail to generalize the facts and information offered. Therefore, in order to achieve as much persuasiveness as possible, you must definitely draw conclusions yourself and offer them to employees, because facts do not always speak for themselves.

9. Techniques of counterargument. When someone tries to confuse you with an impeccable, at least at first glance, argumentation, you should remain cool and think:

• Are the stated statements true? Is it possible to refute their foundations, or at least separate parts where the facts are not linked to each other?
• Can any inconsistencies be identified?
• Are the conclusions erroneous or at least partially inaccurate?

Arguments that convince

Perhaps the most important element impact on public opinion is a conviction. Persuasion is the task of the vast majority of PR programs. Persuasion theory has a myriad of explanations and interpretations. In principle, persuasion means that a person will do something through advice, reasoning, or simple arm-twisting. Many books have been written about the immense power of advertising and PR as tools of persuasion.

How can you convince people? Saul Alinsky, the legendary radical organizer, developed a very simple theory of persuasion: “People understand things in terms of their own experience... If you try to get your ideas across to others without paying attention to what they want to tell you , then you can forget about your idea. In other words, if you want to convince people, you need to provide evidence that matches their own beliefs, emotions, and expectations.

What arguments convince people?

1. Facts. The facts are indisputable. While it is true that, as they say, “statistics sometimes lie,” empirical evidence is a compelling tool for building a “home” for a point of view. That is why a good PR program always starts with research - finding facts.

2. Emotions. Maslow was right. People really respond to appeals to emotions - love, peace, family, patriotism. Ronald Reagan was known as a "great communicator" largely because he appealed to emotions. Even as the entire nation was outraged after 200 American soldiers died in a terrorist attack in Lebanon in 1983, President Reagan was able to overcome its skepticism by talking to a wounded US Marine in a Lebanese hospital.

3. Personalization. People react to personal experience.

• When poet Maya Angelou speaks of poverty, people listen and respect a woman who came from the dirty and poor fringes of the segregation-era Deep South.
• When Congresswoman Carolyn McCarthy advocates for gun control, people realize her husband was killed and her son badly wounded by an armed lunatic on the Long Island Railroad.

4. Appeal to "you". There is one word that people do not get tired of listening to - it is "you". "And what will it give me?" is a question that everyone asks. Thus, one of the secrets of persuasion is to constantly put yourself in the place of the audience and constantly refer to "You."

Although these four commandments are so simple, they are hard to understand - especially for business leaders who do not approve of emotions, or personalization, or even addressing an audience. Some consider it "below their dignity" to flaunt human emotions. Of course, this is a mistake. The power of persuasion - influence on public opinion - is a criterion not only for a charismatic, but also for an effective leader.

Impact on public opinion

Public opinion is much easier to evaluate than to influence it. However, a well-thought-out PR program can crystallize attitudes, reinforce beliefs, and sometimes change public opinion. First of all, you need to highlight and understand the opinion that you want to change or modify. The second is to clearly define the target group. Thirdly, a PR specialist should have a clear idea of ​​what “laws” public opinion is guided by, no matter how amorphous they may be.

In this context, 15 laws of public opinion developed many years ago by social psychologist Hadley Cantril can be applied.

15 laws of public opinion

1. Opinion is hypersensitive to important events.

2. Events of an unusual scale can cause public opinion to move from one extreme to another for a while. Opinion does not stabilize until the prospects for the consequences of events are assessed.

3. Opinion as a whole is determined by events, not words, except in cases where the words themselves can be interpreted as an event.

4. Oral statements and programs of action are of great importance in situations where opinion is unstructured, and people are open to suggestions and waiting for explanations from reliable sources.

5. By and large, public opinion does not anticipate critical situations, but only reacts to them.

6. Opinion as a whole is determined by personal interest. Events, words, and any other stimuli affect opinion only to the extent that they are related to self-interest.

7. Opinion does not exist without change for a long period of time, except when people feel a high degree of self-interest and when the opinion that arose from words is supported by events.

