MINISTRY OF EDUCATION AND SCIENCE OF RUSSIA
Federal State Budgetary Educational Institution
higher professional education
"Chelyabinsk State University"
Faculty of Law
Department of Law and Economics of the Institute of Continuous Professional Education
Subject: Tricks in the dispute.
abstract

Completed by a student

gr. 31YUS-103 Gomleshko K.V.

Checked by: Kosenko L.A.

Chelyabinsk
2011
Table of contents
Introduction 3
Tricks in the dispute 5
Conclusion 20
Bibliography 21

Introduction

What is meant by "controversy"? The dictionary of the modern Russian literary language defines the main meanings of the word "dispute":
1. Verbal competition, a discussion of something between two or more persons, in which each of the parties defends his opinion, his rightness.
2. Mutual claim to possession, possession of something, resolved by the court.
3. Translated. Duel, battle, single combat (mainly in poetic speech). Competition, rivalry.
Thus, common to all meanings of the word "dispute" is the presence of disagreements, lack of consensus, confrontation.
Usually, a dispute is understood as any clash of opinions, disagreement in points of view on any issue, subject, a struggle in which each side defends its rightness.
In Russian, there are other words for this phenomenon: "discussion", "dispute", "controversy", "debate", "debate". Often they are used as synonyms for the word "dispute", and in scientific research, in journalistic and artistic works, these words often serve as names for certain types of dispute.
For example, a discussion (lat. discussion - research, consideration, analysis) is a public dispute, the purpose of which is to clarify and compare different points of view, search, identify the true opinion, find the right solution to the controversial issue. It is considered an effective method of persuasion.
On the other hand, controversy (lat. polemikos - "warlike, hostile") is not just a dispute, but a confrontation, a confrontation of sides, ideas, speeches. In other words, this is a public dispute in order to defend, defend one's point of view and refute the opponent's opinion.
Consequently, controversy differs from discussion in its target orientation. She teaches to reinforce thoughts with convincing and undeniable arguments, scientific arguments. Controversy is necessary when new views are developed, universal values ​​and human rights are defended.
There is a certain classification of disputes according to a number of basic factors, which helps to distinguish one dispute from another.
In order to make the dispute correct and productive, as well as to effectively defend your point of view, you need to know the rules and laws of the dispute, be able to recognize and apply the techniques and tricks used in the dispute yourself.

