The third lesson of the course is devoted to argumentation and its practical features. But before we move on to the main material, let's talk a little about why in general, from the position of critical thinking, it is necessary to be able to argue one's opinion, and also to trust only reasoned opinions.
What is argumentation and why is it important
The term "argumentation" comes from the Latin word "argumentatio", which means "bringing arguments". This means that we give any arguments (arguments) in order to arouse confidence or sympathy for the thesis, hypothesis or statement put forward by us. The complex of such arguments is the argumentation.
The task of argumentation- make sure that the addressee accepts the theory put forward by the author. And by and large, argumentation can be called an interdisciplinary study of conclusions as a result of logical reasoning. Argumentation takes place in the scientific, and in everyday life, and in the legal, and in the political spheres; always used in conversations, dialogues, persuasion, etc.
The ultimate goal of argumentation consists in persuading the audience of the truth of any situation, inclining people to accept the author's point of view, prompting reflection or action.
Argumentation is a phenomenon of a historical nature, and it changes over time. To express it, language means are used, for example, spoken or written statements. These statements, their interrelationships and influence on a person are studied by the theory of argumentation.
Argumentation is a purposeful activity, and it can either strengthen or weaken someone's beliefs. It is also a social activity, because when a person argues his position, he influences those with whom he contacts. This implies a dialogue and an active reaction of the opposite side to evidence and evidence. In addition, the adequacy of the interlocutor is assumed, and his ability to rationally weigh the arguments, accept or challenge them.
It is thanks to argumentation that a person can clearly explain his point of view to someone, confirm its truth with strong arguments, and eliminate misunderstanding. Competently reasoned judgments minimize doubts, speak about the veracity and seriousness of the put forward hypotheses, assumptions and statements. In addition, if a person is able to make strong arguments in his favor, this is an indicator that he has more than once critically evaluated all the information he has.
For the same reason, it is worth trusting only those information that can be adequately argued. This will mean that they are verified, proven and true (or at least an attempt was made to do so). Actually, this is the goal of critical thinking - to question something in order to find confirming or refuting facts.
From all that has been said above, we can conclude that argumentation is the most correct and open way to influence the opinions and decisions of other people. Naturally, in order for teaching critical thinking to give a result, and for argumentation to be effective, it is necessary to know not only its theoretical, but also its practical foundations. We will continue with them.
Practical foundations of argumentation: structure, basic rules, criteria for evaluating arguments
The scope of the concept of "argumentation" is very deep. Given that this is perhaps the most difficult of the stages of persuasion, it requires a person to have knowledge and possession of the material, endurance and skill, assertiveness and correctness of statements. At the same time, it must be remembered that the author of the arguments always depends on his interlocutor, because the latter will decide whether the arguments are acceptable to him or not.
The argument has its own structure. It looks like this:
- Proposing a thesis - the formulation of one's position, proposal or opinion
- Bringing arguments - this includes evidence, evidence and arguments through which the author substantiates his position (arguments should explain why the interlocutor should believe or agree with you)
- Demonstration - meaning the demonstration of the relationship of the thesis with the arguments (it is at this stage that conviction is achieved)
With the help of argumentation, you can partially or completely change the opinion and point of view of the interlocutor. However, to achieve success, you need to follow a few important rules:
- It is necessary to operate with convincing, precise, clear and simple concepts.
- The information must be truthful (if the reliability of the data is not established, then you do not need to use them until everything has been verified)
- In the process of conversation, you need to select a certain pace and specific methods of argumentation, based on the characteristics of your character and temperament.
- All arguments must be valid; no personal attacks are allowed
- It is recommended to refrain from using non-business statements that make it difficult to understand the information; it is better to operate with visual arguments; when covering negative information, its source must be indicated without fail
For a person who is well acquainted with what he is talking about, it will not be difficult to find good arguments. But most often, if there is a task to convince your interlocutor, it is better to stock up on convincing arguments in advance. For example, you can sketch a list of them, and then analyze and determine the most effective ones. But here you should know how to identify strong and weak arguments. This is done using the criteria for their evaluation:
- Effective arguments are always based on facts. Based on this, from a list compiled in advance, you can immediately discard information that cannot be supported by facts.
- Effective arguments are always directly related to the subject of discussion. All other arguments must be excluded.
