Techniques and tricks in conversation in practice. Psychological tricks in communication
Psychological tricks
Bringing the enemy "off balance". Relying on slow thinking and gullibility. Distraction and misleading.
1. Much more interesting are those tricks that can be called psychological. They are based on the knowledge of some properties of the human soul, and some of our weaknesses.
The state of mind during an oral dispute has a huge impact on the conduct of the dispute. When we are "in shock", i.e. we are seized by a light, pleasant excitement, in which thought, memory, imagination work especially clearly and vividly, we argue better than usual. If we are very excited about something, embarrassed, confused, "hot", if our attention is distracted by something, we argue and think worse than usual, or even quite badly. (Of course, other things being equal). From this arises a series of psychological tricks designed to unbalance us, to weaken and upset the work of our thought.
2. There are many different techniques for this. The crudest and most common trick is to irritate the enemy and piss him off. For this, rude antics, “personalities”, insults, mockery, mockery, obviously unfair, outrageous accusations, etc. are used. If the enemy "boiled" - the case is won. He lost many chances in the dispute. Some skillfully try to “turn it up” to the desired degree. I saw a trick: with injustice and ridicule, the sophist unbalanced his youthful adversary. He began to get excited. Then the sophist took on an air of unspeakable good nature and a patronizing tone: “Well, Jupiter! You're angry, so you're wrong." Well, what are you, father! It's worth getting so excited! Calm down, calm down! What (58:) fever are you, etc. So after all, he brought the youngster to white heat! His hands are trembling with excitement and indignation. Throws himself blindly in a dispute, anywhere. I stopped thinking at all and, of course, “failed”. But they also use various other methods to “unbalance”. Another deliberately begins to mock at your "holy of holies." In person, he does not start, no! But a careless idealist can be "inflated" to the last limit. If the dispute is very important, in front of the listeners, responsible, then, they say, others even resort to the "artists' trick." Some artists, for example, singers, in order to “cut off” their rival, before his performance tell him some extremely unpleasant news, upset him with something or piss him off with an insult, etc., etc., in the expectation that after that he will not control himself and sing badly. So, according to rumors, some disputants do not hesitate to act occasionally before a responsible dispute. Personally, I have never seen this dastardly trick, but it is certainly possible. You have to be careful against it too.
3. If the enemy is a person "not fired upon", gullible, thinking slowly, although it can be accurate, then some impudent "thinking conjurers" try to "stupefy" him in a verbal dispute, especially in front of listeners. They speak very quickly, often express thoughts in a form that is difficult to understand, quickly replace one another. Then, “without letting them come to their senses,” they victoriously draw the conclusion that they desire and throw an argument: they are the winners. The most arrogant sometimes do not hesitate to cite thoughts without any connection, sometimes absurd, and while a slow-thinking and honest opponent tries to catch the connection between thoughts, without in any way suggesting that such impudence is possible, they already leave the battlefield with a triumphant look. This is done most often in front of such listeners who understand absolutely nothing about the topic of the dispute, but judge success or defeat - by appearance. Here is a well-known example of such a trick from The Weckfield Priest.
? "That's right, Frank! cried the squire. ... A beautiful girl is worth all the intrigues of the clergy in the world. What is all these tithes and charlatan inventions, if not a deceit, one nasty deceit! And this I can prove."
? “I would like to hear! exclaimed the son of Moses. I think I could answer you."
? "Excellent, sir," said the squire; who immediately figured it out and winked at the rest of the company to get us ready to have some fun.
? “Great, if you want to coolly discuss this topic, I am ready to accept the dispute. And above all, how do you prefer to discuss issues: analogously or dialogically?
? “Discuss wisely,” exclaimed Moses, happy that he could argue.
? “Again, excellent. First of all, first of all, I hope you won't deny that what is, is. If you don't agree with that, I can't argue any further."
? "Still would!" Moses answered. “Of course, I agree with this, and I myself will use this truth to the best of my ability.”
? "I also hope you agree that the part is less than the whole?"
? "I agree too!" exclaimed Moses. "This is both right and reasonable."
? "I hope," exclaimed the squire, "you will not deny that the three angles of a triangle are equal to two right angles."
? “There is nothing more obvious,” Moses replied, and looked around with his usual gravity.
? “Excellent,” exclaimed the squire, and began to speak very quickly: “Once these premises are established, then I assert that the concatenation of self-existence, acting in a mutually dual relationship, naturally leads to a problematic dialogism, which proves to a certain extent (59:) that the essence of spirituality can be attributed to the second kind of precabilia.”
? "Wait, wait!" Moses exclaimed. “I deny it. Do you really think that I can give in to such wrong teachings without objection?”
- "What?" - answered the squire, pretending to be furious: “you do not yield? Answer me one simple and clear question: do you think Aristotle is right when he says that the relative is in relation?
“Undoubtedly,” said Moses.
? “And if so,” exclaimed the squire, “then answer me directly: do you think that the analytical development of the first part of my enthymeme is deficient secundum guoad or guoad minus and give me your reasons. Bring me your arguments, I say, bring me directly, without evasions.
? "I protest," Moses exclaimed. “I have not grasped properly the essence of your reasoning. Bring it down to simple sentence then I think I can give you an answer.
? “Oh, sir!” exclaimed the squire, “your obedient servant. It turns out that I must provide you not only with arguments, but also with understanding! No sir. Here I protest, you are too difficult an opponent for me.
At these words, laughter arose over Moses. He sat alone, long-faced, among laughing faces. He did not utter another word during the conversation.
Vekf. Holy Goldsmith. Chapter VII
4. A lot of gross and subtle tricks are aimed at diverting the attention of the enemy from some thought that they want to pass without criticism. The most characteristic subtle tricks are of this kind.
The thought that we want to carry out in this way is either not expressed at all, but only necessarily implied, or it is expressed, but perhaps briefly, in the most gray, ordinary form. In front of her, they express such an idea, which, involuntarily, by its content or form, must attract the special attention of the enemy, for example, to hurt something, hit him, etc. If this is done successfully, then there is a very high chance that the trick will be successful for an ordinary opponent. He "overlooks" and misses an imperceptible thought without criticism.
Often (especially in disputes without long "speeches"), the technique takes the form of a "real" misleading ". Before the thought that they want to “convey” without criticism, they put some kind of thought that, for all reasons, should seem to the opponent obviously doubtful or obviously erroneous. It is assumed that every opponent is looking for weaknesses in our argumentation and the majority pounces on the first one that comes across. weakness, without much attention skipping the subsequent thoughts that come to him, if they are not conspicuous by fallacy. Let's say X needs to carry out without criticism an idea that is important for his goal, to which the enemy can be very meticulous if he notices its importance and incomplete evidence - the idea that the house, about which in question, old X decides to lead the enemy on a false trail. Knowing that an adversary defending, for example, some B. will certainly lash out with indignation at any accusation of B. of dishonesty, X says: “Here the matter undoubtedly did not go without a catch on the part of B. He acquired this old house not without the help of deceit.” If the opponent "attacks" the accusation, he can skip the "old house" without criticism. Then it remains in the heat of the fight to quietly repeat these words several times, hiding them in the shadows, until “the ear gets used to them” - and the thought is carried out.
This trick allows for a variety of modifications and, so to speak, "fiority". Sometimes, for example, feeling that a false thought, under the wing of which they want to imperceptibly carry out an argument, may not in itself attract criticism of the opponent, they artificially try to show him that they themselves consider it a weak (60:) point of argumentation. This is where talent comes into play. For example, a person, in tone, facial expression, play of pauses, reproduces the behavior of a person who has expressed a weak objection and is afraid for him; unsure of the strength of the argument, and trying to quickly carry it out unnoticed, eluding criticism. An insufficiently sophisticated adversary can quite easily fall for this bait, if the sophist does not "overplay", does not emphasize his "desire to escape" too unnaturally, etc. etc.