Tricks in the dispute

In the process of argumentation and criticism, two types of errors can be made: intentional and unintentional. Deliberate errors are called sophisms, and those who commit such errors are called sophists. Sophisms are also called the reasoning itself, which contains deliberate errors. The name sophism comes from the Greek. ??????? - a clever trick, an invention. A ruse in an argument is any method by which one usually wants to facilitate an argument for oneself or make an argument more difficult for an opponent. In ancient Greece, there were sophists who, for a fee, taught the art of winning an argument, no matter what the argument was about, the art of making a weak argument strong, and a strong one, if this argument of the opponent, was weak. They taught to argue about what you don't understand. Such a teacher was, for example, the philosopher Protagoras. It is referred to in the famous sophism of Euathlus.
Euathlus was trained by Protagoras in the art of argument. By agreement between teacher and student, Euathlus had to pay for his education after the first lawsuit he won. A year has passed since graduation. During this year, Euathlus did not participate in lawsuits. Protagoras began to show impatience. He invited Euathlus to pay the tuition fees. Euathel refused. Then Protagoras said: “If you do not pay the fee, then I will go to court. If the court decides that you have to pay, then you will pay for the tuition according to the court decision. If the court decides “not to pay”, then you will win your first trial and pay for the tuition under the contract.” Since Euathlus had already mastered the art of arguing, he objected to Protagoras thus: “You are wrong, teacher. If the court decides “not to pay”, then I will not pay according to the court decision. If he decides to “pay,” then I lose the process and will not pay under the contract.” Who is right? It is sometimes said that both Protagoras is right and Euathlus is right. Such an answer to the question posed is reminiscent of the story of the village sage.
“An elderly peasant came to the wise man and said: “I argued with my neighbor.”
The peasant stated the essence of the dispute and asked: "Who is right?"
The sage replied: "You are right."
After some time, the second of those arguing came to the sage. He also spoke about the dispute and asked: “Who is right?”
The sage replied: "You are right."
"How so? the wife asked the wise man. Is the one right and the other right?
“And you are right, wife,” the wise man answered her.
Unintentional mistakes are made because of a low culture of thinking, because of haste and for some other reasons. They are called paralogisms (Greek ???????????? - incorrect reasoning).
The observance of special rules contributes to the prevention of errors in argumentation and criticism.
First rule: it is necessary to explicitly formulate the thesis(in the form of a judgment, a system of judgments, a problem, a hypothesis, a concept, etc.). This rule expresses the main condition for the effectiveness of argumentation and criticism.
To implement the first rule of argumentation in relation to the thesis, it is necessary:
first, explore the controversial thought and highlight points of agreement and disagreement;
secondly, to agree on the theses of the arguments of the parties.
Povarnin writes about the requirement to explicitly formulate the argumentation thesis: “One should not think that it is enough to meet a “controversial idea” in order to immediately make it, if desired, a “dispute thesis”. It always requires some preliminary research and processing before taking a thesis from it. Namely, it is necessary to find out exactly where we disagree with her; clarify points of disagreement. And further: “You need to acquire the skill quickly, sometimes “instantly”, to find and review all places from which disagreement with a given thought is possible. This skill is especially needed in some specialties, for example, in the legal practice of a dispute.
Second rule: the thesis should be formulated clearly and clearly. How to fulfill this requirement?
First of all. It is necessary to find out whether all the descriptive (non-logical) terms contained in the formulation of the thesis are completely understandable to everyone. If there are incomprehensible or ambiguous words, then they should be clarified, for example, by definition.
Secondly. It is necessary to identify the logical form of the thesis. If the thesis is a judgment in which something is affirmed or denied about objects, then it is necessary to find out whether all the objects are discussed in the judgment or only some (about many, about the majority, and the minority, etc.) For example, the proponent claims: “ people are evil." Some may argue that this is not the case. If the statement is clarified as follows: “Some people are evil,” then the need for an argument disappears. It should be clarified in what sense the unions “and”, “or”, “if., then.” etc. For example, the union "or" can express both a non-strict and a strict disjunctive connection, "if., then." - implicative or conditional connection, etc.
Thirdly. Sometimes it is expedient to clarify the time referred to in the judgment, for example, to clarify whether it is stated that a certain property always belongs to an object or it sometimes belongs to it; clarify the meaning of such words as “today”, “tomorrow”, “in so many hours”, etc. Sometimes they say that a certain event will happen in the near future, in the next period. It is difficult to refute such claims because they are not clear. It is necessary to require the opponent to clarify such statements.
Fourth. Sometimes it is necessary to find out whether a thesis is being claimed to be true or whether it is only plausible. Preparatory work, which consists in the development of a common field of argumentation, the study of a controversial thought, and the identification and clear formulation of a thesis, saves time at further stages of argumentation and increases its effectiveness. The fuzzy formulation of the thesis often underlies sophisms. Thus, in the sophism of Euathlus, the expression "the first trial won" is not defined. If, for example, the first case won by Euathl, in which he acts as a defendant, was meant, then he would have to pay tuition in the event that the court decides “not to pay”.
Sometimes a trick is used in an argument "intentional fuzzy formulation of the thesis", those. deliberately formulate the thesis indistinctly. Such a trick was used in the controversy against Florida Senator K. Pepper, as a result of which he was defeated in the next election. His adversary stated: “...everyone in the FBI and every member of Congress knows that Claude Pepper is a shameless extrovert. Moreover, there is reason to believe that he practices nepotism towards his sister-in-law, his sister was a Thespian in sinful New York. Finally, and it's hard to believe, it's well known that Pepper practiced celibacy before his marriage." (An extrovert is a sociable person, nepotism is patronage of relatives, a Thespian is a fan of dramatic art, celibacy is celibacy.)
In the case when such a trick is used by the opponent, one must either clarify unknown expressions, or ask the person who put forward the thesis to do this.
Related to the first rule is also a trick "excessive requirement for clarification of the thesis". It consists in the requirement to clarify even clear expressions. Someone, for example, says that he considers some expression to be true. He is asked the question: “What is truth?” If this person answers that truth is a statement that corresponds to reality, then he will be asked what he understands by reality, by correspondence, etc. What to do in this situation? You can remind the opponent and others present that a trick is being performed and say what it is called. You can ask questions at the end of the presentation. Some in such cases try not to notice the questions.
Another trick - "deliberate misunderstanding of the thesis." It may consist in changing the meaning of the expression in order to change the meaning of the thesis not in favor of the proponent. For example, instead of saying that a person has a headache, they say that he has something in his head. Instead of "looks without turning his head," they say "looks askance."
It also happens that the author is unreasonably accused of ambiguity. Trick "an unfounded accusation of obscurity" is as follows. Separate phrases are pulled out of the text, the meaning of which, out of context, is really unclear. On this basis, the author is accused of a penchant for scholastic theorizing. If such an accusation is unfounded, it is necessary to show that the terms included in the phrases “snatched” from the text are defined in the text, and say that a trick is applied that is unacceptable from a moral point of view.
Third rule: the thesis should not be changed in the process of argumentation and criticism without special reservations.
Violation of this rule is associated with an error called "substitution of thesis". It is performed in the case when a certain statement is put forward as a thesis, and another, similar to the one put forward, is argued or criticized; in the end, it is concluded that the original statement is justified or criticized.
A variety of substitution of the thesis are errors:
(1) "replacing the argued thesis with a stronger statement" (in relation to the proof, this error has the name "he who proves a lot, he proves nothing")",
(2) "replacing the thesis being criticized with a weaker statement" (as applied to refutation, it is called "he who refutes a lot, refutes nothing"). A kind of error "substitution of thesis" is also a mistake called the substitution of the argued or criticized thesis with references to the personal qualities of a person. This mistake is made in those cases when, instead of justifying or criticizing the thesis, they characterize the person who put forward this thesis, or the person referred to in the thesis. So, quite often lawyers in court, instead of proving that the defendant is innocent, list his inherent positive qualities, for example, they say that he is a good worker, a good family man, etc. Sometimes in a dispute, instead of proving that a person is wrong, they say that he is still young, misunderstood everything, or, conversely, he is at such an age (advanced) when they often make mistakes.
Another kind of error "substitution of thesis"- "loss of thesis". For example, one of the students speaks at a meeting and says: "We do not study much in the evenings. In the hostel we go to each other, distract each other from classes." The speaker is thrown a replica: “You are still too young.” He loses his thesis and says that before entering the institute he worked at a factory, then he served in the army. And here the time is up.
The following tricks are connected with the third rule.
"Weakening the Argumentation Thesis". The trick is this. The adversary makes a claim that is difficult or impossible to substantiate, and then replaces this claim with another, weaker one that he can prove. You rashly try to refute this other statement, but, of course, you fail to do so. Then the opponent gives a proof of the second assertion and triumphs, pretending to have proved the first assertion. In this case, you need to be careful and explain to those present what trick was used.
"Strengthening the Criticized Statement". This trick is applied like this. You are making a thesis. The opponent replaces your thesis with a stronger statement and shows that this second statement cannot be proved. Moreover, he can refute the second assertion. As a result, the opponent pretends to have refuted your thesis. In order not to inadvertently replace the criticized statement (including a stronger statement), it is recommended during the discussion to repeat the statements before criticizing them. This is the ethical rule of arguing.
"Logic diversion". This trick consists in deliberately transferring the conversation to another topic, to one that is well known to the disputant. A student of the Faculty of Journalism at Moscow University told the author of this book about how logical diversion is used in exams. At the exam, she showed an absolute ignorance of logic, although she had excellent and good grades in her grade book in other subjects. When asked by the examiner why she did not prepare for the logic exam, the student replied that she did not prepare for any exams. Her excellent knowledge of Marina Tsvetaeva's work helps her to get good grades. For example, at the exam in Russian literature, she gets a question about A.S. Pushkin. The student talks for 3-5 minutes about the work of Pushkin, then compares the work of Marina Tsvetaeva with the work of Pushkin and impresses the teacher with her knowledge of the works and life path of Marina Tsvetaeva. The same technique is used in the Russian language exam. From adjectives, the student moves on to metaphors, and then to metaphors in Tsvetaeva's poetry. It was not possible to apply this trick in the exams in logic and in English. From student folklore: “In a biology exam, a student is asked to talk about cats. The student knows only one question - about fleas. He replies: "A cat is an animal. Fleas live on cats." Talking about fleas. The teacher offers to talk about dogs. The student replies: "A dog is an animal. Fleas live on dogs." Talking about fleas. Then the teacher (very smart) asks to talk about fish. The student answers: "Fish are animals. Fleas do not live on fish." Again he talks about fleas.
RULES REGARDING ARGUMENTS:
First rule: arguments must be formulated explicitly and clearly. To comply with this rule, you must:
1) list all arguments; if in the process of argumentation some arguments are abandoned, arguments are changed, new ones are presented, this should be stipulated;
2) clarify descriptive terms;
3) reveal the logical content of the arguments; clarify quantifier words, logical connectives, modal terms;
4) clarify the evaluative characteristics of the arguments (whether they are true or plausible statements).
Second rule: arguments must be judgments, wholly or partly justified. With regard to proof and refutation, this rule is formulated as follows: the arguments must be fully justified (logically or factually). If the second rule is violated, an error occurs "baseless argument". In proofs and refutations, the corresponding error is called "unproven argument". There are several variations of the "unreasonable argument" error. "False Argument" Making this mistake, an unfounded statement is presented as an argument, which is also false. However, the argumentator does not know about the falsity of the argument. The argument may be false due to self-contradiction. Such is the statement of Socrates "I know that I know nothing." Indeed, if Socrates knows nothing, then he does not know that he knows nothing either. This mistake is also made when one substantiates statements of facts, the final assessment of which can only be made in the future. For example, when substantiating the correctness of the ongoing economic reforms, they use the arguments: "In six months, the reforms will bring a significant effect", "There will be no decrease in the standard of living of the population", etc.
"False Argument"- such a (dubious from the point of view of semantics) name was given to the logic of the past by the mistake of citing as arguments statements, the falsity of which is known to the argumentator. Making such a mistake in most cases is a trick. Variants of "false argument".
"Joke false argument." Such an error is made in the following reasoning. "I have a father and a mother. My father and my mother also, of course, had father and mother. So, going to the third generation, I find four ancestors. Each of my two grandfathers and each of my two grandmothers also had a father and mother. Therefore, in the fourth generation, I have eight ancestors. Coming out to fifth, sixth, seventh, etc. generations ago, I find that the number of my ancestors is increasing, and, moreover, extremely strongly. Namely:
in the 2nd generation 2 ancestors;
in the 3rd generation 4 ancestors;
in the 4th generation 8 ancestors;
in the 20th generation 524,288 ancestors.
You see that 20 generations ago I already had a whole army of direct ancestors, numbering more than half a million. And with each subsequent generation, this number doubles. If we count, as is usually accepted, three generations per century, then at the beginning of our era, 19 centuries ago, a myriad of my ancestors should have lived on earth: it can be calculated that their number should contain 18 digits. The further back in time, the more the number of my ancestors must increase. In the era of the first pharaohs, their numbers must have reached a mind-blowing size. In the Stone Age, which preceded Egyptian history, my ancestors were probably already cramped on the globe.
When counting the number of ancestors, a false statement is used that the number of ancestors grows in a specified way.
"Tactical deceitful argument". This mistake is made in the process of arguing with an opponent who seeks to refute all your arguments. Put forward instead of an argument a judgment that is a negation of the implied argument. The opponent proves the falsity of the put forward judgment. Then you declare that you agree with this and offer an argument that you have not previously expressed. The enemy has no choice but to recognize it as true.
"Undisguised false argument." When making this mistake, obviously false statements are cited as arguments, assuming that the opponent, due to lack of courage or for some other reason, will remain silent. Sometimes such a mistake is made when speaking on radio, television, in the press. For example, speaking on television, a government representative says that we have two opinions on the issue of price release, and one abroad, although he knows that there are also two opinions abroad.
"Illegal Argument to Science". Disputes often refer to the provisions of the sciences. However, sometimes, taking advantage of the fact that people respect scientific data, they refer to non-existent scientific data. They say: "Science established this and that," although this is not so. This technique is especially widely used in the so-called near-scientific literature (about aliens, about life in other dimensions, etc.).
"False argument as the premise of the question." The argument is not stated, but expressed by means of a question, the premise of which is false. Let us suppose that the above-described dispute about the expediency of abolishing the death penalty as a criminal punishment is being waged. The abolitionists, instead of making the argument "If you are for the death penalty, then you should be ready to immediately shoot a person sentenced to this measure", which is false, ask: "Are you personally now ready to kill a person sentenced to capital punishment ?" In this case, it is necessary to indicate that the premise of the question is a false judgment, that the question is logically incorrect. At the same time, it can be proposed, after the discussion of the problem related to the abolition of the death penalty, to discuss the question of ways to carry out the said sentence of the court.
"Not a false argument made at all." The argumentation is carried out in such a way that obviously false arguments are omitted, and the logically unprepared addressee of the argumentation deduces them himself. For example, justifying in print the need for a transition in our country from large farms to family farms, the economist writes that in the US 80% of farms are family farms. At the same time, the economist is silent about the fact that they produce only 2% of agricultural products. The reader may conclude that family farms produce a lot of products. Sometimes, in order to avoid conspicuous false argument, in the process of argumentation it is expressed as an omitted premise of the enthymeme. So, in the argument "Philosophy is a class science, and logic, like mathematics, is not a class science. Therefore, logic is not a philosophical science" the argument is omitted: "All the properties of the whole are also possessed by its parts."
"Baby Argument" or, more nobly, "ladies' argument". The mistake is to amplify the opposing side's argument to such an extent that it turns out to be false.
The husband says to his wife:
- Why did you meet my friend badly?
- What should I do, go to bed with him?
"Double-entry bookkeeping". The same argument is considered to be true in one case (if it is advantageous), and in another - false (if it is disadvantageous).
"A false argument expressed by a descriptive name." The objects referred to in the argument are not assigned properties directly, but by means of descriptive names.
The red-browns held a rally on Manezhnaya Square.
In fact, it implicitly contains the following statements: "Those who held this meeting are both communists and fascists." Often arguments expressed by descriptive names are obviously false.
"Argument in conjunction". For example, when characterizing objects to which they seek to develop a negative attitude among the addressees of the dispute, they simultaneously talk about things to which a negative attitude has already been developed. The addressee unconsciously transfers negative properties to the first objects. For example, speaking of the leader of the party, they also characterize Hitler.
"Lawyer trick". The disputant considers the opponent's mistake (false statement) as his argument. For example, the prosecutor incorrectly qualifies the act (it should be qualified under an article requiring a more severe punishment), and the lawyer agrees with him, passing it off as his own opinion.
"Swine Argument". Your opponent made a mistake, perhaps misspoke or made a slip of the tongue, and then corrected himself. You keep blaming him for this mistake. Two varieties of the error "unreasonable
etc.................

