17. Toolkit of Productive Argument

# Define the disagreement. A surprising amount of disagreements are not disagreements at all but misunderstandings or antipathies in disguise. When you’re stuck in an unproductive argument, take a step back and ask, what precisely are we disagreeing about (if anything)?

# Seek out good disagreers. We are often advised to open our minds and our social media feeds to people who have different views from us. That’s fine in theory but in practice it can be counter-productive. What is crucial is to find people who say things you find objectionable in a way that makes you respect and like them.

# Feel the burn. For those of us who are not naturally confrontational, it’s always tempting to turn away from any conflict. But just as we learn to interpret the pain of exercise as a signal that we’re getting stronger, so we can learn to welcome the discomfort of a disagreement.

# Frame your opponents positively. You might have to fake it at first, but it always helps a conversation go well if you like and respect your interlocutor – and if they feel it. George Thompson, a former cop, used to say, ‘The moment they sense you dislike them, they can ignore what you say.’

# Feel the steel. It’s sometimes said that we should argue with the strongest case for the opposing view, not the weakest. Instead of a straw man, build a ‘steel man’. But this can’t just be an intellectual exercise. Let yourself feel the emotional force of the other side’s position – inhabit it somehow, if only partially and fleetingly.

# Beware reactance. People are fiercely defensive of their own agency and autonomy, and in a tense conversation, any attempt at correction can trigger a reaction. Psychologists call this ‘reactance’. It’s why the righting reflex is counter-productive and it’s behind the backfire effect. When primed for threats, people focus on the relationship signals and disregard the content. To be heard, you need to work harder at sending the right signals.

# Preview the disagreement. To avoid triggering a threat state in the other person by taking them unawares, let them know you’re about to disagree before getting into the disagreement. Acknowledge that you may be wrong and they may be right. This gives them a chance to adjust mentally before hearing you out (this can be particularly useful when disagreeing with a more powerful person).

# Resist negative reciprocation. When a person is aggressive or hostile or sarcastic towards us, our instinct is to reciprocate. If the conversation is to stand a chance of being productive, someone needs to break the circuit.

# Create a culture of positive argument. Whether it’s at work, in a sports team or with your partner, make it normal for everyone to challenge decisions, speak up about doubts and address annoyances. When you’re used to tackling the small issues this way, the big ones are less likely to tear you apart.

# Reward dissenters. People who speak up in meetings to offer different views are often punished, albeit in subtle ways, for doing so. Leaders should make an effort to show they genuinely value challenges to a prevailing view, even when they disagree or overrule them.

# Don’t tell them what to do or how to feel. Never in the history of the world has anyone responded well to the imperative ‘Grow up’. As with all injunctions (‘Be reasonable’; ‘Calm down’) it simply annoys. Telling people how to behave, or worse, how to feel, nearly always backfires. Be alert to what’s behind the other person’s view: are you in an argument with their position or their emotion? If the latter, your clever arguments will not break the deadlock. Perhaps you need to acknowledge their underlying feelings.

# Be wary of ‘you’. In the midst of a disagreement, the word ‘you’ can trigger an identity threat in your interlocutor’s mind (‘You do this, you seem to think that . . .’) Although it’s not always possible to avoid it, use ‘you’ sparingly in tense conversations.

# Cut the ‘but’. As with ‘you’, it’s unlikely you will be able to eradicate ‘but’. But – hear me out – ‘but’ tends to snag on the other person’s defences. Just replacing it with ‘though’ can soften a sentence’s edge.

# Go to the heat. At the workplace, conflicts are often avoided nobody wants to confront them. But that allows tensions to fester. Leaders should be unembarrassed about acknowledging conflicts and they can organise meetings specifically to air them. Perhaps over beer.

# Lead with weakness. Often the other person feels as if you’re trying to dominate them or prove your superiority in some way (and, let’s face it, often you are). To allay that suspicion, show vulnerability, admit anxiety, confess uncertainty, even – or especially – if you’re in a position of authority. Unilaterally disarming is your best chance of getting others to lower their defences.

# Check for understanding. So if I’m hearing you right, what you’re saying is . . . The practice of checking in with your opposite number like this is good for both of you: you get clarity, and they are reassured that you’re listening. Done honestly, it can open up the conversation.

# Reverse the emotional polarity. It can be good to articulate your emotions directly in a disagreement, but to avoid escalation you can do so in a calm and even tone. Conversely, when discussing factual information, you can infuse some life and passion into it, so that you don’t sound like you’re holding forth from a chilly plateau of intellectual superiority.

# Spot the truth in the other’s mistake. Therapists dealing with delusional patients say that there is usually some kind of truth in the delusion, even if it’s just an emotional one, and that part of their job is to identify what it is. In arguments, when you’re encountering views with which you strongly disagree, make an effort to find a kernel of truth in what’s being said. At the very least it will help you respect your interlocutor.

# Stop trying to be right. Of course, we all love being right, but it’s a cheap satisfaction compared to learning about something or someone, and it often gets in the way. Try not to let the urge to win the argument dominate your attitude to the conversation. Conversely, nobody wants to be told they’re wrong, so if you first convey to the other person that they are in some way right they are more likely to be open to your point of view. After all, what matters is not that you are right, but that we are right.

# Acknowledge expertise. You shouldn’t always defer to experts, because sometimes experts are wrong. But when your interlocutor knows more than you about the topic at hand, either through experience or learning, it’s wise to start in the one-down position and acknowledge their epistemic authority. That way, you’re more likely to learn and they’re more likely to listen.

# Practise losing. I can’t put this any better than Stephen Llano, an associate professor of rhetoric at St John’s University in New York: ‘Losing an argument is a very important democratic art that we never practise. It’s vital that we learn how to live with our persuasive failures. There’s no great secret to it, just practice. The more time we spend arguing with one another in low-stakes situations, the better we will be when the situation calls for serious consideration.’

# Believe less. Outside of religious faith, believing is not an end in itself. People who enjoy believing tend to stop reflecting on why they believe what they believe. They also tend to lose the ability to listen to other views. The fewer beliefs you hold inviolate, the more cognitive freedom and empathy you have.

# Be sceptical of your own tribe. Nearly all of us are aligned with groups, formal or informal, who share a similar set of opinions. There’s nothing wrong with that, but when you follow the script of your group too closely, you surrender some of your own ability to think. That’s not good for you and ultimately it’s bad for the collective intelligence of your group, too. Use your disagreement skills to probe the beliefs of your own side, as well as those of the other.

# Don’t just correct – create. Following Mary Parker Follett, don’t simply try to impose your view, and don’t be satisfied with a compromise. Instead, seek out the integration: the alchemic reaction that occurs when opposing views collide and transform into something new. It’s not always possible, but it’s the prize.