It is worth noting that in oratory speeches, one of the strongest means of distracting attention from thoughts and their logical connection is pathos, an expression of a strong emotional upsurge, as well as an excess of successful tropes, figures, etc. It has been verified by experience that usually the listener is the worst at assimilating and remembering the meaning of such sections of speech.
From the book The Art of Argument author Povarnin Sergey InnokentievichTricks in the dispute Chapter 13. Permissible tricks What is a trick. Pulling an objection. Shock. Development of weak points of the opponent's argument. Tricks in response to the "malicious denial" of the arguments. 48:1. A trick in an argument is any method by which they want to
From the book The Art of Verbal Attack author Bredemeyer KarstenChapter 13 Pulling an objection. Shock. Development of weak points of the opponent's argument. Tricks in response to the "malicious denial" of the arguments. 48:1. A trick in a dispute is any technique by which they want to facilitate the dispute for themselves.
From the book of Stratagems. About the Chinese art of living and surviving. TT. 12 author von Senger HarroChapter 14 Disruption of the dispute. Argument "to the policeman". Stick arguments. 50:1. Unacceptable tricks are countless. Some are very rough, some are very thin. The most crude tricks of a "mechanical" nature.
From the book How to manage a man? Manipulation skill. 49 simple rules author Sergeeva Oksana MikhailovnaChapter 17. Psychological tricks (Continued) Bet on false shame. "Smearing" the argument. Suggestion. "Rubbing" points on thought. Double-entry bookkeeping. 60:1. Very often the sophist takes advantage of the human weakness common to most people “to appear better than it really is.”
From the book Eristika, or the Art of Winning Disputes author Schopenhauer Arthur From the book How to Overcome NO: Negotiations in difficult situations by Uri William From the book Shyness and how to deal with it the author Vem AlexanderChapter 2 Most Common Female Tricks Rule #4 Women Are the Weaker Sex: Always Ask for Help
From the book Male Sexual Fears, Tricks and Tricks at the Beginning of a Love Relationship author Zberovsky Andrey Viktorovich From the book Saying “no” without feeling guilty author Sheinov Viktor PavlovichExpose the tricks The hardest part is changing the frame of the trick. This tactic exploits the assumptions present in any honest negotiation - that the other party is telling the truth, keeping their word, having the necessary authority, and not revisiting what has already been achieved.
From the book Tricks in the dispute author Vinokur Vladimir AlexandrovichTricks of the subconscious The action of the protective mechanism of rationalization, which is characteristic of schizoids, has been well studied. Boris was distinguished by exceptional passivity and indecision. He thought not twice, but twenty times before asking someone the usual question. Once it
From the book How to Develop Intuition and Hidden Features author Lysenko OksanaChapter 5 Attention! This chapter is a continuation, and in fact even practical recommendations, to the previous chapter No. 4 "General Register of the twenty main male sexual phobias at the beginning of love
From the book The Right to Write. Invitation and introduction to the writing life author Cameron JuliaTricks of buyers Buyers also have their own methods of creating a feeling of guilt among sellers.1. It is noticed that if the seller has already taken money from the buyer, he does not want to part with them. So if the buyer gives a slightly lower amount and says that he has more
From the author's bookLOGICAL TRICKS One of the most frequent problems in a dispute is related to the proof and refutation of the points of view expressed by opponents. It should be borne in mind that there is only one not only effective, but also the correct way to "force" someone to give up
From the author's bookPSYCHOLOGICAL TRICKS A characteristic feature of this kind of tricks in a dispute is that they are directed not at the position of the opponent, his point of view, but rather at himself. There is a conscious shift of refutation or evidence ad rem (on the subject of a dispute)
From the author's bookCHAPTER 2 Some Tricks, Tricks, Tricks - It's All Just A PRESENTATION BEGINS Are you ready to awaken your senses and your subconscious right now? Are you ready to personally touch something truly amazing? Do you want to learn how to transmit thoughts at a distance and contact
From the author's bookChapter 39 Simple tricks - How do you do it? people often ask me, meaning by this, “How do you manage to create prolific and successful?” “I have a lot of simple tricks,” I answer. And I'm not kidding. And although everyone is already tired of hearing about the "inner child", I know that my
Bringing the enemy "off balance". Relying on slow thinking and gullibility. Distraction and misleading.
1. Much more interesting are those tricks that can be called psychological. They are based on the knowledge of some properties of the human soul, and some of our weaknesses.
The state of mind during an oral dispute has a huge impact on the conduct of the dispute. When we are "in shock", i.e. we are seized by a light, pleasant excitement, in which thought, memory, imagination work especially clearly and vividly, we argue better than usual. If we are very excited about something, embarrassed, confused, "hot", if our attention is distracted by something, we argue and think worse than usual, or even quite badly. (Of course, other things being equal). From this arises a series of psychological tricks designed to unbalance us, to weaken and upset the work of our thought.
2. There are many different techniques for this. The crudest and most common trick is to irritate the enemy and piss him off. For this, rude antics, “personalities”, insults, mockery, mockery, obviously unfair, outrageous accusations, etc. are used. If the enemy "boiled" - the case is won. He lost many chances in the dispute. Some skillfully try to “turn it up” to the desired degree. I saw a trick: with injustice and ridicule, the sophist unbalanced his youthful adversary. He began to get excited. Then the sophist took on an air of unspeakable good nature and a patronizing tone: “Well, Jupiter! You're angry, so you're wrong." Well, what are you, father! It's worth getting so excited! Calm down, calm down! What (58:) fever are you, etc. So after all, he brought the youngster to white heat! His hands are trembling with excitement and indignation. Throws himself blindly in a dispute, anywhere. I stopped thinking at all and, of course, “failed”. But they also use various other methods to “unbalance”. Another deliberately begins to mock at your "holy of holies." In person, he does not start, no! But a careless idealist can be "inflated" to the last limit. If the dispute is very important, in front of the listeners, responsible, then, they say, others even resort to the "artists' trick." Some artists, for example, singers, in order to “cut off” their rival, before his performance tell him some extremely unpleasant news, upset him with something or piss him off with an insult, etc., etc., in the expectation that after that he will not control himself and sing badly. So, according to rumors, some disputants do not hesitate to act occasionally before a responsible dispute. Personally, I have never seen this dastardly trick, but it is certainly possible. You have to be careful against it too.
3. If the enemy is a person “not fired upon”, gullible, thinking slowly, although it can be accurate, then some arrogant “thought conjurers” try to “stupefy” him in an oral argument, especially in front of listeners. They speak very quickly, often express thoughts in a form that is difficult to understand, quickly replace one another. Then, “not letting them come to their senses,” they victoriously draw the conclusion that they want and throw an argument: they are the winners. The most arrogant sometimes do not hesitate to cite thoughts without any connection, sometimes absurd, and while a slow-thinking and honest opponent tries to catch the connection between thoughts, without in any way suggesting that such impudence is possible, they already leave the battlefield with a triumphant look. This is done most often in front of such listeners who understand absolutely nothing about the topic of the dispute, but judge success or defeat - by appearance. Here is a well-known example of such a trick from The Weckfield Priest.
"That's right, Frank! cried the squire. ... A beautiful girl is worth all the intrigues of the clergy in the world. What is all these tithes and charlatan inventions, if not a deceit, one nasty deceit! And this I can prove."
“I would like to hear! exclaimed the son of Moses. I think I could answer you."
"Excellent, sir," said the squire; who immediately figured it out and winked at the rest of the company to get us ready to have some fun.
“Great, if you want to coolly discuss this topic, I am ready to accept the dispute. And above all, how do you prefer to discuss issues: analogously or dialogically?
“Discuss wisely,” exclaimed Moses, happy that he could argue.
“Again, excellent. First of all, first of all, I hope you won't deny that what is, is. If you don't agree with that, I can't argue any further."