8. If there is a personal interest, then the opinion is not so easy to change.

9. If self-interest is present, then public opinion in a democratic society is likely to dominate official policy.

10. If the opinion belongs to a small majority, or if it is not well structured, then a fait accompli tends to shift the opinion in the direction of accepting the fact.

11. In times of crisis, people become more sensitive to the adequacy of their leaders. If people are confident in them, then they tend to place more responsibility on them; if they are less confident in their leaders, then they become less tolerant than usual.

12. People are less reluctant to trust their leaders to make important decisions if they feel they have some part to play.

13. People most often have an opinion, and it is easier for them to form an opinion about the objectives than about the methods of achieving these objectives.

14. Public opinion, like individual opinion, is colored by desire. And when the opinion is mainly based on desire, and not on information, then it can fluctuate under the influence of ongoing events.

15. In general, if in a democratic society people are given opportunities for education and easy access to information, then public opinion reflects common sense. How more people are aware of the consequences of events and proposals for self-interest, the more likely they are to agree with the more objective opinion of realistic experts.

We deliberately repeated the basic truths several times, we hope that our material will help you convincingly convince your interlocutor to make the right decision.

moralizing, logical reasoning

Look at it differently.

You are entrusted with this, so this is your problem.

At your age, I didn't have that.

Clarification, interrogation

Who advised you?

What will you do next time?

Why did you do it this way?

Avoidance of the problem, distraction, joke

Why don't you put it out of your mind?

Let's talk about something else

What if every time something doesn't work out, you stop doing it?

Warning, threat, promise

It will happen again - and it's all over with you.

Calm down, and I will listen to you willingly.

You will regret if you do this.

All this, as well as refusal in an aggressive form, creates barriers in communication. People react very emotionally to these and other forms of difficult communication, and emotions are negative in nature.

Now we propose to perform the following exercise /35/. After getting acquainted with the situation, it will be necessary to write down on pieces of paper or in notebooks the first phrases that come to mind that you could say in this situation.

So, your good friend has long lost her job, her family does not have enough money. And in the organization where you work, a suitable vacancy has appeared for her. You talked with the boss, recommended a friend as a conscientious, executive woman. The boss invited you for an interview at 12 o'clock.

At 12 o'clock, my girlfriend was not at the door of the boss's office. She did not come even at 15 minutes past one. At half past one, a friend appears, and you tell her ...

Now put down your notes. Now we will offer a speech that would be effective (competent) in this situation. To do this, let us name in the first person the feelings that the heroine might experience in such a situation, simply list them in order, and then state her supposed desires.

"Yesterday we agreed to meet you at 12 o'clock. Now my clock shows half past one. Having agreed on this job for you, I was very glad and thought I could help you. When I realized that you were late I, of course, at first very got angry, then started worry and thought something bad happened. Now the only thing I feel - it's tired and I'm very worried about what my boss would think of me in connection with my recommendation. That's why I would like to so that you yourself explain to the boss the reason for being late, and if he still takes you, you will henceforth be very punctual at our work.

In this text, in the first person, feelings are simply named and desires are reported, but all this is using the pronoun "I" and is open.

Now review your responses to see how many barriers there were in those responses, and which ones. We will also trace how many open expressions of feelings and desires there were.

The question arises why barriers come to mind first, although feelings are easier to understand when they are expressed in an open, rather than hidden form.

In this situation, such barriers as questions, orders and generalizations are most often used. What kind of response will we get? The first response to questions from any person is detailed answers and explanations ("first I was carried there, then there, etc.), the first response to orders is resistance (and who are you to order me? ), the first response to generalizations is a protest and proof of the opposite (are you yourself never late?, Yes, this happened to me for the first time).

What is usually heard in response to questions, orders and generalizations (not to mention insults)? They hear something like this: “I wasn’t carried anywhere. It’s just that there was no transport for a long time. And in general, I’m almost never late. Yes, it’s your own fault - you had to negotiate more precisely. What is the result? Relations will inevitably worsen, the mood will be completely spoiled - and for both.