A trick in an argument is every technique by which they want to make the argument more difficult for the opponent and make it easier for themselves.

One of the most common types of tricks is considered to be "putting off an objection." In the event that the opponent gives an argument to which it is difficult to object, some dishonest polemicists raise questions in response to the question asked, as if thereby clarifying its essence. At the same time, they often start from afar, with something that may not even relate to the case materials. After the thought is formulated in the head, such polemicists bring it down on the opponent.

Most often, this “procrastination of the objection” is used in order to hide their nervous tension from the enemy and not show their weakness.

But it must be borne in mind that such polemists in disputes resort not only to this, but also to other tricks, disguising them with arguments, etc.

S. I. Povarnin considers the most impermissible crude tricks:

• stick arguments;
• argument to the policeman;
• disruption of the dispute;
• wrong exit from the dispute.

Obstruction (disruption of the dispute). Sometimes an opponent may be interested in disrupting an argument that is beyond his power. In this case, they often resort to mechanical crude tricks, interrupting the opponent, not allowing him to speak, or show that they do not intend to continue to participate in a senseless argument.

Conclusion to the mayor. There are cases when, by declaring the opponent's theses unacceptable or dangerous to society or the state, the opponent's mouth is "shut down". In this case, the dispute ends with the victory of the one who applied this trick.

Stick arguments. An argument is often made that the adversary is obliged to accept for fear of the consequences, which may be his silence on some important question or the search for a new answer.

In this art of controversy, there are three main aspects that determine the outcome: language, psychology and logic.

The first is especially important, since everything is carried, speaks and is expressed to the listeners with the help of speech. Usually, language constructs are sought that would act on the listener, directing him in the desired direction.

1. The most effective way of persuasion is considered to be persuasion with facts, but they must also be presented correctly. After all, one and the same things can be told from different points of view, revealing certain concepts. It all depends on what kind of language means we select and what methods of speech we use.
2. In some cases, in the absence of facts to convince, everything is reduced to absurdity.
3. The Socratic way - they ask questions that automatically put the opponent in the position of a positive answer until the confused opponent agrees with the opponent on an important issue that he has been arguing up to this minute.
4. Also in the controversy, the “energy of speech” is very important - its tonal and expressive variability. With the help of various rhetorical tricks, our feeling can be put into action. And the more sensitive they are, the louder our emotions begin to speak in us, forming various experiences. Without them, we seem to be deaf to the words addressed to us. At the same time, it is necessary to evoke not just a feeling, but a real storm of emotions, thereby knocking the enemy out of his train of thought.

These psychological tricks are quite diverse in nature and are based on a good knowledge of the weaknesses of human nature. They show a disrespectful and rude attitude towards the opponent. For example, they include:

• "Greasing the argument" is a trick that is based on self-esteem. At the same time, a weak argument that is easily compromised is disputed with harsh criticism of the one who presented it;
• Bet on false shame;
• Disequilibrium;
• Cause distrust of the words of the enemy;
• The desire to interrupt the speech of the opponent;
• The desire to put him in a bad light, etc.

Logical tricks are also called sophisms. These are intentional errors in the proof. It must be remembered that error and sophism differ from each other in that error is not intended, while sophism is intended. Therefore, for every mistake, as a rule, there is a sophism invented.

Taking the conversation to the side. It consists in translating the dispute into contradictions between deed and word. It is also possible to leave aside the thesis, avoiding its discussion, with the help of such sophism - the translation of the dispute into contradictions between deed and word, the way of life and the views of the opponent.

Thus, by showing the inconsistency of the opponent's thesis, you can put the opponent in an uncomfortable position for him and reduce the entire dispute to nothing.

Translation of the question into the point of view of harm or benefit. Here, instead of proving the truth of a certain position, it turns out whether it has a benefit for the opponent or not. If a person understands that such a position is beneficial for him, while it can also have bad consequences for other people, he agrees with him.

Unscrupulous polemicists often take advantage of this, starting to put pressure on the opponent and emphasize to him the advantages of their own position. These arguments are often called "pocket". Also, sometimes the parties in the process of reasoning can shift the time of the action and make some substitution of events in time. The most commonly used in the dispute is the so-called "answer with a question to a question."

Having difficulty in finding the right answer or not wanting to answer the opponent's question, the opponent may raise another counter question. And if his opponent starts responding to him, the trick worked.

In addition, such unfortunate polemicists often resort to the trick of "answering on credit." At the same time, experiencing difficulties in discussing the problem, they can postpone the answer to the future, referring to the greater complexity of the issue.

The ability to correctly recognize all the tricks and show exactly what they were used for is one of the main qualities of a successful polemist.

In the process of business communication, many things happen that do not fit into the norms of ethics. There are a number of tactics and tricks used in negotiations. Some of these tricks are known to all.

The essence of subterfuge tactics is determined by its purpose. This is a unilateral offer by which one party is willing and able to gain an advantage in negotiations; the other is supposed to know about it or is expected to be patient.

The party that realizes that they have been subjected to subterfuge tactics usually reacts in two ways. The first characteristic reaction is to come to terms with this situation. After all, it is not pleasant to start with a conflict. Somewhere in your heart you will vow to never deal with such opponents again. But for now, you're hoping for the best, believing that by giving in a little to the other side, you'll appease her and she won't demand more. Sometimes it happens, but not always.

The second most common reaction is to respond in kind. In other words, if they try to deceive you, you do the same, and put forward your own counter-threats to threats. The contest of wills begins. Both sides enter into an irreconcilable positional dispute. It usually ends with the termination of negotiations if one of the parties surrenders.

The most characteristic methods and techniques of tactics of psychological tricks are presented in this material.

• 1. Use of obscure words and terms. This trick can cause, on the one hand, the impression of the importance of the problem under discussion, the weight of the arguments, a high level of 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.
• 2. Questions-traps. The trick is reduced to a set of prerequisites aimed at a one-sided consideration of the problem and “closing the horizon” for choosing various options for solving it. Many of them are emotionally oriented and designed to be suggestive. These questions fall into three groups:

Alternative. This group includes such questions, with the help of which the opponent narrows your choice as much as possible, leaving only one option, according to the “either-or” principle.

Extortion. These are questions like: “Do you, of course, admit these facts?” or “You certainly don’t deny the statistics?” etc. With such questions, the opponent is trying to get, as it were, a double advantage. On the one hand, he seeks to convince you to agree with him, and on the other hand, he leaves you only one option - to passively defend yourself. Counter questions. This type of question is most often used in a situation where the opponent cannot oppose anything to your arguments or does not want to answer a specific question. He is looking for any loophole to reduce the weight of your evidence and get away with the answer.