- Effective arguments are always relevant to the interlocutor. For this reason, it is necessary to find out in advance what interest the arguments will be for the addressee.
If you are sure that your arguments meet the proposed criteria, you can proceed directly to the argument. Based on this, the development of critical thinking involves the development of the main methods of argumentation.
Basic argumentation methods
Argumentation theory proposes to use a lot of argumentation methods. We will talk about the most effective of them from our point of view. They are suitable for both business and everyday communication.
fundamental method
The meaning of the method is to directly address the person to whom you want to acquaint the facts that represent the basis of your conclusions.
Of greatest importance here is numerical and statistical information, which serves as an ideal background for supporting arguments. Unlike verbal (and often controversial) data, numbers and statistics are much more convincing and objective.
But one should not be too zealous in applying such information. Too many digits are tiring, and arguments lose their effect. It is also important that incorrect data can mislead the listener.
EXAMPLE: A university teacher gives statistics about first-year students. Based on it, 50% of female students gave birth to children. The figure is impressive, but in reality it turns out that in the first year there were only two girls, and only one gave birth.
Ignore Method
Most often, ignoring is used in disputes, disputes and conversations. The point is, if you can't disprove a fact your opponent is offering you, you can successfully ignore its meaning and value. When you see that a person attaches importance to something that, in your opinion, is not of particular importance, you simply fix it and let it pass by.
contradiction method
For the most part, this method can be called defensive. Its basis is to identify contradictions in the opponent's reasoning and focus attention on them. As a result, if his arguments are unfounded, you will easily win.
EXAMPLE (the dispute between Pigasov and Rudnev on the topic of the existence of beliefs, described by I. S. Turgenev):
"- Perfectly! Rudin said. “So, in your opinion, there are no convictions?”
- No, it doesn't exist.
- Is that your belief?
How can you say they don't exist. Here's one for you, for the first time. Everyone in the room smiled and looked at each other.
"Yes, but" method
The presented method gives the best results when the opponent is biased towards the topic of the conversation. Given that objects, phenomena and processes have both positive and negative sides, this method makes it possible to see and discuss alternative ways to solve the problem.
EXAMPLE: “Like you, I am well aware of all the benefits you have listed. However, you did not take into account some shortcomings ... ”(Further on, the one-sided opinion of the interlocutor is consistently supplemented by arguments from a new position).
Comparison method
This method is highly efficient, because. makes the author's speech bright and impressive. Also, this method can be called one of the forms of the "drawing conclusions" method. Thanks to him, the argument becomes weighty and explicit. For reinforcement, it is recommended to use well-known analogies with phenomena and objects.
EXAMPLE: "Life in the Arctic Circle can be compared to being in a refrigerator whose door never opens."
Boomerang method
"Boomerang" allows you to use his own "weapon" against the opponent. The method lacks probative power, but despite this, it affects the listener in the most serious way, especially if wit is used.
EXAMPLE: During a speech by V. V. Mayakovsky to the residents of one of the Moscow districts about the solution of problems of an international nature in the USSR, someone from the audience suddenly asked: “Mayakovsky, what nationality are you? You were born in Baghdati, so you are Georgian, right?”.
Mayakovsky looked at this man and saw an elderly worker who sincerely wants to understand the problem and just as sincerely asks his question. For this reason, he kindly replied: "Yes, among Georgians - I am Georgian, among Russians - I am Russian, among Americans - I would be an American, among Germans - I am German."
At the same time, two guys from the front row decided to make fun of: “And among the fools?”.
To this Mayakovsky replied: “And among the fools I am for the first time!”.
Partial argumentation method
One of the most popular methods. Its meaning boils down to the fact that the opponent’s monologue is divided into clearly distinguishable parts using the phrases “this is clearly not true”, “this question can be looked at in different ways”, “this is for sure”, etc.
It is interesting that the well-known thesis serves as the basis of the method: if something dubious or unreliable can always be found in any argument and conclusion, then confident pressure on the interlocutor makes it possible to clarify even the most difficult situation.
EXAMPLE: “Everything that you told us about the principles of operation of wastewater treatment plants is theoretically absolutely correct, but in practice, serious exceptions to the rules often have to be made” (The following are reasonable arguments in favor of your position).