"Still would!" Moses answered. “Of course, I agree with this, and I myself will use this truth to the best of my ability.”
"I also hope you agree that the part is less than the whole?"
"I agree too!" exclaimed Moses. "This is both right and reasonable."
“I hope,” exclaimed the squire, “you will not deny that the three angles of a triangle are equal to two right angles.”
“There is nothing more obvious,” Moses replied, and looked around with his usual gravity.
“Excellent,” exclaimed the squire, and began to speak very quickly: “Once these premises are established, then I assert that the concatenation of self-existence, acting in a mutually dual relationship, naturally leads to a problematic dialogism, which proves to a certain extent (59:) that the essence of spirituality can be attributed to the second kind of precabilia.”
"Wait, wait!" Moses exclaimed. “I deny it. Do you really think that I can give in to such wrong teachings without objection?”
- "What?" - answered the squire, pretending to be furious: “you do not yield? Answer me one simple and clear question: do you think Aristotle is right when he says that the relative is in relation?
“Undoubtedly,” said Moses.
“And if so,” exclaimed the squire, “then answer me directly: do you think that the analytical development of the first part of my enthymeme is deficient secundum guoad or guoad minus and give me your reasons. Bring me your reasons, I say, bring me directly, without evasions.
"I protest," Moses exclaimed. “I have not grasped properly the essence of your reasoning. Reduce it to a simple sentence, then I think I can give you an answer.
“Oh, sir!” exclaimed the squire, “your obedient servant. It turns out that I must provide you not only with arguments, but also with understanding! No sir. Here I protest, you are too difficult an opponent for me.
At these words, laughter arose over Moses. He sat alone, long-faced, among laughing faces. He did not utter another word during the conversation.
Vekf. Holy Goldsmith. Chapter VII
4. A lot of gross and subtle tricks are aimed at diverting the attention of the enemy from some thought that they want to pass without criticism. The most characteristic subtle tricks are of this kind.
The thought that we want to carry out in this way is either not expressed at all, but only necessarily implied, or it is expressed, but perhaps briefly, in the most gray, ordinary form. In front of her, they express such an idea, which, involuntarily, by its content or form, must attract the special attention of the enemy, for example, to hurt something, hit him, etc. If this is done successfully, then there is a very high chance that the trick will be successful for an ordinary opponent. He "overlooks" and misses an imperceptible thought without criticism.
Often (especially in disputes without long "speeches"), the technique takes the form of a "real" misleading ". Before the thought that they want to “convey” without criticism, they put some kind of thought that, for all reasons, should seem to the opponent obviously doubtful or obviously erroneous. It is assumed that every opponent is looking for weaknesses in our argument, and the majority pounces on the first weak point that comes across, without much attention skipping subsequent thoughts that come to it, if they are not conspicuous by fallacy. Let's say X needs to carry out without criticism an important idea for his goal, which the enemy can be very picky about if he notices its importance and incomplete evidence - the idea that the house in question is old. X decides to lead the enemy on a false trail. Knowing that an adversary defending, for example, some B. will certainly lash out with indignation at any accusation of B. of dishonesty, X says: “Here the matter undoubtedly did not go without a catch on the part of B. He acquired this old house not without the help of deceit.” If the opponent "attacks" the accusation, he can skip the "old house" without criticism. Then it remains in the heat of the fight to quietly repeat these words several times, hiding them in the shade, until “the ear gets used to them” - and the thought is carried out.
This trick allows for a variety of modifications and, so to speak, "fiority". Sometimes, for example, feeling that a false thought, under the wing of which they want to imperceptibly carry out an argument, may not in itself attract criticism of the opponent, they artificially try to show him that they themselves consider it a weak (60:) point of argumentation. This is where talent comes into play. For example, a person, in tone, facial expression, play of pauses, reproduces the behavior of a person who has expressed a weak objection and is afraid for him; unsure of the strength of the argument, and trying to quickly carry it out unnoticed, eluding criticism. An insufficiently sophisticated adversary can quite easily fall for this bait, if the sophist does not "overplay", does not emphasize his "desire to escape" too unnaturally, etc. etc.
It is worth noting that in oratory speeches, one of the strongest means of distracting attention from thoughts and their logical connection is pathos, an expression of a strong emotional upsurge, as well as an excess of successful tropes, figures, etc. It has been verified by experience that usually the listener is the worst at assimilating and remembering the meaning of such sections of speech.
Chapter 17
Psychological Tricks (Continued)
Bet on false shame. "Smearing" the argument. Suggestion. "Rubbing" points on thought. Double-entry bookkeeping.
1. Very often the sophist uses the human weakness common to most people to “appear better than it really is” or “not to drop oneself” in the eyes of the opponent or listeners; most often - "false shame." Seeing, for example, that the opponent is weak in science, the sophist puts forward an unconvincing or even false argument under the following sauce: "You, of course, know what science has now established," and so on. Or "has long been established by science"; or "public fact"; or “do you still not know about that?” etc. If the opponent is afraid to “drop himself”, admitting that he does not know this, he is trapped, and the sophist chuckles in his soul. Sometimes this trick is connected with using the authority of some person - a writer, a scientist, etc. For example, in a dispute with a socialist-Marxist, the "famous saying of Marx" is used. You can often bet eighty against twenty, and sometimes ninety-nine against one, that this "Marxist" did not even leaf through Marx, much less studied him, and never met the "famous saying" anywhere. However, he usually does not dare to say this. Rather, if you are also a socialist, he will pretend that he also knows this saying; more often than not, it will “swallow” the argument without objection.
2. In disputes "to win" another modification of this trick, based on the same weakness, is very common. Everyone knows that in general one thing (61:) is often said and another thought. Secret desires, beliefs, goals - there may be one, words - completely different. But another person will never admit this and will not dare to refute the “words” so that “not to appear” is not enough. a good man. Even Aristotle notes this feature.
Some high moral positions and principles are on the lips of many, in the soul and deeds of the few. For example, not so many people fulfill in practice the truth cited by the same Aristotle: “it is better to go broke, remaining honest, than to get rich with a lie.” But in words - rarely anyone will contradict her. On the contrary, sometimes a person is “unclean at hand”
When he talks about high honesty
We suggest some kind of demon -
Eyes on fire, face on fire
He cries himself - and we all cry.
Each epoch has its own "traditional truths" that are recognized as necessary to agree with out of "false shame", out of fear of being called "backward", "uncivilized", "retrograde", etc. etc. And the weaker a person is in spirit, the more cowardly he is in this respect.
The Sophist is in the hands of both. Both false and correct shame. He boldly stands on the ground of social hypocrisy and cowardice of the herd man and often acts "for sure".
3. Quite often, another related trick is used, also based on a person’s self-esteem: “oiling the argument”. The argument itself is not evidentiary, and the opponent can challenge it. Then they express this argument in a vague, confusing form and accompany it with such, for example, a compliment to the opponent: “of course, this is an argument that you will not bring in any dispute, a person who is not sufficiently educated will not appreciate it and will not understand it”, etc .; or “you, as a smart person, will not deny that”, etc.; or “it is, of course, quite clear to you and me that”, etc. etc. Sometimes they do not say compliments, but only subtly make it clear that your mind is treated with special respect ... All this sometimes works amazingly in disputes for persuasion. Even in a rude form, sometimes such a technique “softens” the enemy’s soul. “Smeared” with the oil of flattery, the gates of the mind open surprisingly easily to accept arguments. What to do! All people; all are human. As for the sophist, he rubs his hands. That's why the pike in the sea, so that the crucian does not doze off.
