There’s a phenomenon of “destroy” videos on Youtube, it seems that we love to watch
people have meltdowns when they’re verbally bested.
Now we normally consider the person who did the destroying to be the winner of those interactions.
But there is different take which I want to examine today in this video.
And we’re going to be using Jordan Peterson in his recent conversations with Sam Harris
as an example.
Now here is the problem in his own words, Jordan: “you’re going to have contentious
discussions about how to move forward, and it’s very frequently the case that your
words will be--that you’ll be straw-manned, your words will be taken out of context, the
other person, and you too, will try to win instead of trying to solve the problem”.
Winning an argument and even destroying the other person isn’t the same as solving the
problem.
Worse, winning an argument can damage the relationship if it isn’t done with tact.
So in this video, we’re going to look at five tips from Dr. Peterson on how you can
win arguments without either person having to get destroyed.
Now to be clear, there are times when Jordan is going to be more aggressive or defensive,
and maybe I will do another video on those type of point scoring debates if that’s
something you’re interested in.
But for now, the first tip that you need to know is that you should begin most disagreements
by delineating not where you differ, but where you agree.
Which is where Jordon started in his discussion with Sam Harris in Vancouver, Jordan: “I
thought what I might do, is just lay out some places that I think Sam and I agree and because
there’s lots of places we agree.”
And in this next clip and you’re going to see concretely how calling out areas of agreement
can make someone more open to alternate viewpoints, for context the student who’s asking the
question is pointing out what he perceives to be a potential hole in Jordan Peterson’s
argument against hate speech laws.
Watch how Jordon responds and notice how the student begins to nod, Student: “Feel as
if they can’t really engage in retaliatory you know clarificatory discourse against them
because they fear the potential repercussions, even if they don’t lead to violence, they
just fear it so much that it might irrationally or rationally even drive them”, Jordan:
”Oh it happens, it happens all the time!
In fact, it’s the standard situation, you know if you look across the world…”
Essentially Peterson spends the next two minutes agreeing and expanding on the student’s
point.
Now the student nods through much of this because Peterson is expanding on the issue
that the student himself raised.
The more that Jordan elaborates on the student’s point, the more that he feels heard and understood.
What’s interesting is that when Jordan then lays out a perspective the student hasn’t
considered before, the nodding continues, Jordan: “And so the consequences of the
regulation become, incalculably worse as a problem than the problem that they were designed
to deal with.
To think otherwise is to think in this sort of Utopian manner”.
Now if Jordan just lept into what this student had missed, that nodding probably would not
have been there and more importantly, the student would not have been open to a new
idea.
But in laying out the points of agreement and expanding on the point of the person that
you are speaking with, you actually create more likely likelihood that they’re going
to open up to other perspectives.
When you’re trying to establish your points of commonality or even you’re differences,
you don’t actually know for certain if you understand what the other person thinks.
So what is best to speak in terms like these, Jordan: “Okay so then, it also seems like
we agree that the core element of tribal alliance, which would have its roots in the Chimpanzee…”
Jordan: “Well, you’re basically--what you’ve basically stated, so far as I can
tell, there would be a socio-culture agreement…”
To be crystal clear you can’t just say “so you’re saying” and then fill in the straw
man argument, we saw how that turned out in the other video we did on Jordan Peterson.
You have to clarify the other person’s point in a way that they would agree with.
Now when this is done in good faith, there is a profound difference between using the
phrase “It seems like” and simply saying “What you’re doing”.
“It seems like” invites correction and it comes from a desire to engage in a dialogue,
rather than telling the other person what logical leaps they’re making.
I also mentioned the phrase it seems like in our last video on tells that you’re dealing
with an arrogant or person who is lacking in confidence so if you want to know more
of those go ahead click below to check that video out.
But you will eventually have to come to contentious points of disagreement in your conversation
in your conversation, it’s inevitable.
And there is a number of ways to make your stance clear without making the other person
feeling attacked.
You can begin, for instance, by establishing your good intentions like this, Jordan: “What’s
the--and I’m not trying to trap you here I’m seriously not”.
Jordan: “We’re on the same page there, now but, what I noticed when you wrote the
moral landscape, and I’m not trying to trap you, you tell a story about…”
It’s counter to instinct, but you need to come back to this feeling of not wanting to
trap the other person and you need to do it often.
When you say this congruently it diffuses the core issue with most arguments, which
is we so easily become identified with our views, after all, they're OUR views.
So when those views are attacked and dismantled, we as individuals feel attacked and dismantled.
This does sound extreme but being trapped in an argument can feel like being trapped
by a predator.
This brings us to point four, you need to separate your ego and the other person’s
ego from the views that you had when you entered the discussion.
This is hard!
It means recognizing that your views aren't really yours.