Visible Support Method
Refers to the methods for which you need to prepare. You need to use it in situations where you are the opponent, for example, in a dispute. The essence of the method is as follows: suppose the interlocutor voiced his arguments to you about the problem under discussion, and the word goes to you. This is where the trick lies: at the beginning of your argument, you do not express anything in opposition to the words of your opponent; you even bring new arguments in support of it, surprising everyone present with this.
But this is only an illusion, because a counterattack will follow. It goes something like this: “But…. in support of your point of view, you forgot to cite several other facts ... (list these facts), and that's not all, because ... ”(Your arguments and evidence follow).
Your ability to think critically and argue your position will be seriously developed, even if you limit yourself to mastering the above methods. However, if your goal is to achieve professionalism in this area, this will not be enough. To start moving forward, you need to explore other components of the argument. The first of these is the rules of reasoning.
Argumentation rules
The rules of argumentation are quite simple, but each of them differs in a set of its own features. There are four of these rules:
Rule One
Use persuasive, precise, clear and simple terms. Keep in mind that persuasiveness is easily lost if the arguments being made are vague and abstract. Also take into account that in most cases people catch and understand much less than they want to show.
Rule Two
It is advisable to select the method of argumentation and its pace in accordance with the characteristics of your temperament (you can read about the types of temperament). This rule assumes:
- Evidence and facts presented individually are more effective than those presented together.
- A few (three to five) strongest arguments are more powerful than many average facts.
- Argumentation should not take the form of a "heroic" monologue or declaration
- With the help of well-placed pauses, you can achieve a better result than with the help of a stream of words.
- Active rather than passive construction of statements has a greater impact on the interlocutor, especially when evidence needs to be presented (for example, the phrase "we will do it" is much better than the phrase "it can be done", the word "conclude" is much better than the phrase "make a conclusion" etc.)
Rule Three
The argument must always look correct. It means:
- If the person is right, admit it openly, even if the consequences may not be good for you.
- If the interlocutor accepted any arguments, in the future try to use them.
- Avoid empty phrases that indicate a decrease in concentration and lead to inappropriate pauses to gain time or search for a thread of conversation (such phrases may be: “it was not said”, “you can do this and that”, “along with this”, “otherwise saying", "more or less", "as I said", etc.)
Rule Four
Adapt the arguments to the personality of the interlocutor:
- Build an argument, taking into account the motives and goals of the opponent
- Remember that so-called "over-persuasiveness" can cause rejection on the part of the opponent.
- Try not to use wording and expressions that make it difficult to understand and argue.
- Strive for the most visual presentation of your evidence, considerations and ideas with examples and comparisons, but remember that they should not diverge from the experience of the interlocutor, i.e. should be close and understandable to him
- Avoid extremes and exaggerations so as not to distrust your opponent and not to question your entire argument.
Following these rules, you will increase the attention and activity of the interlocutor, minimize the abstractness of your statements, link arguments much more effectively and ensure maximum understanding of your position.
Communication between two people, when it comes to disputes and discussions, almost always takes place according to the "attacker - defender" scheme. Obviously, you can end up in either the first or the second position. Argumentation structures are formed according to this principle.
Argumentation constructions and argumentation techniques
In total, there are two main constructions of argumentation:
- Evidential argumentation (used when you need to justify or prove something)
- Counterargumentation (used when you need to refute someone's statements and theses)
To use both structures, it is customary to operate with the same techniques.
Argumentation techniques
Whatever your persuasive influence, you should focus on ten techniques that will optimize your argument and make it more effective:
- Competence. Make your arguments more objective, credible, and deep.
- visibility. Use familiar associations to the maximum and avoid abstract formulations.
- Clarity. Link facts and evidence and beware of understatement, confusion and ambiguity.
- Rhythm. Intensify your speech as you get closer to the end, but don't lose sight of the key points.
- Orientation. When discussing something, stick to a specific course, solve clear problems and strive for clear goals, having previously introduced them in general terms to the opponent.
- Suddenness. Learn to link facts and details in an unusual and unexpected way, and practice using this technique.
- Repetition. Focus the interlocutor's attention on the main ideas and provisions so that the opponent perceives the information better.
- Borders. Define the boundaries of reasoning in advance and do not reveal all the cards in order to maintain the liveliness of the conversation and the active attention of the interlocutor.