4. One of the strongest and most common tricks in an argument is suggestion. Its role in oral dispute is especially huge. Whoever has a loud, imposing voice, speaks calmly, distinctly, self-confidently, authoritatively, has a representative appearance and manners, he has, other things being equal, a huge advantage in oral dispute. He unwittingly "impresses", in most cases, and the enemy. Whoever is deeply and firmly convinced of what he is arguing for, and knows how to express this unshakable firmness with a convinced tone, manner (62:) of speaking and facial expression - he also has great inspiring power and also “acts” even on the opponent, especially one who does not have this conviction. A persuasive tone and manner is often more persuasive than the most solid argument.
Perhaps go; only, right, wouldn't it be better for you to stay? You would have waited for us here, would have hunted, and we would have gone with God. And it would be nice! he said in such a persuasive tone that for the first minute it really seemed to me that it would be nice.
L. Tolstoy. Raid
This "external persuasiveness" and its power is known to everyone from experience. It is the secret of the preaching success of many fanatics. It is used by skillful orators, and in a dispute with many it is one of the most powerful tricks.
5. The suggestion has a special effect on the listeners of the dispute. We have already touched on the "psychology of the typical listener." If the dispute is more or less abstract or goes beyond what the listener “knows through”, “like the back of his hand”, ordinary listener does not delve into the arguments, does not strain enough attention to grasp the essence of what is being said, especially if the objection or answer is long. When the listener already has a certain conviction on the issue under consideration, he usually does not listen even properly to "foreign", opposing arguments. If he does not have a definite conviction, and the dispute does not affect interests very close to him, the listener is guided more or less outward signs to judge which side wins. And this kind of listeners are the most suitable material for suggestion in a dispute.
“The old man shook his head so sternly and victoriously (having expressed his argument, S.P.) that the clerk (one of the listeners, S.P.) immediately decided that victory was on the side of the merchant and laughed loudly.” "The imposing intonation of the merchant, obviously, won over the listeners and the lady even felt depressed." (Tolstoy L. Kreutzer Sonata, ch. 11).
It's taken from life. It is worth taking a closer look at the disputes in order to feel the reality of the image. Whoever speaks in a weak, unsteady voice, uncertainly, under normal circumstances, loses in an argument in front of the audience, no matter whether this argument is won or for persuasion. According to V. James, even in such an abstract area as philosophy, it is important not only what is said, but also how it is said. "However pure and flawless you may find this philosophical current, it does not feel a strong, radical temperament." It has "neither activity nor enthusiasm." "It lacks an aggressive, victorious tone - and as a result, it lacks authority." (Pragmatism, lecture 1).
6. In addition to the tone and manner of arguing, there are many other tricks designed for suggestion. This is how laughter can act, a mockery of words. This is how statements often work that such and such an argument of the opponent is an “obvious mistake” or “nonsense”, etc. etc. The latter kind of tricks are also used in a written dispute: “our adversary agreed to such an absurdity as,” etc. The “absurdity” itself follows, not at all absurd. She has three exclamation points, but no attempt has been made to prove that this is absurd. Or, on the contrary: "the following words of such and such are extremely witty, thoughtful." The “words” of such and such have neither wit nor profundity, but the author of the article needs them, and the latter knows that the reader often does not even have time to check his assessment, will not concentrate on checking his attention, but will simply accept the words under the sauce, under (63:) with which they are served to him. Maybe in an hour he will repeat them himself, as witty and thoughtful.
This also includes, by its psychological side, references to authorities. These references act on others like a battering ram that breaks through a wall of distrust. Sometimes they presuppose a fact or someone else's argument, etc. "a few words" intended to "properly highlight" the fact or argument beforehand. Here, too, "suggestion" often lurks, and so on and so forth. In general, all such tricks are in the nature of "rubbing glasses" through which the reader or listener must look at a known issue.
The tricks of suggestion also include the repetition several times of the same argument, which is especially used in oratory practice. Often the argument is presented each time in a different form, but in such a way that it is clear that the thought is the same. This acts as a mechanical “driving into the head”, especially if the code is decorated with the colors of eloquence and pathos. “What the people are told three times, the people believe,” says one of the German authors. This is indeed confirmed by experience.
7. Finally, it should be noted one of the most common mistakes and tricks - although already psychological - the so-called. (not quite right) double-entry bookkeeping. Almost all people are more or less inclined to duality of assessments: one measure for ourselves and for what is beneficial or pleasant to us, the other for strangers, especially people unpleasant to us, and for what is harmful and not to our liking. In ethics this is expressed in the form of "Hottentot morality"; for example, if I charge you an extra hundred rubles, that's good; if you're with me - it's bad. It is necessary to shout: "Help!" The party newspaper cries out about the injustices and cruelties committed by the other party; what is done by her party is always only necessary or commendable, the newspaper can even boast of the same or many times worse cruelties committed by its allies. Often Hottentot morality has such naive, unconscious forms that one does not know whether one should be indignant or laugh. For example, when a very good person in essence scolds another for gossiping about him - and he himself immediately passes new gossip about it to another. Not out of revenge, no! He just does not realize that this is gossip. Gossip - when others talk; and when we say the same thing, it's a "friendship transfer" interesting fact from the lives of friends.
8. When this tendency to duality of evaluation begins to operate in the field of evidence, then "double-entry bookkeeping" is obtained. One and the same argument turns out to be true in one case, when it is beneficial for us, and erroneous when it is disadvantageous. When, for example, we refute someone with the help of a given argument, it is true; when they refute us, he is a lie. Naturally, the sophist cannot but accept "double bookkeeping" in his arsenal of tricks: it is too profitable "with skillful use." Another lawyer will refer, for example, to a well-known interpretation of such and such an article of the law, as correct, if it speaks in favor of his client. And he will prove its falsity if, on the contrary, his opponent is based on this interpretation. The same fact is accepted, no doubt, if it confirms our thesis; and its dubiousness is immediately suspected, if, on the contrary, it is expressed by the enemy, etc.
Here is an example of this trick: one of the parties that entered the district dumas of the city of X. turned out to be the predominant party in most of these dumas. Having entered into a bloc with other related parties, it did not give a single seat in the council of the hostile party in these thoughts. - Members of the latter argued that they have a right demand a certain number of "management" places: elections to dumas were proportional, therefore, seats in the council should be distributed according to the same principle.
The ruling party rejected this argument as unsuitable, wrong.
However, it happened that in some district dumas it still turned out to be non-predominant. The “kindred” parties took advantage of this and, forming a bloc among themselves, in turn did not give her a single seat in the council. Then she resorted to the same argument that her “enemies” had resorted to in other thoughts. Here he was suitable and correct. - Thus, "double bookkeeping" triumphed.
In those cases where the evidence and dispute relate to the field of ethical assessments, "double-entry bookkeeping" is only a formulation of the "Hottentot morality" in the field of arguments and evidence. This is clear, of course, by itself.
Sometimes "double bookkeeping" is not hidden at all, but appears with an open visor. This happens in those cases when, in what is beneficial for her, she openly relies on “her own convictions”, and where this is not beneficial, on the convictions of the enemy. Here is an example. In France, Catholics were reproached with logical inconsistency: they demand complete freedom of speech for themselves, while in general they themselves are bitter enemies of this freedom. One Catholic publicist answered something like this: “When we demand freedom for ourselves, we proceed from your principles. This is how you defend freedom of speech. Why don't you apply it to us? When we restrict freedom of speech, we proceed from our convictions. In this we are also quite right and logically consistent.” - Of course, this is often very profitable "accounting"! In a word, a special, heightened love for logic is manifested here.
Double-entry bookkeeping is already quite clearly moving from the realm of "mere tricks" to the realm of sophism.
In our life sometimes it happens that we cannot find with someone mutual language or we find ourselves in a situation where we are embarrassed to ask another person about something.
Almost all people on Earth find themselves in situations where they experience difficulties in communication. To overcome such psychological barrier, it is worth mastering the most effective methods communication.
Most often, friendly communication is hindered by such factors as: self-doubt, one’s words or actions, self-absorption in one’s problems, categoricalness, bad mood, self-confidence and banality.