You picked them up from somewhere and you can change them without losing an essential
part of yourself.
Non-identification with your opinions is a huge topic that's bigger than this video
because it's going to affect everything from arguing, your general level of life satisfaction
and many more things.
But for the purpose of this video, make it clear that you’re not attacking the person.
You are merely disagreeing with a particular perspective and here’s an excellent phrase
to help you do that, Jordan: “The problem I have with your argument, and this isn’t--I
don’t mean that you’re wrong, I see what you’re doing and I see why you’re doing
it, and as far as I can tell is laudable.
But the problem is, as far as I can tell, there’s problems it doesn’t solve and
there’s other problems it leaves unaddressed that don’t have to be unsolved or unaddressed”.
This is especially effective because deep down people are terrified of being wrong,
the existential feeling of being wrong for the world is one of the deepest and most common
human insecurities.
That’s why we cling to our stuff, our identities and our arguments.
If they are right, we feel like we must be right.
So in saying that “I have an issue with the argument” and by the way in saying
“the argument” as opposed to “your argument” is wise because in saying that you make it
clear that you don’t think the individual is tied to that argument.
When you do that you’re saying that the individual themselves isn’t wrong, you avoid
triggering their ego and its defense mechanisms and you hopefully keep things calm and productive.
This is a pattern of validating the individual, and the same pattern is going to play it with
specific objections that they might raise up against your points like this, Sam: “Then
there must be a deeper level of reality that explains why they both work that can’t be
reducible to Christianity being true or being Hinduism being true.”
Jordan: “Yeah that’s--look Sam that’s a--there’s absolutely nothing wrong with
that objection.”
And you’ll make the other person feel understood and open to change by noting your own willingness
to reconsider your own opinions, like this, Jordan: “One of the things that I’ve been re-considering
since we talked last night, is the nature of our dispute about the relationship between…”
but rather than belabor these points let me make one larger distinction that ties them
all together.
In order to win in any argument, the best thing you can do is not identify with “your
perspective”.
Instead realize that you are improved on your deeply held perspectives are challenged to
the point of breaking and even when the person you’re talking isn’t so nice about it,
Jordan: “And so one of the things you have to remember when you’re discussing things
with people, even if they’re out to defeat you let’s say, is that there is some glimmering
of the possibility that you could walk away with more knowledge that you walked in with,
and that’s worth--that can be worth paying quite a price for”.
Actually internalizing the mindset is a massive undertaking, meditation helps, even so, you’re
likely to slip back into defending your ego attachments, it’s part of being human.
But If you can manage to try to have to conversation with a truly curious mentality the relationship
will go better, you’re going to be more likely to be persuasive if you raise valid
points and you just might learn something.
So if you take only one thing from this video before enduring your next argument, discussion,
debate, whatever you like to call it.
I’d advise it to be this, ask yourself “Do I want to be BE RIGHT?
Or do I want to do what it takes to GET IT RIGHT?”.
You might not destroy anyone with that mentality but you're going to win the argument because
you’re going to walk away with a clearer understanding of the truth.
Now I think a huge reason that Jordan is capable of being so calm during these interactions
is that of his time as a clinician, he learned to listen and help people who often feel attacked.
If you feel like you often don’t get the chance to speak to people who genuinely just
listen without an agenda to defeat, trap, or impose their view of how you should live
on you, you might find our sponsor BetterHelp useful.
Now, this is something that I’ve recommended to friends I’ve actually used it myself,
and I think that the opportunity to speak with a professional counselor can be very
useful, which is what BetterHelp does.
So if you have issues that you think would be useful to discuss with a professional,
with BetterHelp you can actually do that from home.
You don’t have to drive to an office, you don’t have to worry about how many other
people who are hanging out in the lobby.
You can just chat with someone from your home or work and begin to make progress in an area
where you may be stuck.
So if that sounds something that would be useful to you, you can use the link: BETTERHELP.COM/CHARISMA
to begin today.
You’re going to go through a questionnaire that is meant to pair you with someone who
is specifically equipped to help you with whatever it is that you are facing whether
that's family issues, addiction, you name it.
So I know that a lot of people have some stigma associated with counseling but this something
that I truly believe can be valuable for people who are stuck at some point in their life
or would just really like a professional to listen and help them work through any particular
problem.
So I hope that you enjoyed this video, if you are interested in BetterHelp, go ahead
click below and check that link out and I look forward to seeing you in the next one.
Actually, I forgot, one other thing, if you want to see that video on debates that might
be more point scoring televised, feel free to let me know in the comments.
I’m not definitely going to do it because it's not a situation that we often find ourselves
in, but if it’s one you’re interested in go ahead and let me know in the comments
and maybe I can do it.
Take care!