- Saturation. When presenting your position, make emotional accents that force your opponent to be as attentive as possible. Don't forget to lower your emotionality as well to reinforce your opponent's thoughts and give him and yourself a little breather.
- Humor and irony. Be witty and joke, but don't be overbearing. It is best to act this way when you need to fend off the interlocutor's attacks or make arguments that are unpleasant for him.
With the use of these techniques, your argumentative arsenal will be replenished with serious weapons. But, in addition to the methodological aspects, which for the most part include the technique of argumentation, the art of critical thinking and consistent reasoning is excellently developed by the tactics of argumentation.
Argumentation Tactics
Mastering the tactics of argumentation is not as difficult as it might seem. To do this, you just need to learn its basic provisions.
Using Arguments
Arguments must begin confidently. There should be no hesitation. The main arguments are stated at any suitable moment, but it is better to do it constantly in a new place.
Choice of technique
Technique (methods) should be chosen taking into account the psychological characteristics of the opponent and your own.
avoidance of confrontation
In order for the argumentation phase to proceed normally, one should strive to avoid, because different positions and a tense atmosphere, like a flame, can spread to other areas of communication. And here we must point out a few nuances:
- Critical questions are considered either at the very beginning or at the very end of the argumentation stage.
- Delicate questions are discussed in private with the interlocutor even before the start of the conversation or discussion, because. tête-à-tête achieved much greater results than with witnesses
- When the situation is difficult, there is always a pause, and only after everyone has “let off steam”, communication continues.
Maintain interest
It is most effective to offer the interlocutor options and information to arouse his interest in the topic in advance. This means first describing the current state of affairs with an emphasis on the likely negative consequences, and then pointing out possible solutions and detailing their benefits.
Bilateral Argumentation
With it, you can influence a person whose position does not coincide with yours. You need to point out the pros and cons of your proposal. The effectiveness of this method is affected by the intellectual abilities of the opponent. But, regardless of this, it is necessary to present all the shortcomings that could become known to him from other people and from other sources of information. As for one-sided argumentation, it is used when the interlocutor has formed his own opinion and when he has no objections to your point of view.
Sequence of pros and cons
Based on the conclusions, the main formative influence on the position of the opponent is provided by such a presentation of information, where first the positive aspects are listed, and then the negative ones.
Personified Argumentation
It is known that the persuasiveness of facts depends on the perception of people (people, as a rule, are not critical of themselves). Therefore, first of all, you need to try to determine the point of view of the interlocutor, and then insert it into your construction of the argument. In any case, one should try not to allow contradictory arguments of the opponent and one's own argumentation. The easiest way to achieve this is to directly refer to your counterpart, for example:
- What do you think about this?
- You're right
- How do you think this issue can be resolved?
When you recognize the correctness of the opponent and show attention to him, you will encourage him, which means that he will be more receptive to your argument.
Drawing conclusions
It happens that the argument is excellent, but the desired goal is not achieved. The reason for this is the inability to generalize information and facts. Based on this, for greater persuasiveness, it is imperative to independently draw conclusions and offer them to the interlocutor. Remember that the facts are not always obvious.
Counterargument
If suddenly you are presented with arguments that seem to you impeccable, there is no need to panic. On the contrary, you should keep your cool and apply critical thinking:
- Are the given facts correct?
- Can this information be refuted?
- Is it possible to identify contradictions and inconsistencies in the facts?
- Are the proposed conclusions wrong (at least in part)?
The presented tactics can be the final element of your entire argumentation strategy. And by and large, the information that you got acquainted with is quite enough to learn how to professionally argue your point of view, position and arguments. But still, this tutorial won't be complete unless we give a few more suggestions.
We want to conclude the third lesson of our course with a small talk about persuasive arguments - another important element of influencing the opinion of a person and a group of people.
A few persuasive arguments
What is persuasion? If you do not understand the mass of all kinds of interpretations and interpretations, persuasion can be called the use of such words that will incline a communication partner to accept your point of view, believe your words, or do as you say. And how can this be achieved?
The famous American radical organizer and public figure Saul Alinsky created a completely simple theory of persuasion. It says that a person perceives information from the standpoint of personal experience. If you try to get your point across to another without taking into account what he wants to tell you, you may not even count on success. To put it simply, if you want to convince someone, you need to give them arguments that match their beliefs, expectations, and emotions.