✔ Uncertainty most often gets in the way between interlocutors. Discomfort, lack right words, - these are signs of psychological uncertainty. If this interferes excessively with a person in life, in career growth, etc., then there is only one way out - seeking help from a professional psychologist.
✔ Introspection to your problems repels the interlocutor, because everyone is interested in talking about their own, and not interested in hearing about other people's problems. Therefore, when choosing topics for conversation, you need to carefully bypass those issues that are of interest only to you. It is better to prepare topics that are interesting to the interlocutor - so you will pass for an attentive person.
✔ Categorical - not best friend in dialogues. Intransigence and rigidity of views, rejection of someone else's point of view repel the interlocutor. This is permissible in isolated cases, when without categoricalness it is impossible to prove one's point of view on some important question. In all other cases, you should be flexible and allow the interlocutor to defend his opinion.
✔ Few people can command their mood, therefore it is best to admit to the interlocutor that you are not in the in a better mood. Thus, you will arouse sympathy and condescension.
✔ Self-confidence is similar to swagger. Keep in mind that everyone is different, different education, level of knowledge and worldview, so if you want to be known interesting interlocutor, then you need to be loyal to those with whom you communicate.
✔ Banal topics for conversations cause one desire - to end the conversation as soon as possible. The conversation should be interesting from start to finish, the phrase "How are you?" and the answer "All right" does not provide an opportunity to continue the conversation. It is better to ask the person about his specific plans.
It is important to show your friendly mood during a conversation - smile, say some kind of compliment, etc. This will position the interlocutor faster and more accurately than the flow of on-duty phrases.
♦ Here are some techniques you can use to build relationships with others.
1. In case if the answer of the interlocutor did not suit you- for example, he did not say something, expressed himself unclearly, or lied - no need to ask again. Instead, just silently and carefully look into his eyes - this technique simply will not leave him a chance, and he will be forced to continue his thought.
2. If someone is yelling at you, make an effort and remain completely calm while remaining unperturbed. The first reaction of the screamer is anger, which your behavior will only provoke, but it will subside very quickly, and reaction number two will begin - guilt for your defiant and aggressive behavior. Most likely, it is the screaming one who will ask for forgiveness.
3. If everyone in the company starts laughing at once, then everyone at the level of instinct looks at the one who is most attractive to him, with whom he would like to become closer. Therefore, catch glances after a successful joke - you will learn a lot of new things.
4. If you know that you will hear criticism from a person(they will make comments or scold), take courage and try to sit or stand next to him - in this case, he will soften, and the negative will come from him many times less than if you were at a distance.
5. Eating in a person is associated with calmness and security, because we do it most often at home, in our native walls. That is why, if you are very worried, chew gum: This will trick the brain into thinking what you are eating, which means it will make you feel more confident and calm.
6. The old and proven method used by many students in the exam - imagine that the teacher is your good and close friend, then it will be much easier to answer, and you will feel calmer. This technique works in other situations as well. For example, it can be used before an important interview.
7. When meeting a person, express a little more joy in his attitude.: for example, or try to pronounce his name softly and warmly, then over time you will begin to relate to him much better, and the joy of meeting will be sincere.
8. If your work is related to people, then you can "make" them behave more politely and gently: Place a mirror behind you so that your interlocutors can see their reflection. As a rule, in the mirror we always try to look better, smile, but we don’t want to see ourselves as evil and harmful.
9. To win over a person at the first meeting and get his sympathy, just determine his eye color at the time of meeting: eye contact is conducive to you.
10. If want to attract the attention of someone you like stare at an object directly behind his shoulders. As soon as you realize that you have caught the eye of the object of sympathy on yourself, quickly look into his eyes and smile a little - it works flawlessly.
11. Actually we can control our stress: when you are very worried, feel how you began to breathe deeper, how your heart began to beat faster, and try to force yourself to breathe more calmly and balance the knock. We really can do it.
12. Setting any requirements or conditions, initially overestimate the bar. Most likely, the person will not agree to this and refuse. But on the other hand, he will 100% agree to the real conditions that you offer later: people tend to give you less if they denied you something more before that.
13. People are drawn to those who are confident in themselves and their actions., so just show that you know exactly what you're talking about (even if you don't really).
Many believe that the essence of human communication is only the exchange of information. But it is not so.
The essence of human communication is what kind of feedback (at the level of feelings, emotions) you give in response. In what tone, what intonation do you express feelings. It can be surprise, calmness, sadness, joy, delight, etc.
♦
What would you like to know about the principles of communication with other people?
The first is that you should not feel guilty during communication. Psychologists have found that behind the feeling of guilt is the fear of punishment. If you experience fear of punishment, you thereby "open the door" to a person who treats you unkindly. Feelings of guilt have a destructive effect on.
Second - do not react to anger, irritation of your interlocutor with fear or anxiety. It is advisable to learn to defend your psychological boundaries calmly.
Third - no need to make excuses, clarify, explain anything when they find fault with you. It is wiser to answer kindly and calmly, but to formulate the response phrase only in the form of an open question. An open-ended question begins with the words "What? Where? When? From where? What exactly? How exactly? For what purpose?" For example, "What exactly surprises you?"; "What's wrong?"... When claims or wishes are expressed to you, you can say "I'll think about what can be done." With this phrase, you do not allow the interlocutor to associate work with your personality. If you have not coped with the performance of work somewhere, this is not a reason to devalue you as a person.
Fourth - it is desirable to learn to speak, at least in a calm tone. Aggressive, hostile speech, full of hatred and resentment, makes an unpleasant impression on others.
Kindness and the ability to get along with other people are signs of mental well-being.
Our facial expressions are closely related to emotions: we raise our eyebrows when we are touched, we squint our eyes when we cry. And, on the contrary, facial expressions affect the internal state: if right now we make a grimace, similar to the one that appears on the face when crying, most likely, tears will begin to roll on their own☻ .
Use this feature to your advantage: smile! Smile just like that, for no reason, and in just a few seconds this smile will become real and sincere!
According to www.adme.ru, www.psyline.ru, www.vitamarg.com
Knowing the mechanism of functioning of tricks will help a business person to effectively neutralize them in various situations of controversy and dispute, which will allow him not to become an object of manipulation by immoral opponents. Learn to recognize the psychological tricks being used against you.
Psychological tricks are understood as such unacceptable (from the point of view of morality) methods of dispute, discussion, polemics, which are based on psychological impact on the interlocutor in order to introduce him into a state of irritation, play on his feelings of pride, shame, use manifestations and other subtle features of the human psyche.
· "Annoying the Opponent" , i.e., bringing him out of a state of mental balance by ridicule, accusations, reproaches and other methods until the interlocutor is irritated and at the same time makes an erroneous statement that is unfavorable for his position.
· "The use of obscure words and terms." This trick can cause, on the one hand, the impression of the significance of the problem under discussion, the weight of the arguments presented, high level professionalism and competence. On the other hand, the use of incomprehensible, scientific terms by the initiator of the trick can cause the opposite reaction on the part of the opponent in the form of irritation, alienation, or withdrawal into psychological defense. However, the trick succeeds when the interlocutor is either embarrassed to ask again about something, or pretends to understand what is being said and accept the arguments given.
· "Stunned by the pace of discussion" - when a fast pace of speech is used in communication and the opponent who perceives the arguments is not able to “process” them. In this case, the rapidly changing stream of thoughts simply dumbfounds the interlocutor and introduces him into a state of discomfort.
· "Transferring the dispute into the realm of speculation". The essence of the trick is to turn the polemic into a denunciation and force the opponent to either justify himself or explain something that has nothing to do with the essence of the problem under discussion. An example of a trick is to say something like “You say so because your position requires it, but in fact you think differently.”
· "Mind Reading for Suspicion". The meaning of the trick is to use the "mind reading" option to divert all kinds of suspicions from yourself. An example would be a judgment like “Perhaps you think that I am persuading you? So you're wrong!".