• 3. Bewildered by the speed of the discussion, when a fast pace of speech is used during communication and the opponent who perceives the arguments is not able to “process” them.
• 4. Reading thoughts for suspicion. The meaning of the trick is to use the "mind reading" option to divert all kinds of suspicions from yourself. As an example, one can cite a judgment like: “Maybe you think that I am persuading you? So you're wrong!"
• 5. Reference to "higher interests" without deciphering them. It is very easy, without pressure, just to hint that if the opponent, for example, continues to be intractable in the dispute, then this may affect the interests of those whom it is extremely undesirable to upset.
• 6. Repetition - this is the name of the following psychological trick, the idea of ​​\u200b\u200bwhich is to accustom the opponent to any thought. "Carthage must be destroyed," - this is how the speech of the consul Cato ended every time in the Roman Senate. The trick is to gradually and purposefully accustom the interlocutor to some unsubstantiated statement.
• 7. 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 applied in various kinds of judgments, discussions and disputes. Addresses such as "You certainly know that science has now established ..." or "Of course you know that a decision has recently been made ..." or "You have certainly read about ..." put the opponent in a state of false shame, it is as if embarrassing for him to say publicly about ignorance of those things that are being talked about.
• 8. Belittling with irony. This technique 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 like "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.
• 9. 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 on the part of the opponent.
• 10. Authority of the statement. With the help of this trick, the psychological significance of the cited own arguments is significantly increased. This can be effectively done through a statement such as "I tell you authoritatively."
• 11. Frankness of the statement. In this trick, the emphasis is on the special trust of communication, which is demonstrated with the help of such phrases as, for example, "I will tell you right now (frankly, honestly) ...". This gives the impression that everything that was said before was not fully direct, frank or honest.
• 12. Apparent inattention. The name of this trick, in fact, already speaks of its essence, “forgetting”, and sometimes they specifically do not notice the inconvenient and dangerous arguments of the opponent. Not to notice what can harm - this is the intention of the trick.
• 13. Flattering 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 is the statement "As a smart person, you cannot help but see that ...".
• 14. Building on a past statement. The main thing in this trick is to draw the attention of the opponent to his past statement, which contradicts his reasoning in this dispute, and demand an explanation on this matter. Such clarifications 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.
• 15. Reducing the argument to a private opinion. The purpose of this trick is to accuse the opponent of the fact that the arguments he gives in defense of his thesis or to refute your statement are nothing more than just a personal opinion, which, like the opinion of any other person, can be erroneous. Addressing the interlocutor with the words “What you are saying now is just your personal opinion” will involuntarily tune him to the tone of objections, give rise to the desire to challenge the opinion expressed 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.
• 16. Silence. The desire to deliberately withhold information from the interlocutor is the most commonly used ploy 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. The ability to competently hide 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 lies precisely in skillfully moving away from the truth without resorting to lies.
• 17. Growing demands. It is based on the opponent increasing his demands with each subsequent concession. This tactic has two obvious advantages. The first of them boils down to the fact that the initial need to give in on the whole problem of negotiations is removed. The second contributes to the emergence of a psychological effect that makes you quickly agree with the next demand of the other side, until it put forward new, more significant claims.
• 18. "Escape" from unwanted discussion. You can get away from unwanted discussion by resorting to lush speech with vivid epithets and eloquent interjections. For example, you ask the interlocutor why payments under the contract are delayed? And he answers in the same lengthy and convincing way as Mikhail Sergeevich Gorbachev: “Yes, we agree, there were some delays in payments. We carefully studied the causes, as well as ways to eliminate them. These reasons were varied. There were both objective and subjective factors. Currently, this issue is given special attention. We are working hard in this direction. All this is done in the interests of our common cause. This opens up great prospects for further successful cooperation, which leads us to a brighter future.”
• 19. Known tactics include "waiting." This is a very slow, gradual opening of one's positions - it is like cutting thin slices of sausage. This technique helps to find out as much information as possible and only then formulate your own proposals.

Introduction………………………………………………………………………….2

Main part

1. Dispute. Types of dispute……………………………………………………3

2. Tricks in antiquity…………………………………………………….6

3. Tricks in the dispute………………………………………………………….8

4. Permissible and impermissible tricks…………………….10

5. Measures against tricks…………………………………………………...11

Conclusion…………………………………………………………………….13

References……………………………………………………………14

Introduction.

Life in modern society presupposes not only our physical existence, but also the ability to socialize. The ability to communicate plays an important role in the process of socialization. The ability to communicate in modern society is the basis of social success. In the information society, information is the main commodity, and to be able to communicate is to be able to use this commodity.

In our world, in order to succeed, you need to be able to prove your ideas to people and defend them, for this you often have to enter into an argument, and the ability to argue is an art, and mastering the art of arguing is a big plus for every person.

The purpose of this test is to analyze the problem of correct and incorrect conduct of disputes, the use of tricks in the dispute. The tasks are to consider various types of disputes, the rules for conducting a dispute, the existence of permissible and impermissible tricks in a dispute, and ways to protect yourself from them.

When writing the work, I relied mainly on the book of Professor Povarnin S.I. "The Art of Argument. On the theory and practice of the dispute. ”, textbook by Melnikova S.V. "Business rhetoric (speech culture of business communication)" and others.

1. Dispute. types of dispute.

A dispute is understood as any clash of opinions in which each of the parties defends its rightness by constructing evidence. The dispute begins with the fact that the point of view expressed by one of its participants is at least questioned. That thought, to substantiate the truth or falsity of which a proof is built, is called the proof thesis. Its justification or refutation is the ultimate goal of the dispute. In order to find out the thesis, you need to find out the following:

All obscure concepts included in it. The success of the discussion is largely determined by the ability to correctly operate with concepts and terms. At the beginning of the discussion, the meaning of the main concepts should be clarified, but at the same time, the dispute should not be overloaded with scientific terminology;

- "the amount of the thesis", that is, whether it is about only one subject, or about all the subjects of this class without exception, or not about all, but some, and, depending on this, the evidence will be built in different ways;

Find out the "modality of the thesis", that is, what kind of judgment the thesis is considered to be, undoubtedly true, reliable, or undoubtedly false, or only probable to a greater or lesser extent, very probable, simply probable, etc.

In order to consciously conduct a correct concentrated dispute, one must be able to "embrace the dispute", that is, to keep in mind the general picture of this dispute all the time, giving an account of what position it is in, what has been done, what and why is being done at a given moment. When the disagreement between the disputants in the thesis and in the arguments is such that it depends on the disagreement in other more general and deeper issues, it is important to see the "roots of the dispute." If this is not done, the dispute may turn into a series of useless verbiage and will not lead to the goal.

There are the following types of disputes:

Discussion (from Latin discussio - research, discussion) - a public dispute, the purpose of which is to compare different points of view in order to correctly find a solution to the controversial issue. The discussion is led by an experienced facilitator.

A dispute is a pre-prepared oral dispute on a given topic (scientific, moral and ethical, socially important). During the debate, different points of view are compared under the guidance of a competent facilitator.

Controversy (from the Greek polemikos - militant, hostile) is a sharp dispute, a struggle of fundamentally opposite points of view. The goal is to defeat the enemy, to defend your own position. The presence of a leader is not required.

Debates are disputes that arise when discussing reports. It is important to note that each speaker can speak only once in a debate.

Debate is such a speech genre of dialogic speech, which is based on the discussion of topical issues. In the process of debate, various (including opposing) points of view are compared, allowing to reveal the designated problem from different positions. Unlike debates, which are close in scope to debates, their participants are not limited in how many times they can take the floor.

Disputes are classified according to the purpose, the number of participants and the form of conduct.

According to the purpose, the following types of disputes are distinguished:

Because of the truth: an argument for the sake of finding out the truth is called the highest form of an argument, the most noble and beautiful. In addition to the undoubted benefits, such a dispute brings real pleasure to its participants. This is understandable: knowledge about the subject of the dispute is expanding, faith in one's own intellectual capabilities is being strengthened;

For persuasion: the task of the dispute may be to convince the opponent. Two options are possible here: the arguing sincerely convinces of what he is talking about; the disputant himself does not at all believe in the truth of what he defends. Such a participant in the dispute prefers an opponent weaker than himself and chooses only arguments that are convenient for him;

For victory: the goal of the dispute is victory, and the polemicists do not set themselves the task of getting closer to the truth or convincing the opponent. Their goal is to convince the opponent by any means. The main principle of the participants in such a dispute is "the winners are not judged", therefore the arguing resort to a spectacular, but unworthy way of influencing the enemy;

For the sake of an argument: often there is an argument for the sake of an argument. For such disputants, it makes no difference what to argue about, with whom to argue. It is important for them to shine with eloquence;

By the number of participants there are:

Argument-monologue: a person argues with himself, the so-called "internal dispute";

Dispute-dialogue;

Dispute polylogue.

The form of the dispute may be oral or written. If an oral dispute is conducted in front of listeners, psychological moments play an important role. Of great importance are the speed of reaction, wit. Participants are trying not only to convince each other, how much to impress the audience. A written dispute is considered a more acceptable form of finding out the truth, therefore it is of particular value. But if a written argument drags on for too long, readers have time to forget individual conclusions.