Referring to this, there are four main options for action when arguing:
- Factual data. While statistics can sometimes be wrong, the facts are almost always undeniable. Empirical evidence is considered one of the most persuasive tools for building the basis of an argument.
- emotional impact. As one of the best American psychologists Abraham Maslow said, people respond best when we turn to their emotions, i.e. we touch on such things as family, love, patriotism, peace, etc. If you want to sound more convincing, express yourself in such a way as to hurt a person to the quick (of course, within reason and preferably in a positive way).
- Personal experience. Stories from one's own life and information verified by personal experience are wonderful tools for influencing the listener. Actually, you can see for yourself: listen to a person who tells you something “according to the textbook”, and then listen to someone who himself has experienced or done what he is talking about. Who do you trust more?
- Direct appeal. Of all the existing words, you can choose the one that people will never get tired of listening to - this is the word "You". Everyone asks himself the question: “What is the use of this for me?”. Hence another one: when trying to convince someone of something, always put yourself in his place, and when you understand his way of thinking, contact him with the help of “You” and explain what you need in “his” language.
Surprisingly, these four simple techniques are not used in life and work by a huge number of people, in particular those who, for some reason, downplay the merits of personalization, appeal to emotions and direct communication with people. But this is a gross mistake, and if you want to become convincing in your words, you should by no means allow it. Combine everything in this lesson into a single whole - and you will be amazed at how easily and quickly you can learn to be persuasive in any life situation.
Developing critical thinking and reasoning skills will provide you with many benefits in your family, daily, and professional life. But then again: there are things that can get in your way. What are these obstacles? We will answer this question in the next lesson, where we list most of the potential interference and give many interesting examples.
Do you want to test your knowledge?
If you want to test your theoretical knowledge on the topic of the course and understand how it suits you, you can take our test. Only 1 option can be correct for each question. After you select one of the options, the system automatically moves on to the next question.
Methods of preparation for the exam in the Russian language (Grade 11). Main thoughts.
· Work with texts of different styles.
1. Publicistic texts.
Journalistic texts are divided into 3 groups: "transparent", pathos, reasoning texts such as essays (a fact from life that is comprehended on a philosophical, moral level).
To understand the text, highlight the problem, the main idea (the position of the author), you can use the following techniques: the method of minimizing the journalistic text; information-semantic analysis of the text (thematic chains, but extended, not just one word indicating the topic). Information-semantic analysis of the text can be done on any text.
2. Artistic text.
In literary texts, you need to look for subtext. The authors raise universal human problems, not the problems of heroes. Through the characters, through the situations they find themselves in, the authors talk about moral, social, and philosophical problems. In artistic texts, 3 information layers are distinguished: the first is event-related, the second is figurative, and the third is problematic.
· Essay writing scheme
| Author's position |
| General conclusion |
Examples
calling their
· Essay volume: 150 words; if 70-150 is reduced by 1 point for spelling and punctuation and speech literacy; If less than 70 words (for example, 69, then the work is not checked). The maximum is 300 words. Optimal: 200 - 220 words.
The whole essay is about 50 lines; introduction 1/8 of the entire essay (6.5 lines = 3 sentences);
Main part 40 lines: 10 lines - K2, 10 lines - K3, 20 lines - K4 (examples)
Table for preparing examples from fiction.
K1. Problem.
A problem is either a contradiction between what is desired and what is real, or it is anxiety about something, or it is excitement, or it is an interest in something. (the problem is the question, the position of the author is the answer)
Ways to formulate a problem:
· Through the keyword “problem”, adding the words: worries, worries, worries, interests. (For example: “The author raises the problem of the disappearance of mercy”, “G. Gorin touches on the problem of unjustified cruelty of a person”), i.e. word "problem" + noun in R.p.
· Through a question. First, a question is formulated, then an answer is given. Granin in his article")
Through nominal sentences and questions to them. (for example: “Mercy. Kindness. Do we all think about this in life?”, “Serials about bandits. Their influence on modern man. A. Andreev thinks about this”, “Man and cruelty. This is the problem raised by G. Gorin")
One of the ways to formulate the problem is to be the introduction of the student's essay.
K2. Comment.
The main part begins with a commentary.