Just like aggressive covert expressions, also downplaying one's feelings, refusing to solve a problem ("Well, okay, okay, it's okay, let's go quickly, we're already late ...) is not socially competent behavior. Such a refusal does not lead to eliminate negative feelings towards the partner.Even if everything is resolved successfully with the boss, the unpleasant feelings will still remain in the soul and will gradually spoil the relationship.In addition, the partner will not receive feedback on how his lateness was perceived.This means that delays will continue again and again, will lead to an even greater deterioration in relations.

For us, when we experience strong feelings, the essence of interaction is to understand and reflect ourselves, our feelings and desires, so that we finally hear: "I'm late and understand your irritation very well. Now I'll try my best settle." And this is much easier to achieve if you speak directly and openly about feelings and desires.

People quite rarely purposefully use the barriers of communication in order to make it difficult to understand each other, to stop communication. Most often they do it involuntarily and unconsciously. At the same time, they think that the partner perfectly understands what is at stake. They say to themselves: "It's so clear after all." People don't notice the difference between what they say and what they want to say. More often than not, the assumption that everything is clear without comment turns out to be wrong. Misunderstanding" simple words"very annoying, makes you use stronger and stronger language, speak louder and louder, get angry and boil. If this process grows on both sides, then you should not expect accuracy of communication.

What to do when communication barriers prevent achieving clarity in communication, destroy relationships? There is always a way out, and even several ways out of the situation.

First of all, you need to learn how to track the appeal to barriers that violate interpersonal communication in your speech behavior. Having learned to notice one's own readiness to resort to barriers, to form the skill of a ban on such ineffective behavior. As for those situations where barriers are used by the opposite side, several methods of coping behavior are possible here.

V.G. Romek /35/ argues that it is possible to ignore interfering behavior, as if jumping over the barrier, you can prohibit it (in this series, the most ineffective form of behavior), you can destroy it.

Ignoring The emerging barrier is to allow the partner to get angry, to express inaccurately and to use barriers. It is important for ourselves to remain calm and speak to him in a friendly and calm manner, in a confident manner. It is necessary to ignore unflattering remarks, to behave as correctly and sustainably as possible.

It is very important at the same time to try not to reject what the interlocutor says, to create in him a feeling of understanding and cooperation. It is necessary to start with the consent - "yes", "agree", "true", "correct".

Of course, it is difficult to remain calm, especially one has to hear insulting and obviously untrue assessments. But in this case, there is always the opportunity to agree with what you can agree with, to emphasize what leads to mutual understanding, to mark the points at which our opinions coincide with the partner.

Trying to stay "above the barriers", one should, of course, not refuse to express one's own opinion and attitude to the problem (otherwise it would be very reminiscent of uncertainty). However, this opinion must be expressed without haste. In order for this opinion to be heard and understood by the "problem" partner, you first need to get his attention.

Agreement with what can be agreed allows you to win the attention of a partner and provide access to his attention "over the barriers".

For example, /35/, after a daughter's noisy birthday party, when there were mountains of dirty dishes, dirt on the floor, the smell of tobacco smoke, the mother is annoyed and says: “Who needs these noisy festivities? "I would have made a friend for myself. After all, you are 25 years old, and you only have these fools in your girlfriends. Here, take everything yourself and mine after your friends."

BarrierAbove barriersWhoever I want, I invite. It's my birthday. And don't spoil it for me, please! It would be better to go somewhere - everyone would be calmer! Yes, indeed, there were a lot of people, and a lot of dishes accumulated. But we had a lot of fun, and I am very pleased with the evening. If we work together together, we can get through this quickly.

Mother: And the girls are all already married. You're the only one who drives me away. Look how much money they spent on food and drink. It would be better if you bought a new dress. And then you walk like a ragamuffin.