2. Tricks in antiquity .

Disputes have interested people since ancient times. In certain situations, the outcome of the dispute could change the fate of a person and determine his right to life. The well-known Russian orientalist academician V. Vasiliev wrote about disputes in Ancient India: “They erected an arena for competition, elected judges, and kings, nobles and people were constantly present during the dispute; determined in advance, regardless of the royal award, what should be the result of the dispute. If only two people were arguing, then sometimes the vanquished had to take his own life - throw himself into a river or from a cliff, or become a slave of the winner, go over to his faith. If it was a respected person, for example, who had reached the rank of a sovereign teacher and, consequently, possessed a huge fortune, then his property was often given to a poor man in rags who managed to challenge him. It is clear that these benefits were a great bait to direct the ambition of the Indians in this direction. But most often we see that the dispute was not limited to individuals, whole monasteries took part in it, which, due to failure, could suddenly disappear after a long existence. As you can see, the right of eloquence and logical proof was so indisputable in India that no one dared to evade the challenge to an argument. Mention of tricks can be found in the works of Aristotle. Eristics (from the Greek "eris" - dispute) actively developed in ancient Greece in connection with the flourishing of democratic institutions, which involved lively and even stormy disputes in political and judicial practice. In ancient Greece, there were sophists who, for a fee, taught the art of winning an argument, no matter what the argument was about, the art of making a weak argument strong, and a strong one, if this argument of the opponent, was weak. They taught to argue about what you don't understand. Such a teacher was, for example, the philosopher Protagoras. Often the judgment, for example, depended on the logical proof of the speech of the accused or accuser. But even in those days, many used various methods to help win the argument or win over more viewers. Some tricks have survived from ancient times to the present day. Our ancestors were big fans of such "logical" constructions as:

"Post hoc, propter hok" - "inference", in which the temporal sequence is identified with the causal one;

"Argumentumadignorantiam" from lat. ignorantio - "ignorance, inexperience" - "inference" based on "argument" from "unknown", from "ignorance";

"Petitio principii" - from lat. petitio - "harassment, claim" - "inference" based on the identification of "argument" and conclusion. It is presented in a rough form in the well-known "reasoning" of Chekhov's character: "This cannot be, because this can never be";

"Quaesitio" - goes back to lat. "investigation", "investigation", "interrogation". a ruse described in some Renaissance rhetoric;

"Ingorantio elenchi" - "conclusion", in which the argument has nothing to do with the subject of the dispute and the conclusion. For example, in a comic form: Because "because" ends in "y".

Many tricks related to the sphere of feelings were also used. The most famous now are the following:

"Argumentum ad populum" from lat. populus - "people, crowd" - a play on the moods of the crowd, on its completely unrealized sympathies and antipathies, used in the personal interests of the persuasive, hidden from people;

"Argumentumadmisericordiam" from lat. misericordia - "regret, compassion" - a play on pity, feelings of mercy, forgiveness, used by the persuader in hidden personal interests and without taking into account the interests of those being convinced;

"Argumentum ad baculum" from lat. baculum - "stick, cane, wand of the augur" - blackmail, the threat of the use of force, used in the interests of the persuader and supposedly in the interests of the persuasive;

"Argumentumadhominem" from lat. homo - "man" - a play on distrust of those traits, weaknesses of character, actions of a person that have nothing to do with arguments. It is used in the hidden personal interests of the persuader without taking into account the interests of the persuaded;

"Argumentum ad vericundiam" from lat. verecundia - "deep reverence, reverence" - a play on trust in "global authority". It is used by the persuader for hidden personal interests and often against the interests of the persuaded.

3. Tricks in the dispute.

In the process of argumentation and criticism, two types of errors can be made: intentional and unintentional.

Unintentional mistakes are made because of a low culture of thinking, because of haste and for some other reasons. They are called paralogisms (Greek παραλογισμόζ - incorrect reasoning).

Deliberate errors are called sophisms, and those who commit such errors are called sophists. Sophisms are also called the reasoning itself, which contains deliberate errors. The name sophism comes from the Greek. σοφισμα - a cunning trick, fiction. A trick in a dispute is any technique by which the participants in the dispute want to make it easier for themselves and more difficult for the opponent.

Mistake of many questions - the opponent is asked several different questions under the guise of one and required to answer "yes" or "no". The way out of this situation is to give a detailed answer.

Answering a question with a question- not wanting to answer the question posed, the polemicist raises a counter question.

Answer on credit- experiencing difficulties in discussing the problem, the disputants transfer the answer to "later", referring to its complexity.

Exit from the dispute occurs when one of the parties to the dispute is aware of the weakness of his position.

Disruption of the dispute produced by constantly interrupting the opponent, demonstrating unwillingness to listen to him.

"Conclusion to the policeman" actively used in totalitarian societies. The thesis or argument is declared dangerous to society.

"Sticky Arguments" can be defined as a special form of intellectual violence. The participant in the dispute gives such an argument that the opponent must accept because of fear of something unpleasant, dangerous.

Psychological tricks

Bet on false shame. People are often afraid to admit they don't know something. This is used by unscrupulous polemicists. Bringing an unproven conclusion, the opponent accompanies it with the phrases "Science has long established", "Don't you know yet?". Thus, a bet is placed on false shame. If a person, wanting not to lower himself in the eyes of others, does not admit that he does not know something, he will be forced to agree with the arguments of the enemy.

"Greasing" the argument- a weak argument is accompanied by compliments to the opponent.

Links to age, education, position are used to cover up the lack of strong and convincing arguments. Quite often we come across such arguments: “Live to my age, then judge”, “Get a diploma, then we will talk”, “Take my place, then you will argue”.

Logic diversion used by the opponent to divert the attention of the listeners to a discussion of another statement that is not related to the original thesis. To get away from defeat, the polemicist is distracted by extraneous topics.

Translation of the dispute into contradictions between word and deed . To put the opponent in an awkward position, indicates a discrepancy between the views of the opponent and his actions.

"Double-entry bookkeeping" . This technique is otherwise called the translation of the question into the point of view of benefit or harm. An unscrupulous debater takes advantage of the weakness of human nature: when we feel that a given proposal is beneficial to us, we agree with it, not taking into account the highest truth.

Validity offset- disputants replace what is true for the past and present with what will happen in the future.

"Trojan horse"- the arguing goes over to the side of the opponent, distorts his thesis beyond recognition, begins to defend him fervently and thereby strikes at the opponent's authority.

Bringing the enemy off balance. In a public dispute, suggestion has a great influence on listeners, so one should not succumb to a self-confident, peremptory tone.

"Reading in Hearts". The opponent, using this technique, is not interested in understanding the essence of what the opponent said. He tries to determine only the motives of the speaker.

Obstruction- Intentional disruption of the dispute. The opponent is not allowed to say a word, they stomp, whistle, etc.

4. Permissible and impermissible tricks.

There is no sufficiently strict definition of the concept of “tricks in a dispute”. This term usually denotes deliberately incorrect methods of conducting a dispute, peculiar steps, “sabotage”, attempts to manipulate a partner quite roughly in order to maximize their own interests, belittle the opponent and cause him some psychological damage. On the one hand, they help to defend their judgment, which the partner should accept as if freely, without feeling pressure on him, on the other hand, they allow the interlocutor, who is not experienced in the logic and rules of correct dispute conduct, to give up his own position just as freely. Obviously, tricks are often used to make it much harder for the opponent to argue.

Permissible tricks in disputes can be considered:

Suspension of the dispute by one or both parties for good reasons.

If the dispute escalates and the dispute enters an inadmissible phase (violations), the dispute can be stopped by one (even the wrong) side to its own advantage.

Contacting an independent person or source for clarification of inaccuracies.

The rudest tricks in the dispute are:

Departure "aside" from the topic of the ongoing dispute with the transition to "personalities" - indications of: profession, nationality, position held, physical defects, mental disorders.

Shouting and obscene expressions, mutual insults, shouting and insults of third parties.

Threats and hooligan antics.

Assault and fight: as an extreme measure of the so-called "proof" of the right or wrong.

A fairly large group of dishonest means are psychological tricks (oiling an argument, relying on false shame, reading in the hearts, and others), with the help of which some polemicists want to make the argument easier for themselves and more difficult for the enemy. They are diverse in nature, many are based on a good knowledge of the characteristics of the psychology of people, the weaknesses of human nature. As a rule, these tricks contain elements of cunning and outright deception. They show a rude, disrespectful attitude towards the opponent. Such tricks in a dispute are considered impermissible.