A comment is an interpretation, an explanation of the text in accordance with the selected problem, it is a secondary text, a logical model of the original text that explains its meaning. The commentary reflects the correctness and depth of understanding of the content of the author's text. It is necessary to explain how the author reveals the problem, what points he pays attention to, what he does, so that we understand the significance of this problem and agree with him.
The commentary may be close to the storyline of the text, but should not become a retelling of events.
A comment is a concise retelling of the original text with an emotional self-assessment (of a student), that is, a concise retelling + your own evaluative words. The comment should be small in size (6-7 lines), written in your own words(not quoting the text). This is what is actually in the text. This is the main information taken from the text when working on microthemes. There must be logic (everything in order), there must be links in the form of introductory words, introductory sentences.
The following constructions (cliches) can be used in the commentary:
His reasoning ... begins with ... ..
The most compelling evidence is...
- Especially convincing in the reasoning of the author is ...
- Trying to understand this issue, he notes ...
- Such behavior (such actions) of the hero helps us to understand that ...
The position of the author is how the author answers this question. This is the attitude of the author to the problem, this is the conclusion to which the author leads us. Author's position = main idea. Often the position of the author sounds open in the thesis or in the conclusion. But in literary texts, the author's position is not expressed directly, but through the images of the characters, through the way the author portrays them. Do not confuse the position of the author and the position of the characters. You need to be careful when the author uses irony.
K4. Determination of one's own opinion on the problem. Argumentation of your position.
The student in his work must say: “I agree with the author”, “It is difficult to disagree with the author”, “You can agree with the author in ...”. (For example: “I agree with Paustovsky that a person should sensitively peer into the world around him”). Next, the student builds his reasoning (that is, he gives arguments - examples from fiction, journalism, history, etc.)
In order to express your own opinion, you can use the following phrases (cliches):
It seemed to me interesting (relevant, significant) ...
You can not remain indifferent, because..
I was especially excited that…
You involuntarily think about…
You start to realize that...
Let me express my (other) point of view ...
Who among us does not know (did not hear, did not read, did not think) ..., but have we thought about ...
The text made an ambiguous impression on me6 on the one hand ...., but on the other ...
* 4 steps of working with illustrations, i.e. with examples in the student's essay.
Composite layout. This is either one sentence, or a phrase, or even a word. This is a move from the general to the particular. (For example: "Russian literature and modern reality give us rich food for reflection on these problems")
Annotation to the content of the illustrative fragment. It is necessary to name the work, the hero and the passportization of this hero (briefly), i.e. to say what kind of hero this is, what is significant, but this is generalized and tied to the problem and the author's position. You can start with the word "Remember".
(For example: “Remember the image of commander Kutuzov in L.N. Tolstoy’s novel “War and Peace” - a historical person introduced into the fabric of the narrative”)
Figurative evaluative retelling of the content of the illustrative fragment for the problem (2-3 sentences). In the evaluative retelling, evaluative words must be entered. (For example: "M.I. Kutuzov is also famous in history for his military victories, but he was underestimated at the end of his life. And Tolstoy shows that the wisdom and talent of the famous commander saved Russia at a difficult moment.")
Problematic generalization of the content of the illustration: all the problems that we have concentrated above are freely listed (repeated). (1 sentence or 2 simple ones) (For example: “Tolstoy shows us that contemporaries can be unfair, ungrateful, but a truly significant person will be appreciated despite short historical memory.”)
· End of essay (conclusion) is the conclusion. The main idea is repeated, but not mechanically repeated, but slightly expanded in relation to itself (i.e., with learning); 2-3 offers. (I and the problem - this will be the conclusion). (For example: "My reflections on Ganichev's text allow me to say that people should remember those who are worthy of historical memory")
Hint for students who are having trouble: “Analyzing the text ……………… , I came to the conclusion that the solution is ………………. Problems have to start with yourself. Or the formula "Everyone"
…………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….
First, on a draft, prepare a model, a diagram of a future essay. Define the problem, here determine the author's position on this problem and immediately select examples for this problem. This will help preserve the logic, avoid a common mistake - there is one problem, and examples, a comment on another problem. There must be a clear logic of thought. And already on the basis of the scheme, the model can easily compose the text, choosing links between paragraphs and sentences.
- Essay model.
