[rjprins]

The best insight here is that self-worth and fear of shaming are the main motivators for not agreeing.

A weaker argument, that is less threatening to self-worth is one way of preventing that your discussion partner goes on the defense.

Another way is to make him feel safer in the sense that he can trust that you will not hurt his feelings. This can be done by affirming that you are on the same page with him, that you and him share the same goal. You can also do this by denying what the other person might be afraid of, such as "I don't think your opinion is stupid" or "I don't want to abolish guns for hunting purposes". These methods come from "Crucial Conversations", it goes in depth on the underlying emotional motivations of conversations. Great book.

Another, cheaper tactic is to acknowledge positive characteristics of the other, making that person feel better about himself. This way, their self-worth is less vulnerable and they are more open to arguments (although this frequently fails because people distrust compliments from people that pose a threat).

[jonnathanson]

Absolutely.

I would even go so far as to say that it's not about making a "weaker" argument; it's about making a more socially nuanced argument. Context counts. Subtext counts. They count especially when there's an audience to the argument (real or perceived). When someone feels his face, or dignity, or credibility is on the line, he feels intense pressure to stick to his guns -- and to keep his guns blazing.

Conversational softeners ("You make some great points, but...," or "I agree about X, but have you considered...") are not necessarily about weakening your own argument. They're about lowering psychological defensiveness to your argument. They increase the chances you might actually wind up with a productive dialogue, and after all, results matter more than absolute correctness. IMO, an effective argument is one that makes some headway -- ergo, this isn't really "weakening."

[DanHulton]

This feels a lot like John Cleese's advice on creativity within teams: You need to be surrounded by people who will build on ideas with you, not people who will lead with "no". The moment you have a person in the room with you who will shoot you down on an idea, trust falters and creativity dies.

Honestly, I've thought a lot lately about how I argue, and I find I get a lot more accomplished when I lead with "Yes, and". I feel like I should have taken drama instead of band when I was younger and I'd have reached this point sooner.

[oscilloscope]

"Yes, and" refers to one of the techniques of improvisational theatre.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Improvisational_theatre#Applyi...

Basically you must accept the reality your scene partners put forth and build on it. Otherwise you end up with a confused, amorphous environment with no clear direction.

Improv theatre still needs tension and conflict to emerge. This comes out of the structure of the scene spontaneously. It could be some kind of repetition, pattern, contradiction, physical motion, etc. Ideally, the players don't just rehash old games but are eager to make a new, unusual play.

"Unusual" in this sense relates to the context of the world you're playing in. In a scene, it's not unusual for a coven of witches to kidnap children and boil them in a brew. But it could be unusual for a scientist to discover that brew has miraculous healing properties and to publish the results in Nature. This could be humorous to an audience, because normally there's absolutely no legitimate utilitarian imperative to mix children into a brew.

There are more interesting ideas in improv that relate to politics/business. I recommend anyone interested check out Impro For Storytellers by Keith Johnstone.

http://appliedimprov.ning.com/profiles/blogs/7-keith-johnsto...

[simonh]

> I feel like I should have taken drama instead of band when I was younger and I'd have reached this point sooner.

I took drama lessons when I was a kid and have never regretted it. It's helped me in interviewing, meeting and greeting customers, giving presentations, providing training, all sorts. It's always hard to consider hypotheticals like how would I have fared without the drama training, but I have no doubt it has been a huge help. I'm encouraging my kids to do the same.

[jakobe]

I wish HN had a "star" button or so to keep track of insightful comments.

[aray]

Also not making a discussion into an argument between adversaries.

> The arguments that are most threatening to opponents are viewed as the strongest and cited most often. Liberals are baby-killers while conservatives won’t let women control their own body. [[examples from the article]]

Both of these are not only threatening, they're over-generalizing to the point of being wrong, and demeaning to the point of being insulting.

[ds9]

"The best insight here is that self-worth and fear of shaming are the main motivators for not agreeing."

This is often true, but it is not always true. One person forms opinions on topic X based on reason and evidence, another based on ideology. It is only the latter who feels threatened by new facts or arguments, precisely because his rational foundation is shaky.

Thus there seems to be a fallacy - I'm not clear whether it is from the linked writer or the researchers he refers to - of assuming in the first place that the opinions being talked about are necessarily based on emotion more than on reason and facts.

Put another way, it's rather presumptuous to say, in essence, this new argument of mine is so strong that if others reject it, it must be due to their irrational ideology rather than the merits.

Edit: I don't mean to disparage the idea of making one's statements more diplomatically rather than contentiously - that is certainly a good thing, but that is a separate issue from presuming the reasons for people's views prior to finding out the actual reasons.

[snowwrestler]

For me, the key way of thinking is that if I want someone to agree with me, my argument needs to make sense to them from within their own internal perspective. So to be effective I need to understand their perspective first, then see if what I want can be fit into it respectfully.

The big exception to this is if a third party is adjudicating the argument--like in a debate or trial. In that case, hammering the foe can help establish a perception of confidence and credibility with the 3rd party.

[euroclydon]

Great point! So many comments on HN need to start off with one such sentence. I think this is called etiquette.

[Florin_Andrei]

Could it be that the tendency to preserve the coherence of one's views goes beyond self-worth? E.g., most people, I think, would try to avoid holding in their minds ideas which don't agree with each other. So, if your previously acquired ideas are already leaning this way, they may tend to oppose new ideas that are leaning that way.

[Buttons840]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cognitive_dissonance -- I believe this idea is called "cognitive dissonance", and has been demonstrated in some interesting studies.

As I read about it, I could remember several instances in my life where I have behaved exactly as described.