Making the Connection: Strategies to Build Effective Personal Relationships (Collection) (8 page)

It’s always wise to ask experts what others in their field think. I’m always careful in my lectures to make it clear what is known as a fact; what most academics think on an issue; what we don’t know for sure; and what I think (which is not always the same). So I will commonly say, “The general view among lawyers is that the courts would interpret the law in this way, but my own view is that the courts should interpret it in another way. Let me give you the arguments on either side ...” A good expert should easily be able to tell you not only their view, but the views of others in their area.

So never be nervous about challenging the facts. If you think they might be wrong, then others would probably think the same. In challenging the facts, you might get an answer that
actually substantiates them. This would mean the argument could move forward toward a resolution. But the facts might very well not stand up to query. You won’t know unless you challenge them. If there is any doubt at all in your mind, verify the facts before you move on to the next step.

Challenging the conclusions

Remember Bob’s argument:

“Average temperatures in the US are falling, not rising, and therefore talk of global warming is nonsense.”

You might accept Bob’s premise (that average temperatures in the US are falling) but argue that his conclusion is mistaken. For example,

“Bob, you’re right that average temperatures in the US are falling, but in many other parts of the world temperatures are rising. It may be getting colder here, but that doesn’t mean that the world overall is not getting warmer.”

Challenging the conclusion is useful when the facts themselves are not in dispute but you think that the logic leading to the conclusion is flawed. One particular aspect is when individual facts lead to generalized conclusions (as in the earlier example of the Pope being Catholic and opposing abortion). Every now and then a case is reported in the newspapers that produces what appears to be an unfair result and naturally the cry goes up, “the law needs to be changed.” But we need to be careful. Just because the current law has produced an unfair result doesn’t mean that an amended law will not also produce an unfair result. Indeed, it may be that whatever the law says there are going to be some cases where there is an unfairness.

So, if you want to challenge someone’s conclusion you will want to argue that their conclusion does not follow from their
premise. There may be other conclusions that could be reached. Ask the person you are arguing with why it is they reach their conclusion, rather than an alternative. Consider this example:

Getting it right

Bob:    “Your child is constantly yawning in my class. He clearly needs more sleep.”

Mary:   “Well, he could be yawning because he’s bored, rather than tired. No other teachers report his yawning in their classes. If he was tired you would expect him to be yawning in all his classes.”

In this example Mary has effectively shown that several conclusions could flow from Bob’s premise (Mary’s son is yawning in class). Bob has concluded that it’s because the son is tired. However, as Mary has pointed out there are a number of other conclusions that could result from the premise (the son may be bored or may be tired). Mary has gone on to introduce evidence to suggest that Bob’s conclusion is less likely to be correct than Mary’s.

Challenging with other factors

It’s very helpful in an argument to be clear about whether you’re rejecting the worth of the other person’s argument or whether you’re suggesting that their point is outweighed by other factors. Consider, for example, two people arguing over whether having a new supermarket in their town is going to improve the town’s life. The pro-supermarket person might say:

“This is excellent news, because it will mean we’ll have a far wider range of goods available in the town than we do at the moment.”

The other person has two choices. One would be to reject the argument:

“I don’t think that’s right because the opening of the supermarket will force many of our specialty shops to close and we will end up with a narrower choice.”

Or he can accept the point but draw his opponent’s attention to other factors that need to be taken into the balance:

“You’re quite right that there will be a wider range of goods. But there will be a lot more traffic in the town. We need to decide which is more important: having a wide range of goods or having a peaceful town.”

Try to be as clear as possible whether you are agreeing with the other person’s point or not. Otherwise you will find they are likely to state their point again.

Compare the following two examples of the same argument.

Getting it wrong

Max:   “We should go to my Mom’s for Christmas because she’ll be very sad if we don’t.”

Susan:  “We’ll have much more fun if we go to my sister Beth’s.”

Max:   “I don’t think you’re quite seeing it from Mom’s point of view.”

Susan:  “We need to think about what’s best for us.”

Getting it right

Max:   “We should go to my Mom’s for Christmas because she’ll be very sad if we don’t.”

Susan:  “That’s a good point. She loves it when we visit. But we have gone to her for the past three years, and it would be such fun if we went to my sister Beth’s.”

Max:   “You’re right, we always have a great time at Beth’s, she’s a great hostess. Is there any way we can get to see them both over Christmas?”

The second argument is much better because both are acknowledging that the other has made a good point and making it clear they accept the strength of what is said.

Another common technique in argument is to form an alliance with the listener by emphasizing common ground. Consider this point:

“We all want to make the decision that is best for the company and we must therefore accept this plan.”

The message is given that those who don’t support the plan are not seeking the best for the company. Similarly this argument:

“We’re all Muslims in this room and therefore we must combat immorality and oppose this plan.”

Again the listener is given the impression that support for the plan will be being disloyal to Islam. The impression may, of course, be incorrect, but it is a technique that makes the argument sound more attractive.