· "A reference to 'higher interests' without deciphering them." The essence of the trick is to express a thought containing a hint that if the opponent, for example, continues to be intractable in a dispute, then this may affect the interests of those whom it is highly undesirable to upset or unbalance. An example of this trick as a variant of the "stick argument" would be an invocation like: “Do you understand what you are trying to do when you disagree with the arguments given?”
· "Judgment like 'That's corny!'" The main idea of the trick is to force the opponent to react to the unambiguity and unsubstantiated assessment, which really does not contain any arguments. Indeed, the opponent's reaction to a remark like "It's all nonsense", "It's nonsense", "It's common knowledge", "It's trite" quite predictable. Having heard such an assessment, few people resist the temptation to emotionally prove that this is not so. To induce to justification - this is the insidious design of the trick.
· "Carthage must be destroyed" - this is the name of the following psychological trick, the idea of which is to "accustom" the opponent to any thought. "Carthage must be destroyed"- this is how the speech of Consul Cato the Elder in the Roman Senate always ended. The trick is to gradually and purposefully accustom the interlocutor to some unsubstantiated statement. Then, after repeated repetition, this statement is declared obvious.
· "An understatement with a hint of special motives." The essence of this trick is to demonstrate some significant understatement, to hint that in this case much more can be said, but this is not done for some special reason.
· "Reference to Authority". Recall that this trick only works if the authority being referred to is really an authority. Otherwise, the trick may have the opposite effect. Interesting data are given by experts in assessing who the interlocutor trusts the most. In the first place, of course, trust in yourself. In second place is trust in some third party, and an authoritative one. Finally, the one he trusts the least is his opponent.
· "Accusation of Utopian Ideas". The trick is designed to force the partner to justify himself, to look for arguments against the accusation that his idea is unrealistic. Thanks to reasoning in defense of the proclaimed arguments, in fact, there is a departure from the main problem of the discussion. All this, as in many other cases, is extremely beneficial to the initiator of the trick.
· "Flattery or compliment." Flattering or complimentary turns of speech in terms of the strength of their impact on the human psyche are not inferior to any other trick. This is primarily due to the fact that, by influencing the subconscious of a person, they are able to sweeten the opponent's ears, weaken criticism in their address, and create a much-needed atmosphere of recognition of human dignity. We are all sensitive to compliments- this is a completely fair idea expressed by A. Lincoln. But if a compliment can cause pleasant feelings in an interlocutor, then flattery by its nature can provoke a backlash. What is the essential difference between these concepts: “flattery” and “compliment”? Let's dwell on this in more detail. Let's start with a simple everyday example: in the phrase "How sweet and charming you are!" an involuntarily flexible and penetrating mind will hear flattery, i.e., as it were, a straightforward, simple emphasizing of a person’s merits. However, in a complimentary statement like “I see why your husband is always in a hurry to get home.” one can see a guess, a reflection on the merits of a woman, perhaps, and not only in her appearance.
To give a more complete description of flattery, let's give? a few words about her. “Who is a flatterer?- writes the French moral philosopher La Bruyère, - It is a flexible and indulgent mind that smiles at your every breath, screams at your every word, and applauds your every action.” And how not to bring here wonderful lines:
Be careful when you hear flattery
Her weapon is evil and revenge
Never trust her.
No wonder people say:
Take a very warm look,
Yes, a heart of ice.
· "False Shame" This trick consists in using a false argument against the opponent, which he is able to "swallow" without much objection. The trick can be successfully used in various kinds of judgments, discussions and disputes, including pedagogical ones. Type invocations "You know, of course, that science has now established..." or “Of course you know that a decision has recently been made…” or "You've certainly read about..." lead the opponent into a state of “false shame”, when he is, as it were, ashamed to say publicly about ignorance of the things they are talking about. In these cases, most of the people against whom this ploy is used nod or pretend to remember what is being said, thereby acknowledging all these, sometimes false, arguments.
· "False shame followed by reproach." This trick, like many others, is not aimed at the essence of the problem under discussion, but at the personality of the interlocutor, with belittling the opponent, humiliating his dignity, etc. An example of a trick is the statement "What, you didn't read this?" with the subsequent addition-reproaches of the type "So what do we talk about with you then?" The subsequent actions of the initiator of the trick are obvious: he either ends the discussion (which, in fact, is included in his plans), or continues to skillfully lead away from the discussion of the problem.
· "Humiliation by irony". This trick is effective when the dispute is unprofitable for some reason. You can disrupt the discussion of the problem, get away from the discussion by belittling the opponent with irony, such as "I'm sorry, but you are saying things that are beyond my understanding." Usually in such cases, the one against whom this trick is directed begins to feel a sense of dissatisfaction with what was said and, trying to soften his position, makes mistakes, but of a different nature.
· "Demonstration of resentment." This ploy also aims to derail the argument, since a statement like "Who do you really take us for?" clearly demonstrates to the partner that the opposite side cannot continue the discussion, as they experience a feeling of obvious dissatisfaction, and most importantly, resentment for some ill-conceived actions of the opponent.
· "Authority of the statement". With the help of this trick, the psychological significance of one's own arguments is significantly increased. This can be done effectively through type evidence. "I tell you authoritatively". Such a turn of speech by a partner is usually perceived as a clear signal of strengthening the significance of the arguments being expressed, and therefore, as a determination to firmly defend one's position in the dispute.
· "Frankness of the statement". In this trick, the emphasis is on the special confidentiality of communication, which is demonstrated using phrases such as, for example: "I'll tell you right now (frankly, honestly) ...". This gives the impression that everything that was said before was not fully direct, frank or honest. As a rule, such turns of speech increase attention to what the initiator of the trick will say, and subsequently encourage the partner to respond in the same vein, that is, just as frankly, honestly and directly.
· "Double-entry bookkeeping". This trick is most popular in almost all situations of business communication. Its essence lies in the fact that the same arguments and arguments are recognized as convincing when they are expressed in defense of their position, and extremely unacceptable when they are expressed by the opponent. This technique corresponds to the well-known principle of the so-called Hottentot morality (Hottentots are a people in South Africa), according to which everything that corresponds to one’s own desires and views is considered true (true), and everything that contradicts them is considered false infidels.
· "Imaginary inattention". The name of this trick already speaks about its essence: they “forget”, and sometimes they do not specifically notice the inconvenient and dangerous arguments of the opponent. Not to notice what can harm - this is the intention of the trick.
· "Imaginary misunderstanding and misunderstanding." The “cunning” of this trick lies in misinterpreting the arguments and arguments of the opponent, i.e., deliberately, for the sake of, of course, one’s own interests, to present the partner’s argument in a distorted form. This is easy to do with well-known listening techniques such as Listening-Paraphrasing and Listening-Summarizing. The essence of the first technique is to formulate the partner’s thoughts in your own words, but already deliberately distorting the information, using phrases such as: “So, do you think…”, “In other words, do you think…”, “In your opinion…” etc. The essence of the second technique is to give the interlocutor a signal that you have caught the message in its entirety, and not some part of it (what was beneficial or wanted to be heard). In other words, with the help of summarizing, i.e., combining the partner’s thoughts into a single semantic field, using phrases like: “Summarizing what you said...”, “So, as far as I understand, your main idea is that...”, you can consciously change the meaning of the ideas expressed by the partner and thereby realize the main idea of the trick.
· "Flatter turns of speech". The peculiarity of this trick is to “sprinkle the opponent with sugar of flattery”, to hint to him how much he can win or, on the contrary, lose if he persists in his disagreement. An example of a flattering turn of speech would be: "As a smart person, you can't help but see that...".
