Argue well by losing

Argue well by losing
haacked.com

My experience suggests that if you do that, the other party will never stop disagreeing with you no matter how far up the chain you go. Many, many, many arguments never happened in my mind, while having happened quite heatedly in the other person's, because of this.

There was another phenomenon which might be related: a person would start telling me about a problem of theirs (I used to think it was weird for people I barely knew to do this, but I've come to suspect that people just like venting about problems they're experiencing), I'd rephrase it to be sure I understood what they were saying, and they would say something along the lines of "thanks, that was really helpful" and go away happy.

  How to compose a successful critical commentary:

  1. Attempt to re-express your target's position so clearly, vividly and fairly that 
  your target says: "Thanks, I wish I'd thought of putting it that way."
  2. List any points of agreement (especially if they are not matters of general
  or widespread agreement).
  3. Mention anything you have learned from your target.
  4. Only then are you permitted to say so much as a word of rebuttal or criticism.

I read the book "Getting To Yes" by Roger Patton. It's highly recommend and considered to be the manual on negotiation. And the main point of advice from it was: Be Nice. Argument and negotiation aren't supposed to be about who is louder or more aggressive. Calmly laying out points that are backed up by facts works better every time.

Online arguments tend to be low stakes affairs. I can understand why so many hn discussions devolve into personal attacks and accusations. I can only hope that people behave differently in person. The best way to win an argument is to turn it into a niceness contest where everybody walks away feeling better for the experience.

1. I think being forthcoming about it is very important. Especially when it comes to obvious unclear points/mistakes which are easy to correct. You should do that before attempting the commentary. The main reason is to save time (if correction is obvious, you might as well do it yourself) another is to show good attitude ("I try resolve this issue instead of nitpicking, see ?")

3.Imo it just derails the point. Good thing to do when dealing with unknown/emotional people, just adds clutter between "let's get to the point" people. Nothing wrong with that at some point but if you use it as first thing in the discussion it looks like tactic to influence emotions of other person.

I for one often get annoyed by too many niceties. I feel like someone tries to convince my emotions and not my intellect. It quickly becomes patronizing It takes time. It make me very suspicious of manipulation attempts; afterall if your point/offer is good, why not just present it and let me think about it. I don't want to be more likely to accept your point because you are nice to me. I want to take objective look at it, so keep being overly nice to after the discussion and/or everyday situations which doesn't involve resolving issues. I am not saying diplomacy is useless - it's great in every day relations and/or when dealing with emotional people. Among people who are good at discussing and just want to get to the point it should be kept to minimum.

>"Getting To Yes"

The title would be off-putting to me. I don't want to get to yes. I want to take possibly objective look at your point and I want you to take fair look at mine. The more I respect you the more I want eliminate emotions: positive or negative when discussing things.