5. Measures against tricks in the dispute.

Often in a dispute it is convenient to use certain tactical methods, and sometimes even necessary. It is important only in the heat of a dispute not to stoop to rude and impermissible tricks, to control oneself and not try to hurt the opponent. If one of the parties feels that methods that are not quite correct are being used against it, you need to properly protect yourself. In order to resist the tricks in the dispute, you need to know them well enough and be able to recognize them in polemics. At the same time, the most important thing is to argue only about what is well known, and to be constantly on the alert in a dispute. The effect of tricks will be significantly lower when the participant in the dispute against whom they are directed is ready for this.

When one side notes to himself that the other is using subterfuge tactics in a dispute, the most appropriate reaction would be the following:

1. Reveal the very fact of using a particular trick.

2. Directly bring it up for discussion and agree on what rules the opponents will follow in the dispute for its constructive resolution.

Discussing subterfuge tactics not only makes them less effective, but also makes the other side worry that the first one might interrupt the dialogue and complicate the relationship, and in doing so, he himself risks “losing face”. It may be sufficient to simply raise the question of the inadmissibility of such tactics, as the use of subterfuge will cease. In the discussion of the "rules of the game" in the dispute, the following positions can be noted:

1. You should abandon the initial negative attitude towards the controversial situation, do not consider it for yourself only as a source of trouble or threats.

2. Separate people from problems. Do not allow yourself to attack a person for using tactics that you consider illegal and unacceptable. If he takes a defensive position, it will be more difficult for him to abandon this tactic, he will have annoyance and irritation, which will affect the solution of other issues. It is necessary to question the very tactics of the conversation, and not the personal qualities of the opponent. It is easier to change the course of the dialogue than the person with whom you are dealing.

3. Focus on win-win options. “Is the tactics you use in line with our mutual interests? What if we agree not to do that?”

4. Use the tactic “I would like to understand your position better. Let me tell you where I have difficulty in understanding your reasoning.

5. It is necessary to allow the opponent in the dispute to “let off steam” from time to time. Emotions in a dispute are not always pleasant, but they should still be recognized as legitimate. If a person gets the opportunity to at least slightly free himself from the pressure of unexpressed feelings, he is very likely to be able to think more calmly and this will allow him to focus more on finding a compromise.

6. It is necessary to insist on the use of objective criteria. First of all, test firmness in principles: “Is there any reason why I sit with my back to the open door in an uncomfortable chair?” Explore compliance with the principle of reciprocity: "I suppose tomorrow you will not refuse to sit in this chair?"

Conclusion.

In conclusion, I consider it important to note that the purpose of the dispute should be the search for truth or the achievement of a compromise, but not victory. In cases where this condition is not met, it is better to interrupt the dispute.

There are the following criteria for evaluating the results of the dispute, which may be directly related to the question of the effectiveness of countering tricks. A conversation can be considered successful if, as a result:

1) the partners received new information for themselves, were able to better understand the position of the opponent, clarified something in their vision of the situation and ways to solve it;

2) were able to at least partially remove or reduce tension in relations, eliminate manifestations of mutual hostility, distrust, resentment, irritation;

3) came to a greater mutual understanding and convergence of their positions through specific, clear and open messages;

4) were able to resolve the disputable situation itself, eliminate the conflict, and reach an agreement.

You need to remain calm in an argument. Sometimes this is difficult, especially when the opponent is trying to win the argument at any cost. In order not to lose self-control, you must first of all have a lofty goal for which it is worth arguing, prepare for this dispute, as well as for possible disputes: speak in public more often, study logic and the cause for which you have to argue, work on improving diction, constantly enrich your speech. Mastering the polemical skill is a difficult task. Its solution requires hard work, patience and perseverance, certain efforts on oneself, as well as great desire.

Bibliography.

1. Povarnin S.V. The art of arguing. On the theory and practice of the dispute. - M., 1996.

2. Melnikova S.V. business rhetoric. - M., 1999.

3. Ivin A.A. Logic: textbook. - M., 2000.

4. Karpova S.V., Koloskova T.A., Chichvarina O.A. Fundamentals of culture of speech and rhetoric [Electronic resource]//http://www.distedu.ru.

5. Vinokur V.A. Tricks in the dispute. - St. Petersburg: Speech 2005.

As noted above, victory in an argument can be achieved with the help of cunning, using tricks and forbidden tricks. This was known in antiquity, we read from the Persian poet and thinker Saadi:

A fool with a scientist enters into an argument

And even wins sometimes.

Priceless pearl, sometimes

Cobblestone breaks without difficulty.

It's a shame to lose not to an idea, but to such a person. Therefore, you need to know what tricks are used in a dispute and how to defend yourself against them.

Tricks in a dispute are tactics and methods of conducting a dispute, the purpose of which is to make it difficult for the opponent to justify his ideas.

Certain tactics and the use of polemical techniques make it easier to win the dispute. But these same techniques turn into tricks when they are used for psychological pressure on a partner or for deceiving him.

So, for example, the tactic of "refuting minor arguments" can become a "ignoring argument" ploy, pretending that there was no strong argument. Or they go even further - they declare the argument untenable. This trick is called "retraction of the argument." After listening to the opponent, they say to him: “Are you serious?” or “So what?”. In such cases, without embarrassment, one must say decisively: "I do not consider this an objection in essence."

A clarifying question to buy time for reflection can become an "over-elaborating" ploy, requiring an answer to a question that doesn't make sense. For example, after the statement: “In the army, mothers often lose their sons,” they ask: “What kind of mothers? Can you name them?" There is no point in trying to answer such questions. It's better to say, "It doesn't matter" or "You're asking for the impossible."

By refuting the speaker's argument, the opponent may exaggerate some side of his statement to such an extent that it becomes ridiculous. This trick is called "reduction to the absurd." You can neutralize it by saying: "Let's not exaggerate" or "We must not exaggerate."

The “appeal to the public” technique turns into a trick if, instead of a specific reference, they say: “In the opinion of the majority ...” or “In the opinion of the people ...”. You can answer: "If this is so, I have my own opinion."

Culture of debating

The “reference to authority” technique can become a trick if they refer to a high-ranking person unknown to the opponent or, raising their finger up, say meaningfully: “There is an opinion ...” In such cases, the recommended answer is: “I really appreciate this opinion, but, unfortunately , it doesn't prove anything."

The most serious of the tricks that can significantly complicate the dispute for an inexperienced polemist are tricks that violate the rules of polemics:

1. Leaving aside, imposing your subject of discussion.

In this case, it is worth saying: “This is very interesting, but back to our question” or “We are not talking about that! Your question deserves a separate discussion.

2. Discussion of personal qualities or actions of the opponent.

There is no need to please a dishonorable polemist and start making excuses. It’s better to say: “Sorry, we’re not talking about me right now.”

3. Distortion of the meaning of the statement. This trick looks like this: the opponent's thesis is distorted, then it is easily refuted and they pretend that they won the argument.

At one time, the Izvestia newspaper published material calling for a reconsideration of the attitude towards people who were captured during the Great Patriotic War. The Krasnaya Zvezda newspaper entered the controversy. She began like this: "The Izvestia newspaper publishes materials whose purpose is to present the shame of captivity with valor and heroism."

Having noticed the falsification, it is necessary to establish the truth, and if the original statement is not recorded or there are no witnesses and it is impossible to do this, then switch to discussing the statement of the opposite side.

4. Attributing to the opponent side motives for arguing (the "reading in the heart" trick). For example: "You just want to argue" or "You want to be smarter than everyone else." There is no need to get angry and make excuses in this case. It is better to say: "Let's leave aside our intentions, return to the question of ..."

5. Discussion of private points that are not important for solving the main issue. This must be tactfully but decisively suppressed.

Psychological tricks are also used, based on knowledge of the weaknesses of human nature.

1. "Stunned" - fast, with a lot of complex terms, speech, self-confident, non-objectionable tone. So that it does not confuse, you need to understand that all this is a psychological attack. Don't fall for the trick, stay calm. After the “volley”, ask to repeat everything from the beginning and more slowly.

2. “Greasing the argument”, or flattery, for example: “As a smart person (or intelligent, etc.), you must agree that ...»

The neutralization of the trick is simple - having heard something like this, after the “compliment” modestly say “Thank you”.

3. A bet on false shame - it is expected that the interlocutor will accept the argument without objection, embarrassed to show his ignorance. They begin persuasion like this: “Don’t you know that ...”, “As you know ...”. It is easy not to succumb to the trick, answering: “Imagine, I don’t know this,” and thereby making it clear that the opponent must substantiate his statement. If in a dispute

Culture of debating

they use incomprehensible terms, refer to theories unfamiliar to you, it is recommended not to pretend that everything is clear, but to the opponent’s annoyance, say: “Explain ...”

4. A reference to your age, education, position, for example: “As a person with two higher educations, I affirm that ...” or “As a person who is suitable for your fathers ...”, etc. The defense against such a trick is the answer: "I know and appreciate your experience (or education, or age, etc.), but this is not an argument."