· The name of this trick corresponds to a well-known old aphorism. Let us recall its essence. In past centuries, when planning a very important military offensive operation the mediocre "parquet" military leaders, it would seem, took everything into account: the time of day, the nature of the maneuver, and the route of movement of the troops. However, the calculation was carried out exclusively on the map, without reference to the terrain. In a real situation, the regiments had to move not on flat terrain, but to overcome all sorts of obstacles, in particular ravines. As a result of this, the troops could not reach the lines of attack in time and were themselves attacked and subsequently defeated. And so it happened: “It was smooth on paper, but they forgot about the ravines.” The use of this trick in a dispute, i.e. the statement that everything the partner says is good only in theory, but unacceptable in practice, will force him to impromptu arguments to prove the opposite, which in the end can inflame the atmosphere of discussion and reduce the discussion to mutual attacks and accusations.
· "Reliance on a Past Statement". The main thing in this trick is to draw the opponent's attention to his past statement, which contradicts his reasoning in this dispute, and demand an explanation on this matter. Such explanations can (if it is beneficial) lead the discussion to a dead end or provide information about the nature of the opponent's changed views, which is also important for the initiator of the trick.
· "Labeling". The main purpose of the trick is to cause a response to the reproaches, accusations or insults expressed. The natural human reaction to accusations like: "You are a liar", "You are a scoundrel", "You are a scoundrel" the point is to respond in kind, i.e., to respond with a replica: “I hear from the same”, “I myself am like that” and so on. After the exchange of such "courtesies", of course, it is no longer necessary to talk about any confidential and constructive discussion.
· "Replacement of Truth by Utility". At the heart of this trick lies an important and quite obvious rule: when the benefits are clearly visible, it is difficult to discern the truth. Thus, the purpose of the trick is to convince the disputant that he owes his well-being precisely to the thesis that he disputes. To force the opponent to such thinking will help a statement like: “Have you ever wondered what it would cost to implement your idea?”
· "Linguistic Cosmetics". The essence of the trick is that the same idea is expressed in different ways, giving it the right shade. “Cosmetics” in this case can be different: from light, graceful, enveloping, like a thin veil, the subject of thought, to excessive, when the “second house”, where this thought moves in, no longer has anything to do with the “first house”. As with a number of other tricks, this technique cannot be effectively applied without the listening methods described above (“Paraphrasing” and “Summarizing”).
· Visible Support. The uniqueness of this trick lies in the fact that, having taken the floor from the opponent, come to his aid, i.e., begin to bring new arguments and evidence in defense of his thesis. This help is necessary only for the appearance (appearance) of supporting the opponent, because the purpose of the trick is the imaginary support of the opponent, aimed at reassuring him with consent, diverting attention, and also weakening his psychological confrontation. After the opponent loses his vigilance and those around him appreciate the level of awareness of the problem on the part of his opponent, the initiator of the trick delivers a powerful counterattack, known to psychologists as a technique "Yes, but..." which reveals the shortcomings of the thesis put forward by the opponent, demonstrates its inferiority. Thus, it seems that the opposite side is more familiar with the thesis being proved by the opponent than he himself is, and after a thorough study of the problem, he became convinced of the inconsistency of this thesis and the entire system of argumentation given by the opponent.
· Reduction of fact (argument) to personal opinion. The purpose of this trick is to accuse the communication partner that the arguments he cites in defense of his thesis or in refutation of the contested thought are nothing more than just a personal opinion, which, like the opinion of any other person, can be erroneous. Appeal to the interlocutor with the words: “What you are saying now is just your personal opinion”- will involuntarily set him up for objections, give rise to the desire to challenge the expressed opinion about the arguments he has given. If the interlocutor succumbs to this trick, the subject of the controversy, contrary to his desire and for the sake of the intention of the initiator of the trick, shifts towards a discussion of a completely different problem, where the opponent will prove that the arguments he has expressed are not only his personal opinion. Practice confirms that if this happened, then the trick was a success.
· "Selection of Acceptable Arguments". This trick is based on the conscious selection of unilaterally directed information to prove any thought and operating during the discussion or dispute only with this information.
· "Rabulistics". This trick means deliberately distorting the meaning of the opponent's statements, presenting them as funny and strange. For example, a remark like “Your colleague agreed to the point that…” causes the perceiver to respond in a special way to this information. In other words, any exposure to rabulistics introduces the interlocutor into a state of far from constructive mood when discussing the problem, which, in turn, can cause an extremely negative defensive reaction in the form of indignation, accusation, or refusal to discuss.
· "Trojan horse". The gist of the trick is this:
a) the disputant, using the already known method of "visible support", goes over to the side of the opponent in the dispute and begins to give additional arguments in defense of the thesis of his opponent;
b) being "taken on the side of the enemy" (because opposite side it is flattering to listen to the speeches of opponents in defense of one’s own position), the one who uses the trick skillfully distorts the main thesis and arguments of the partner beyond recognition;
c) then he begins to passionately defend this already distorted position, which has nothing in common with the original one. As a result, when the author of a compromised thesis catches on, it is already too late, since the opponent has managed to deliver a “mortal blow” to both the thesis and the author's authority.
· boomerang method. This method is especially effective after using the “Visible support” trick, but only half implemented, i.e. when, having gone over to the side of the opponent, the initiator of the trick notes only the positive, positive aspects of the proposal (thesis) that his partner expresses. Then, introducing the rule “like gives rise to like”, he invites the interlocutor to speak out about the positive aspects of his own judgment. The adversary usually does this without much difficulty, since he has just accepted the eulogies about his proposal. Having skillfully achieved such responses from the opponent, the ruse-user begins to successfully manipulate the opponent's just-cited arguments about the advantages and positive aspects of his project. The main thing at this final stage: firstly, to keep the partner’s attention on the positive that he himself found in the arguments of his opponent until the end of the discussion; secondly, to prevent the opposite side from turning the discussion into a discussion of the positive aspects of their ideas and proposals.
· "Silence". The desire to deliberately withhold information from the interlocutor is the most frequently used! trick in any form of discussion. In competition with a business partner, it is much easier to simply hide information from him than to dispute it in a controversy. Skill is smart! hiding something from your opponent is the most important component of the art of diplomacy. In this regard, we note that the professionalism of a polemist consists in skillfully moving away from the truth without resorting to lies.
· "Half-truth". This may mean mixing lies and reliable information; one-sided coverage of facts; inaccurate and vague wording of the provisions under discussion; references to sources with a disclaimer like: "I don't remember who said..."; distortion of a reliable statement with the help of value judgments, etc. The “Half-truth” trick, as practice shows, is most often used when it is necessary to avoid an undesirable turn of the dispute, when there are no reliable arguments, but it is imperative to challenge the opponent, when it is necessary, contrary to common sense, to persuade someone to a certain conclusion.
· "Lie". This trick, as you know, is intended to hide the real state of affairs and convey to your partner false information, which can be presented in the form of false documents, links to sources, to experiments that no one has ever done, etc. In real life, perhaps, there will not be a person who has lied at least once. Let's not forget that in everyday business communication every person is only as truthful as he is smart.
· "The carrot and stick method". The idea of this trick is manifested in the problem-rhetorical questions asked to the opponent such as: “Which is better for you to have: your own opinion or everything else?”, “What is more preferable for you: to object or not to suffer?”. In other words, the threatening nature of this ploy forces the opponent to make a choice: remain principled, but at the same time suffer, or accept conditions, sometimes unacceptable, but at the same time be safe from threats, blackmail, and sometimes physical violence. The special meaning of this morally impermissible trick can be demonstrated by an interesting example from the famous novel by M. Puzo "The Godfather", where one of the characters frankly shares the idea that much more can be done with a kind word and a gun than just a kind word.
· "Forcing a strictly unambiguous answer." The main thing in this trick is to firmly and decisively demand from the opponent to give an unambiguous answer: “Say straight: yes or no?”, i.e., consciously force him not to a dialectical answer ("and ... and"), but to an alternative ("either ... or"). Experience confirms that this trick is usually resorted to when the opponent's extended response is highly undesirable. It should be noted that the trick is most effective in dealing with a poorly educated opponent, since in most cases it will be perceived as a manifestation of integrity on the part of the partner.