BarrierAbove barriersMy money - I buy what I want. And in general - get away from me. So you're trying to ruin my holiday. Go away, don't stand over your soul! Yes, a lot of money was spent. But I didn't want to skimp on my anniversary. The main thing is that everything turned out so nicely.

The method of ignoring barriers is quite simple and effective. However, it will not work in two cases:

2. when the conversation partner is in a very strong emotional arousal

Ignoring the barriers, although it does not lead to an increase in tension, does not reduce the readiness of the partner to selflessly build new and new barriers. If there is no desire to put up with the aggressiveness hiding behind the barriers, you need to get direct access to it by breaking the barrier.

You can recall the benefits of using the pronoun "I" and say something like this:

to me unpleasant are your reproaches on my birthday.

I I don't want to argue with you now, and it would be nicer to talk in a more relaxed manner.

I I consider myself an adult and want to be spoken to with great respect.

In this case, there will be more chances for mutual understanding, and in official relations such phrases are quite acceptable. But we assume the existence of interpersonal relationships, and here we have another very important reserve.

In interpersonal relationships, it is quite acceptable and even desirable to talk about the feelings of another. The most effective means of breaking down barriers is to reflect your partner's feelings. Let's take the same example and see how it works:

Annoyed, the mother says: “Who needs these noisy festivities? Couldn’t you have invited a couple of your closest friends, or even better, you would have made a friend for yourself. herself and mine after her friends.

Over the barriersBreaking the barrierYes, indeed, there were a lot of people, and a lot of dishes accumulated. But we had a lot of fun, and I am very pleased with the evening. If we take it together together, we will quickly cope with all this. I see, mother, that you are very tired and want to rest. I understand that you want me to be happy. The more I visit different companies, the easier it will be for me to find a real person. But in order to be invited to my place, I myself have to arrange parties. If you are very tired, I can handle the dishes myself.

Mother: And the girls are all already married. You're the only one who drives me away. Why do they need family gatherings? Look how much money they spent on food and drink. It would be better if you bought a new dress. And then you walk like a ragamuffin.

Over the barriers Break the barrier Yes, it took a lot of money. But I didn't want to skimp on my anniversary. The main thing is that everything turned out so nicely. So, mother, do you think that the choice of guests was unsuccessful? But I wanted to celebrate my birthday with people who are pleasant to me. There is no particular need to specifically say that breaking barriers requires more effort than ignoring them. But the benefits brought by the destruction of barriers in interpersonal relationships easily compensates for all mental costs. As the relationship strengthens, it becomes less and less necessary to spend energy and energy on this.

In order to understand in what situations barriers can be tolerated, ignored and destroyed by V.G. Romek introduces two criteria. Firstly, in what area does the problem lie (outside the scope of your relationship with your partner or concerns your relationship), and secondly, whose problem is more significant, yours or your partner

The problem you care about is much more significant than your partner's problem Your partner's problem is bigger than your own The problem lies outside the scope of your relationship with a partner 3) you can limit yourself to ignoring barriers and openly expressing your feelings and desires 4) It is necessary to break down barriers, reflecting the feelings of a partner and retelling his problems

Real communication looks like this:

Quadrant 1: Your own non-relationship problem

At work, you are undeservedly criticized by your superiors. When you tell your partner about this, he begins to accuse you of cowardice and laziness. You ignore barriers and only reiterate that you need support and advice.

Quadrant 2: non-relationship partner problem

Your partner at work is unfairly criticized by your boss. He comes to you and attacks you with reproaches and accusations. You are trying to find out what brought your partner into such a state, and if the problem lies outside the scope of the relationship, help him find a way out of a difficult situation.

Quadrant 3: Your own relationship problem with your partner:

In the presence of other people, the partner often starts to sting and make fun of you, which hurts you a lot. When you are alone, you tell your partner about this several times, not paying attention to his injections and ridicule.

Quadrant 4: Your partner has a relationship problem:

The partner is offended by you for your behavior. You communicate that you understand his feelings and are ready to improve relations, help him.