5. "Pocket argument" - the transition from reasoning about the truth of the statement to emphasizing its benefits for the opponent in the hope that when the benefits are clearly visible, it is difficult to discern the truth. For example, in the district executive committee there is a meeting on the question of whether the district needs a new automatic telephone exchange. A supporter of signing the relevant documents hints to his opponents that such a decision will please the higher authorities. If for a person his personal benefit is more important than the interests of the case, he will not be able to resist the “pocket argument”. Otherwise, he will calmly answer: “This is not relevant to the case.”

Logical tricks manifest themselves mainly in the deliberate violation of the logical requirements for arguments:

1. False foundation. The big premise of deductive reasoning is a plausible proposition that is true in some cases. The opponent presents it as an axiom, for example: "And since it is impossible to change human nature, then ..." or "As you know, the old horse does not spoil the furrow, therefore ...". Having grasped that a statement that is true in a particular situation is presented as true under all conditions, it should be noted: "Just because it is true in a given situation does not mean that it is true at all."

2. Anticipation of the foundation. This trick was often used by I.V. Stalin, for example: "There is no need to say that the superiority of the collective farms over the individual economy will become even more indisputable." If we do not notice these errors in the arguments, we will have to “swallow” the conclusion as well, and as a result, admit defeat in the dispute.

3. The opponent gives correct arguments, which, however, are clearly not enough for the assertion he defends. This should be pointed out to him.

4. "Circle in proof" - any thought is proved with the help of its own, only expressed in other words.

5. When criticizing an opponent, they use his words and terms, but put a different meaning into them and thereby distort the original idea. It is not difficult to neutralize this trick: having noticed the use of your terms in a different sense, you need to clarify the original concepts.

6. The general trend is opposed by individual facts, for example: "But I know the case ...". You can interrupt the reasoning with the words: "A separate fact does not yet say anything."

7. They put forward a thesis, but they don’t substantiate it with anything, but simply state: “What do you actually have against this?” If the opponent succumbs to this trick and begins to give various arguments “against”, they look for flaws in them, thereby moving the center of the dispute. In order not to succumb to this trick, you need to ask the opponent: “Why do you think so?”, thereby forcing the partner to substantiate his statement himself.

8. "Shining generalizations" - what the opponent said about some side or particular manifestation of the phenomenon is transferred to the entire phenomenon in

in general, for example: “Are you against reforms?” or “Say that you are against the market!” Making excuses is not the best solution. Better come on! Say, for example, the following: “You are making too bold generalizations!”

9. "Imposed consequence" - after listening to the arguments of the opponent, one's own conclusion is made, which does not follow at all from his reasoning. Defense against this trick: "I would not draw such a conclusion" or "It does not follow from my reasoning."

The flow of controversy involves answers to questions. This can be used for the following tricks:

1. Requiring a “yes” or “no” answer where unambiguity can lead to a misunderstanding of the essence of the problem. In response to this, one should say: "Here a definite answer is impossible."

2. Ignoring a question or answering a question with a question, which allows the opponent to take the initiative. Neutralization of this trick: "Allow me, there was my question!"

3. Negative assessment of the question itself, for example: “Everyone knows this!” or "That's not a question", etc. Neutralization of the trick: "I would like to hear your opinion."

In order to neutralize tricks, it is necessary, firstly, to know them, secondly, to be very attentive in order to detect them, and, finally, to have decisiveness and quickness of thinking.

Prohibited There are situations when one side of the dispute tries to break the other side of the argument, using for this purpose the methods that are considered prohibited in verbal combat.

Such techniques should be immediately exposed and stopped, recalling the rules for conducting polemics. If the opponent does not stop, the controversy is stopped, since the verbal battle loses its meaning. “As elsewhere, there are also irreversible processes in the controversy,” the author of the book “Strategy for Business Success” V.I. Kurbatov.

Here are some prohibited methods of arguing:

1. Sticking labels - calling an opponent names, for example: “Yes, you are a dogmatist!” or “And you are a conservative!” etc. “Such arguments,” writes V.I. Kurbatov, is a direct symptom that the dispute has degenerated into a skirmish. The most rational way out of this situation is to interrupt the discussion because of the unwillingness to be insulted and the unproductiveness of further dispute. It is possible, however, that the opponent will change his tactics after exposing this technique with the words: “Please, no labels!”, although there is little hope for this.

2. “Shooting” with beautiful phrases, for example: “A person who does not love the Motherland (or his people, or his native language) can reason like that.” Answer: "Let's leave beautiful phrases!" or “Only without phrases!” may not make everyone understand, but it's worth a try.

3. Lies (link to a non-existent source, fictional fact, own "quote", truncated quotation, juggling of facts). Not everyone can lie convincingly. If you suspect something is wrong, you need to try to establish the truth or stop the conversation. This technique can be exposed only with excellent knowledge of the issue.

4. Mouth suppression (intimidation), “stick argument”, for example: “You can, of course, remain in your opinion, but then ...” Hearing something like this, you can say: “This is a fist argument” or “This is an argument by force.” If such an exposure of the technique does not affect the opponent, it is probably worth recalling the advice of V.I. Kurbatova: “A dispute in which there is a tendency to exchange threats is best interrupted before it goes too far. It is necessary to cool passions. It is possible to proceed further only after a joint condemnation of such arguments.

6. Getting out of patience - the opponent chuckles all the time, or winks, as if hinting at something, or whistles, taps on the table, perhaps creates other interference with the conversation in order to irritate the opponent. On a person who controls himself, this technique will not work. On the contrary, his imperturbable appearance is able to calm the “naughty one”. If he does not stop, the polemic is stopped.

7. Discrediting - the opponent recalls the episodes of his life discrediting the opponent. If there are none, he invents them. Discrediting is carried out in order to undermine people's confidence in the arguments of the opponent (“since he is like that”). This forbidden technique is considered the most serious, since it is the most difficult to endure "revelations". If the accusation is true, it becomes embarrassing, and if not, we are outraged.

Culture of debating 139

eat in vain. But it is better not to succumb to emotions, but to make a decision that also depends on whether there are witnesses to the dispute. And if this is a conversation in private or in the presence of like-minded people, it is quite justified to stop the polemic. Since a person has gone to discredit, he is not interested in the truth, he does not intend to convince, and he is unlikely to want to listen. But if a controversy arose during a meeting, meeting or negotiations, it is impossible not to respond to the accusation: reputation may suffer.

The answer to the opponent should begin with a condemnation of the very fact of "memories" that are not related to the subject of the dispute. It must be clearly shown that this is a departure from the problem under discussion, which can spoil the relationship. Perhaps your words, calmness and self-esteem will impress others and, most importantly, your opponent, and he will hasten to change tactics. If this does not happen, you will have to answer the accusation, noting that you are forced to do this.

You should calmly consider possible defense options if the accusation is true, and ways to rebut the accusation if what the partner is talking about is fiction. The latter were discussed above. Let's take a look at the defenses.

How to respond Relationships between people, alas, to accusations or fortunately, have changed little over the millennia. Ways to defend against accusations were developed by Aristotle. These techniques are formulated taking into account his recommendations.

Culture of debating

1. Reception "So what?"

Recognize that, indeed, the incident has taken place or is taking place, but it is not as terrible (harmful, etc.) as the opponent portrays. Or it does not have such dimensions, such consequences, etc. Or: “Yes, it was ugly (cowardly, unfair, etc.), but…” - and show that by doing badly, you avoided the worst evil or your act led to such consequences that are completely his justify.

2. Reception "Fatal accident". Explain your behavior in terms of circumstances.

that forced you to act against your will. Or you did (have done so) by mistake, by accident.

3. Reception "I did not want this!"

The act turned out to be just like that against your will. They wanted one thing, but got another. You yourself suffered in this.

4. Reception "I'm not better myself!"

Pay attention to the accuser himself, arguing that before he himself or someone of his like-minded people did something similar. This technique neutralizes the impression of the accusation, but can give rise to a new wave of reproaches and escalate the situation.

5. Reception "You are to blame!" Show that in what you did or

act, the accuser is to blame. For example, if a person is accused of not completing the work on time, he can return the charge, recalling that the accuser provided materials for this later than promised and, therefore, he himself is to blame for what happened.

6. Reception "I became different"

In response to the memory of your ugly act, you can calmly notice that it was a long time ago, since then you have changed your views in many ways, learned something.

It is difficult to say whether it will make sense to continue the controversy after the charges are neutralized, but the reputation will most likely be preserved.

An instructive illustration of how not to argue is given by J. London in the novel The Sea Wolf. The protagonist of the novel had to live in a cockpit with whalers, great lovers of betting. “They argued about trifles like children, and their arguments were extremely naive. As a matter of fact, they did not even give any arguments, but limited themselves to unfounded statements or denials. They tried to prove the ability or inability of a newborn seal to swim simply by expressing their opinion with a belligerent air and accompanying it with attacks against the nationality, common sense or past of their opponent. I talk about this to show the mental level of the people with whom I was forced to associate. Intellectually they were children, albeit in the guise of adults.

