To tell someone they're wrong, first tell them how they're right
1–10 of 307 posts
Re: To tell someone they're wrong, first tell them how they're right
#2I've always felt more persuasive when doing that.
I've also felt more persuaded when I'm not flat told I'm wrong.
Re: To tell someone they're wrong, first tell them how they're right
#3I've always felt more persuasive when doing that. I've also felt more persuaded when I'm not flat told I'm wrong.
it flatters the ego, which can be belittling at times.
Re: To tell someone they're wrong, first tell them how they're right
#4Always start from common ground and that which can be agreed upon.
Although I do disagree that there was no formal study of "persuasion" before then. Socrates was trolling sophists long before then. Rhetoric = persuasion and thats what the sophists got paid to do.
Read Gorgias.
Re: To tell someone they're wrong, first tell them how they're right
#5From a straightforward standpoint, having to think about how the other person is right, and then to incorporate in a rebuttal, simply takes more time. Which for me is helpful because that physical delay curbs the kinds of reflexive emotional responses that I regret later.
Re: To tell someone they're wrong, first tell them how they're right
#6This is a very interesting and well written piece, but I'm going to have to disagree, as (like false modesty) the tactic quickly becomes identifiable as such and turns people off.
Re: To tell someone they're wrong, first tell them how they're right
#7This seems to underscore the need for criticisms to seem credible in order to be accepted.
For example, if I write an article and I get a drive-by critical comment that offers no substantial detail drawn from the article itself, I have no idea whether or not the critique is based on a misunderstanding of what I wrote. I'm likely to dismiss the critique because it lacks credibility. I achieve nothing by reacting to a random person's hallucination of what I wrote.
But when there's a clear indication of understanding (or misunderstanding) in the critique, which to me also indicates respect, I'm happy to receive the criticism, respond to it, and perhaps adapt to it. Because then it's a real thing from a real person who cares at least a little bit about both the ideas I've expressed and me as a person.
Re: To tell someone they're wrong, first tell them how they're right
#8“The Relativity of Wrong”[1] by Isaac Asimov is a great read.
In it, he states that it’s possible to be mostly right, and partly wrong. Or mostly wrong, and partly right. Someone's argument or design can have components which are absolutely wrong while still ending up being right enough for all practical purposes.
[1] http://chem.tufts.edu/answersinscience/relativityofwrong.htm
Re: To tell someone they're wrong, first tell them how they're right
#9I don't see how that's a trick. It just seems considerate to me. That's how I would prefer to be persuaded. First validate my thinking, and convince me that you understand it. Then your new perspective will be credible.
I also think Pascal made the point better in his quote than the rest of the article did.
Re: To tell someone they're wrong, first tell them how they're right
#10This seems to underscore the need for criticisms to seem credible in order to be accepted. For example, if I write an article and I get a drive-by critical comment that offers no substantial detail drawn from the article itself, I have no idea whether or not the critique is based on a misunderstanding of what I wrote. I'm likely to dismiss the critique because it lacks credibility. I achieve nothing by reacting to a…
[deleted]