Summary

So remember that in working through an argument, you can accept the opponent’s facts and initial conclusions, but still find points that outweigh the argument and make your conclusion attractive. By presenting other ways of looking at the situation, or bringing in other material that might not have been considered, you can get the argument to go your way. Think outside the box, and don’t limit yourself to a prescribed way of looking at a situation. Imaginative arguing can win the day, as you find points that outweigh your opponent’s.

In practice

Listen very carefully to the person you’re arguing with. Check whether they have understood your points. What issues are really troubling them? What kinds of arguments will be most persuasive for them?

Chapter 6. Golden Rule 6: Watch out for crafty tricks

There are some nasty tricks that people can play when making arguments. Here are some. Watch out for your opponent using them against you.

In arguments you need to be subtle, watchful, alert and curious.

Attacking the person

Lady Astor to Churchill
: “Winston, if you were my husband I would flavor your coffee with poison.”

Churchill
: “Madam, if I were your husband, I should drink it.”

An all too common way of arguing is to avoid the argument and to attack the person. For those who like clever-sounding Latin, this is sometimes called an
ad hominem
(to the man) argument. Consider this:

Getting it wrong

Alf:      “I think we need to take into account ethical values when we develop our investment policy.”

Susan:  “You’re one to talk about ethics, given your personal life.”

Susan’s response is unlikely to be productive. It will certainly inflame Alf and is unlikely to be attractive to those listening. Indeed, it may even cause listeners to be embarrassed for Alf and support him when they would not have done so before. Alf’s best response would be to try to focus again on the issue:

Alf:      “Well, we can talk about my personal life another time if you like. But we’re discussing investment policies here.”

Of course there might be times when a personal response is appropriate. It might be that you’re discussing a person’s qualities for a job or issues of personal morality. However, generally you should be very cautious about making an attack on a person, rather than the argument. It rarely gets you anywhere.

Tip

Avoid phrases like:

•
“You’re just impossible.”

•
“You just think you’re so clever.”

•
“There’s no point arguing with you.”

Beware of causation

A common error with statistics and surveys is to assume the cause behind a particular fact. For example, it’s sometimes claimed that people should marry because the unmarried suffer higher rates of poverty. The suggestion is that unmarried people would be richer if they married, but that assumes that being unmarried causes poverty. That assumption cannot be made. It may be, instead, that poor people are less likely to marry. Similarly, it’s true that those on diets are more likely to be obese than those not on a diet. But that does not mean that being on a diet makes you obese! Mistakes of this kind regularly arise.

• “Whenever ice cream sales rise, so do shark attacks.” (So does eating ice cream make you delicious?)

• “As more economists are recruited to the Treasury, inflation rises.” (Do economists cause inflation?)

• “As vocabulary increases in infancy, so does appetite.” (Does talking make you more hungry?)

If there is some evidence that two facts are linked, do not assume that one causes the other. As these examples show,
making that assumption can lead you into error. In fact, finding cause can be very difficult. Much research has been carried out into what makes people thin or obese, or what makes people smoke. The answer, unsurprisingly, is a whole host of factors. And be alert to your opponent assuming that one fact causes the other. It’s a certain way of finding a hole in their argument.

It’s easy to slip into an error of assuming that because a common cause of B is A, then if B occurred so did A. Consider this argument:

When Bob gets drunk he does not come into work. Bob has not come into work, therefore he is drunk.

This, of course, does not necessarily follow. Bob may not be at work for any number of other reasons. Logicians call this the danger of affirming the consequent. Of course, if Bob regularly misses work due to drunkenness it becomes more likely that this is the reason for his absence. But we must not assume it is necessarily so.

So, when arguing, watch out for your opponent arguing that something is so because they have made an assumption about what happened before. Get them to agree to prove what has actually happened before you accept that their conclusion is correct.

The dangers of negatives

There are dangers in arguments based on what statistics have
not
proved. For example, consider this argument:

Many millions of dollars have been spent on trying to find extraterrestrials and none have been found, therefore they don’t exist.

Of course, the fact that studies have not proved something does not mean that the thing is not true, or indeed that the thing
is
true. Many great minds have pondered the question of whether there is a God, with differing conclusions. But just because no one has been able to prove that there is a God does not mean
there cannot be. Just as the fact no one has been able to prove there is no God does not prove that there is.

A useful point to bear in mind here is that where there is a lack of evidence we tend to rely on what we expect normally to occur. If I were to tell you that I had met the Queen yesterday and produced a dated photograph of me and the Queen standing side by side, that may be enough to convince you that what I said was probably true. If, however, I was to say I met a Martian yesterday, and produced a photograph, that would probably not convince you. Indeed, I would need to produce an enormous amount of evidence to persuade you. That’s because it is not implausible that I met the Queen, but most people start off with a heavy assumption that Martians do not exist.

Similarly, at work, someone might say that the last deal your company did with X Co did not work well. That is interesting, but it doesn’t mean that all deals with X Co will be unsuccessful.

The dangers of “illicit process”

A common error in an argument is “illicit process.” It is best demonstrated by an example:

All vegetarians disapprove of eating meat. All vegetarians are worried about global warming. Therefore all those worried about global warming are vegetarian.