Sun. “I read V. Ganichev's text about Admiral Ushakov. (this is an introduction to the situation and the topic of the text).
great people who live next to them. (2nd version of this sentence: The author puts
(The main part begins with a comment. This is the second paragraph).
The author tells us about the sad fate of Admiral Ushakov, who was legendary, invincible, raised a whole galaxy of his students. He became a legend during his lifetime. But the higher authorities forgot about him when he retired. At the end of his life, he was left alone and forgotten.
(5th paragraph - conclusion)
Entering into a discussion, we always use the appropriate situation, a certain strategy, sometimes without even thinking about it. Consider the practical methods of argumentation and expressing one's own position: various tips, tried and tested methods, as well as typical mistakes that can occur during negotiations and prevent the successful completion of the discussion.
We all negotiate every day: with friends, work colleagues, acquaintances. Most of the time we don't even realize we're doing it because it's a daily activity. Entering into a discussion, we always use the appropriate situation, a certain strategy, sometimes without even thinking about it.
For some people, the very fact that the business they are about to undertake is called "negotiation" makes them nervous and anxious. However, it is possible to develop an “immunity” to negotiations as a normal and everyday affair. The following are practical techniques for arguing and expressing one's own position: various tips, tried and tested methods. This list can be supplemented with the accumulation of communicative experience.
Argumentation Tactics
1. Installation in relation to a partner should be not only friendly, but not self-centered. Only with mutual respect and consideration of each other's interests will communication be truly partnership based on mutual respect and consideration of each other's interests. Egocentrism prevents this, not allowing a person to change the angle of view when perceiving and evaluating events, to see them from different angles and in their entirety. It forces a person to act in his "coordinate system", to approach the partner's statements with his own yardstick, to interpret the information coming from him in a favorable light for himself. The position of a person who communicates in this manner cannot be called objective, and his arguments cannot be called convincing.
2. You should be respectful of the interlocutor and his position, even if it is unacceptable. Nothing has such a destructive effect on communication as the arrogant and dismissive attitude of partners towards each other. If, in response to his argument, the partner catches a note of irony or contempt in the speech of the opponent, then one can hardly count on a favorable outcome of the conversation.
3. Argumentation should be conducted "on the field" of the interlocutor, that is, work directly with his arguments. Demonstrating their failure or the undesirable consequences of their adoption, one should put forward one's own, more acceptable in the interests of the common cause. This will give a better effect than repeating your own arguments multiple times.
4. To convince a partner is easier for a convinced person. Defending your point of view, you can quickly influence the interlocutor. In this case, in addition to the logic that affects the rational layers of the psyche, the mechanism of emotional infection is activated. Fascinated by his idea, a person speaks emotionally and figuratively, which plays an important role in persuasion. Thus, the appeal not only to the mind, but also to the heart of the interlocutor gives a result. However, excessive emotionality, indicating a lack of logical argumentation, can cause a rebuff from the opponent.
5. Excitement and excitement during persuasion are interpreted as the uncertainty of the persuasive, and therefore reduce the effectiveness of the argument. Outbursts of anger, shouting, scolding cause a negative reaction of the interlocutor, forcing him to defend himself. The best means are courtesy, diplomacy, tact. But at the same time, politeness should not turn into flattery.
6. It is better to start the argumentation phrase with a discussion of those issues on which it is easier to reach agreement with the opponent. The more the partner agrees, the more chances to achieve the desired result. Only after that should we move on to the discussion of controversial issues. The main, most powerful arguments should be repeated many times, in different formulations and contexts.
7. The structuring of information works effectively: sorting, highlighting the primary arguments and organizing them. You can arrange arguments into logical, temporary, and other blocks.
8. It is useful to develop a detailed plan of argument, taking into account the possible counter-arguments of the opponent. Having a plan will help build the logic of the conversation - the core for your arguments. This organizes the attention and thinking of the interlocutor, makes it easier for him to understand the position of the partner.
9. In speech, it is better to use simple, clear expressions, without abusing professional terminology and foreign words. A conversation can “drown” in a “sea” of concepts that are vague in meaning. Misunderstanding causes irritation and boredom in the interlocutor. It is easy to find a compromise if you take into account the educational and cultural level of your opponent. To use words persistently, firmly and resolutely is the tactic of a successful diplomat.
10. Uncertainty, fuzziness can be perceived by the interlocutor as insincerity. Negotiate with reason and feel your power, emphasizing confidence in your point of view, but showing respect for the point of view of your opponent.