· "What do you have against?" The essence of the trick is not to prove your stated thesis, that is, not to give arguments and arguments in its defense, but to offer (even demand) to refute it: “What do you really have against it?” In the event that the opponent falls for the trick, he begins to criticize the proposition put forward, and the dispute (as planned by the initiator of the trick) begins to be waged with respect to the opponent's counter-arguments already presented. Thus, the user of the ruse deliberately moves away from proving his own thesis and concentrates the general attention on the opponent's counterarguments.
· "Multiple questions". This trick consists in asking the opponent not one, but several, and different and little compatible with each other questions in one question. Then they act depending on the answers: either they are accused of not understanding the essence of the problem, or that the opponent did not fully answer the questions, misled, evaded the answer.
Incredible Facts
Before starting, it is worth noting that none of the methods listed below fall under what can be called the "dark art of influencing" people. Everything that can harm a person or hurt his dignity is not given here.
These are ways to win friends and influence people through psychology without making anyone feel bad.
Psychological tricks
10. Ask for a favor
Trick: Ask someone for a favor for you (a technique known as the Benjamin Franklin effect).
Legend has it that Benjamin Franklin once wanted to win over a man who didn't love him. He asked this man to lend him rare book and when he received it, thanked him very graciously.
As a result, a man who did not particularly want to even talk to Franklin became friends with him. In Franklin's words: "He who once did you a good deed will be more disposed to do something good for you again than one to whom you yourself owe."
The scientists set out to test this theory, and eventually found that those people whom the researcher asked for a personal favor were much more supportive of the specialist compared to other groups of people.
Impact on human behavior
9. Aim High
Trick: Always ask for more than you initially need, and then lower the bar.
This technique is sometimes referred to as the "door-to-face approach". You are approaching a person with a really overpriced request, which he is likely to refuse.
After that, you come back with a request "rank below", namely with what you really need from this person.
This trick may seem counterintuitive to you, but the idea is that the person will feel bad after they refuse you. However, he will explain this to himself as the unreasonableness of the request.
So the next time you approach him with a real need, he will feel obligated to help you.
Scientists, after testing this principle in practice, came to the conclusion that it actually works, because a person who is first addressed with a very "big" request, and then returned to him and asked for a small one, feels that it is he who should help you.
The influence of a name on a person
8. Name names
Trick: use the person's name or title as appropriate.
He emphasizes that the name of a person in any language is the sweetest combination of sounds for him. Carnegie says that the name is the main component of human identity, therefore, when we hear it, we once again receive confirmation of our significance.
That is why we feel more positive towards a person who confirms our importance in the world.
However, the use of a position or other form of address in a speech can also have strong impact. The idea is that if you behave like a certain type of person, then you will become that person. This is somewhat like a prophecy.
To use this technique to influence other people, you can refer to them as you would like them to be. As a result, they will begin to think of themselves in this way.
It's very simple, if you want to get close to a certain person, then call him "friend", "comrade" more often. Or, referring to someone you would like to work for, you can call him "boss". But keep in mind that sometimes it can go sideways for you.
The influence of words on a person
7. Flatter
Cunning: Flattery can get you where you need to be.
This may seem obvious at first glance, but there are some important caveats. To begin with, it is worth noting that if flattery is not sincere, then it will most likely do more harm than good.
However, scientists who have studied flattery and people's reactions to it have found some very important things.
Simply put, people are always trying to maintain cognitive balance by trying to organize their thoughts and feelings in a similar way.
Therefore, if you flatter a person whose self-esteem is high, and sincere flattery, he will like you more, because the flattery will coincide with what he thinks of himself.
However, if you flatter someone whose self-esteem suffers, then negative consequences are possible. It is likely that he will treat you worse, because this does not intersect with how he perceives himself.
Of course, this does not mean that a person with low self-esteem should be humiliated.
Ways to influence people
6. Mirror other people's behavior
Trick: Be a mirror image of the other person's behavior.
Mirroring behavior is also known as mimicry, and is something that a certain type of person is inherent in their nature.
People with this skill are called chameleons because they try to blend in with their environment by copying someone else's behavior, mannerisms, and even speech. However, this skill can be used quite consciously and is a great way to get liked.
The researchers studied mimicry and found that those who were copied were very favorable towards the person who copied them.
Also, experts came to another, more interesting conclusion. They found that people who had copycats were much more accepting of people in general, even those who were not involved in the study.
It is likely that the reason for this reaction lies in the following. Having someone who mirrors your behavior confirms your worth. People feel more self-confident, thus they are happier and more attuned towards other people.
Psychology of influence on people
5. Take advantage of fatigue
Trick: Ask for a favor when you see that the person is tired.
When a person is tired, he becomes more receptive to any information, whether it is a simple statement about something or a request. The reason is that when a person gets tired, it happens not only on the physical level, it the mental supply of energy is also depleted.
When you make a request to a tired person, most likely you will not get a definite answer right away, but will hear: "I will do it tomorrow", because he will not want to make any decisions at the moment.
The next day, most likely, the person will actually fulfill your request, because on a subconscious level, most people try to keep their word, so we make sure that what we say matches what we do.
Psychological impact on a person
4. Offer something that a person cannot refuse
Trick: start the conversation with something that the other person cannot refuse, and you will achieve what you need.
This back side door-to-face approach. Instead of starting a conversation with a request, you start with something small. As soon as a person agrees to help you in a small way, or simply agrees to something, you can use "heavy artillery".
Experts tested this theory on marketing approaches. They started by asking people to show their support for rainforests and environment which is a very simple request.
Once support has been received, scientists have found that it is now much easier to convince people to buy products that promote this support. However, you should not start with one request and immediately move on to another.
Psychologists have found that it is much more effective to take a break of 1-2 days.
Ways to influence people
3. Keep calm
Cunning: you should not correct a person when he is wrong.
In his famous book, Carnegie also emphasized that one should not tell people they are wrong. This, as a rule, will lead nowhere, and you will simply fall out of favor with this person.
In fact, there is a way to show disagreement while continuing a polite conversation, not telling anyone that he is wrong, but hitting the interlocutor's ego to the core.
The method was invented by Ray Ransberger and Marshall Fritz. The idea is pretty simple: instead of arguing, listen to what the person has to say and then try to understand how they feel and why.
After that, you should explain to the person those points that you share with him, and use this as a starting point for clarifying your position. This will make him more sympathetic towards you and he is more likely to listen to what you have to say without losing face.
The influence of people on each other
2. Repeat the words of your interlocutor
Trick: Paraphrase what the person says and repeat what they said.
This is one of the most amazing ways to influence other people. In this way, you show your interlocutor that you really understand him, capture his feelings and your empathy is sincere.
That is, paraphrasing the words of your interlocutor, you will achieve his location very easily. This phenomenon is known as reflective listening.
Studies have shown that when doctors use this technique, people open up more to them, and their "collaboration" is more fruitful.
It's easy to use while chatting with friends. If you listen to what they have to say and then paraphrase what they said, forming a confirmation question, they will feel very comfortable with you.
You will have a strong friendship, and they will listen more actively to what you have to say, because you managed to show that you care about them.
Methods of influencing people
1. Nod your head
Trick: Nod your head a little during a conversation, especially if you want to ask your interlocutor for something.
Scientists have found that when a person nods while listening to someone, they are more likely to agree with what was said. They also found that if your interlocutor nods, then most of the time you will also nod.
This is quite understandable, because people often unconsciously imitate the behavior of another person, especially one with whom interaction will benefit them. So if you want to add weight to what you're saying, nod regularly as you speak.
The person you're talking to will have a hard time not nodding back, and they'll start to react positively to the information you're presenting without even knowing it.