In conclusion, we note that the art of polemics can be comprehended only in numerous verbal battles.

1. Why does a dispute often give rise to a quarrel?

2. What is needed for truth to be born in a dispute?

3. What is the difference between polemical devices and tricks?

4. In what cases do people resort to tricks and forbidden tricks?

5. How to protect yourself from prohibited tricks in a dispute?

3 a d a n y

1. Carefully follow the controversy on television, in the press: follow the rules for conducting controversy, the use of polemical techniques and tricks.

2. Use every opportunity to practice your argument skills. Consistently work out the techniques of conducting polemics. Reveal your opponent's tricks and neutralize them.

CHAPTER 8

Nothing is superficial for the deep

observer! It's in the little things that he reveals his character.

E. Bulwer-Lytton (English writer and politician of the 19th century)

Achieving the desired result in communicating with a partner depends on how much you can anticipate his reaction to your words and actions and build your behavior in connection with this.

To do this, obviously, you need to have a correct understanding of the partner and be able to look at the situation from his position. It is important to take into account the character, habits, beliefs, intellectual and cultural level of the interlocutor, his way of life. All this, constituting the inner content of a person, manifests itself externally: in his manner of dressing, gait, postures, gestures, facial expressions, sound of voice, intonation.

Observant people often determine at a glance what kind of person is in front of them, how to deal with him, what can be expected from him. Such people are said to be shrewd. Insight depends on the attentiveness of a person, his knowledge of life, the power of imagination. Sometimes insight can acquire the sharpness of instinct, as in O. Balzac: “Without neglecting bodily deceit, she (insight) unraveled the soul - or rather, she grasped the appearance of a person in such a way that she immediately penetrated into his inner world, she allowed me to live the life of someone who to whom was addressed ... "

Perception and understanding of the communication partner

In order to have a correct idea of ​​a person, one must, firstly, be able to observe, and secondly, to exclude possible errors of perception.

Priority As you know, there are three channels of the channel for the receipt of information

perception in the human mind:

1) visual (external and internal information is a complex of visual images);

2) auditory (information is a complex of sounds);

3) kinesthetic (information is a complex of sensations: taste, tactile, olfactory, body sensations).

Each person is able to receive and process information using all three channels. But at the same time, as convincingly shown in the theory of neuro-linguistic programming1, each of us has one channel through which we primarily perceive, think, and remember. Such a channel is called a priority channel. They say that each person has his own modality (from the Latin modus - a way, a qualitative characteristic of sensations).

In accordance with this, all people can be conditionally divided into visuals, auditory and kinesthetics. By carefully observing the interlocutor, you can determine what type he belongs to. Differences are manifested in the sound of the voice, the features of gesticulation, the direction of eye movement, the predominant use of certain words that reflect the modality of the images present in his mind. According to these words, called predicates, it is easiest to determine the type of person. So, for example, the auditory often inserts in a conversation: "Listen", "As they say", "I'm telling you." Visual: “Look”, “Don’t you see that...”, “As you see for yourself”, etc. This is not surprising: after all, the auditory has auditory images and associations, while the visual has visual ones. From the kinesthetic you can hear: "I feel ...", "I'm all cold", etc.

Recognition of the type of modality of the interlocutor by the main indicators

Perception and understanding of the communication partner

Determining the modality of the interlocutor requires observation and skills. In order to make it easier to speak the language of the interlocutor, we recommend that you practice: one day use visual predicates in your speech, another day - auditory, the third - kinesthetic.

It is also useful to work on the development of your channels of perception. Ideally, in a harmonious personality, they are all equivalent.

Features of perception of a person by a person

Looking at a person, we usually perceive him as a whole.

The impression of the same person in different people,

usually different. It happens that the criminal is difficult to find because the sketches, compiled according to the descriptions of witnesses, are strikingly different from each other and from the true face.

Why is perception subjective?

First of all, people have different possibilities of perception, which is associated with the peculiarities of vision and hearing, natural or educated observation. People also have different priority channels of perception.

Perception is influenced by stereotypes (“I know such people”) and previous experience. It is experience that allows us to notice in a person what others sometimes do not pay attention to.

The result of perception is significantly influenced by the attitude (preliminary information about the person). The experiments described by the psychologist A. A. Bodalev are widely known, in which two groups of students were presented with a photograph of the same person, presenting him in different ways: in the first case, they said that he was a famous scientist, in the second - a hardened criminal. It is interesting to compare the impressions in both cases. Here are typical answers: “The look and facial expression of a scientist indicate that he is intensely and painfully solving some problem”, “This beast wants to understand something”, “Very angry look”, etc. The setting influenced the result of perception of about a third of the subjects.

Your state at the moment of communication with a partner also affects how you perceive him. Irritation, fatigue, and even joyful excitement are bad helpers. An upset person sees the world through "black" glasses, a joyful person sees the world through "pink" glasses.

Your assessment may also be biased due to the fact that you are biased towards your partner. Bad teachers evaluate equally correct answers of favorite and unloved students in different ways. For mothers, their children are the most beautiful. The outstanding poet of antiquity, Lucretius Carus, wrote about men blinded by love: “They will call the dylda majestic, full of dignity, the stutterer chirps sweetly for them, and the dumb one is bashful.”

Perception and understanding of the communication partner

There is a well-known law of perception, according to which in any object of perception we highlight something important, and everything else serves as a background.

The impression of the object as a whole depends on what exactly we consider to be the main and what is the background.

The impressions of different people about the same person differ mainly because this is the main thing for everyone - their own. It is determined by what is important for a person at the moment: his interests, desires, hopes, fears.

The perception of the appearance and behavior of a person also depends on the ethical, aesthetic and socio-cultural norms and rules learned in childhood and adolescence, ideas about "what is good and what is bad."

Finally, strange as it may seem at first glance, the perception of another person depends on our perception of ourselves. For example, an insecure boss may perceive the active behavior of a subordinate as a manifestation of a challenge, a threat to his influence.

So, the perception of another person depends on our attitudes, our experience and upbringing, our desires and fears, and therefore

Observation and perception of another person contains information about ourselves.

Knowing that there are reasons leading to biased perception, one can try to take into account their influence.

Based on the above features of perception, a business person can be advised:

1. Develop observation, pay attention to all the features of the external appearance and psychological makeup of a person. (So ​​that it doesn’t work out later: “But I didn’t notice!”)

2. Strive to get complete information about a person (not to speculate).

3. Give as complete information about yourself as possible (so that there are no rumors).

4. Speak with a partner in his language (take into account his priority channel of perception).

5. Talk with employees and partners in a convenient place, in a calm environment and in a calm state.

6. Do not be influenced by prior information about the partner.

7. Explain your actions. Talk to subordinates about your expectations (so that there are no disappointments and claims).

9. Do for others not what you think is necessary, but what they would like you to do for them. Only then will they perceive it positively.

10. Be what you want to be seen.

To ensure that your partner's assessment is objective, try to observe, evaluate and draw conclusions impartially.

Mechanisms The main mechanisms of perception-perception are stereotyping and understanding visualization. They turn on at the same time, but depending on the situation of communication, our inclinations and profession, one or the other works more for us.

Stereotyping - comparing the image of a given person with the stereotypes that are in the mind

Perception and understanding of the communication partner

mi: images of representatives of various socio-demographic groups, psychological types, to which, in our opinion, this person belongs. There are stereotypes about teachers, students, businessmen, old people, teenagers, old bachelors, gypsies, Americans, and so on. We attribute a person to some group on the basis of the common thing that unites this person and the existing image. Knowing the characteristics of the behavior of this group of people, one can to some extent predict the behavior of a partner.

Individualization is the perception of a person in all his originality, with all his inherent features. At the same time, we pay attention to the differences between our interlocutor and representatives of the social group to which he belongs or may belong, to his psychological characteristics.

Both mechanisms are important in business communication. Each person belongs to some socio-demographic group, psychological type and has its own unique features. The perception and correct assessment of the general and special inherent in your partner allows you to predict his behavior.

Communicating with a partner, we, of course, do not just watch him, but live those moments together. In the process of communication, people are imbued with each other's feelings (empathy), are able to reason from the position of another person (reflection), identify themselves with him (identification). To understand a partner means to imagine how he argues and what he feels in this situation.

“The main thing with which the understanding of other people begins is the formation in a person of such an orientation in which other people would not stand on the periphery, but certainly in the center of the value system that is emerging in him. What will be in this system - a hypertrophied "I" or "you" - it turns out to be not at all indifferent to the manifestation of our ability to penetrate deeply into another person and build relationships with her correctly, ”writes A.A. Bodalev in the work "Perception and understanding of man by man".