11. Each new thought must be clothed in a new sentence. Offers should not be in the form of a telegraphic message, but they should not be too long either. Stretched arguments are usually associated with the presence of doubts in the speaker. Short and simple phrases should be built not according to the norms of the literary language, but according to the laws of colloquial speech. The most important points can be distinguished intonation.
12. The flow of arguments in monologue mode dulls the attention and interest of the interlocutor. Their skillfully spaced pauses activate them. If it is necessary to emphasize some thought, then it is better to express it after a pause and slightly delay the speech after the promulgation of the thought. The partner will be able to take advantage of the timely pause and enter into the conversation, giving his comments. Neutralizing the interlocutor's claims along the way is much easier than unwinding a ball of them at the end of the argument. A prolonged pause makes the interlocutor tense up, fussing internally.
13. The principle of visibility is very effective when presenting arguments. The visualization of the image is facilitated by the activation of the interlocutor's imagination. To this end, it is useful to use vivid comparisons, metaphors, aphorisms that help reveal the meaning of words and enhance their persuasive effect. A variety of analogies, parallels, associations contribute to the identification of truth, when they are appropriate and take into account the experience of the interlocutor. Well-chosen examples and the facts of life itself will strengthen the arguments. There should not be many of them, but they should be clear and convincing.
15. You should never tell a person that he is wrong. This will not convince him, but will only hurt his pride, and he will take a position of self-defense. After that, it is unlikely to be able to convince him. It's better to be more diplomatic: "Maybe I'm wrong, but let's see ..." This is a good way to offer your interlocutor your argument. It is better to admit your own wrongness immediately and openly, even if it is unprofitable, but in the future you can count on a similar behavior of your partner.
16. Honesty or perseverance, softness or aggressiveness - a way of behaving in negotiations. This is what people will be ready for next time and what they will be ready to deal with. People have long memories, especially when they feel they have been treated unfairly in some way. The person who takes the aggressive approach is always trying to get as much as possible from the other party and tends to give as little as possible. The productivity of this approach is the opposite: potential partners are less cooperative and will usually not deal with that person more than once.
16. Rough approach to negotiation produces limited and short-lived results. Pushing or forcing a partner to make a decision can have the opposite effect: the opponent will be stubborn and adamant. Bringing the interlocutor smoothly into making a decision will undoubtedly require more time, patience and perseverance, but this path is more likely to achieve a satisfactory and sustainable result.
17. Do not bet in advance on the resolution of the problem in your favor. When two people are involved in a discussion, they both feel like they are being given an opportunity and that they need to get the most out of the negotiation. Each person may believe that the truth is on his side, that he is in a better position to substantiate his proposals or make demands. You may have to defend your point of view in an argument with a person who negotiates defiantly and rudely. Excessive firmness can interfere with this: it is important to be ready to make concessions in order to achieve the desired result.
18. To overcome the negative attitude of the interlocutor, you can create the illusion that the proposed idea, point of view belongs to him. To do this, it is enough just to lead him to the appropriate thought and give him the opportunity to draw a conclusion from it. This is a great way to gain his trust in the proposed idea.
19. You can refute the remark of the interlocutor even before it is expressed - this will save you from subsequent excuses. More often, however, this is done after the utterance. You should not parry right away: this can be perceived by the partner as disrespect for his position. You can postpone your response to comments until a more tactically appropriate moment. It is possible that by that time it will lose its meaning, and then the need to answer it will disappear altogether.
20. If it is necessary to express critical remarks to the opponent, one should remember that the purpose of criticism is to help the interlocutor see the mistake and its possible consequences, and not to prove that he is worse. Criticism should not be directed at the personality of the partner, but at erroneous actions and deeds. Criticism should be preceded by the recognition of any merits of the partner, this will help to get rid of resentment.
21. Instead of expressing your dissatisfaction, it is better to suggest a way to eliminate the error. This can achieve the following:
- seize the initiative in choosing the means of solving the problem that has arisen and protect their interests in the best possible way;
- leave room for further collaboration.
22. To resolve conflicts, it is useful to change the position of "I am against you" to the position of "we are against a common problem." This approach implies a willingness to negotiate terms, but it also helps to reach a solution that is as satisfying as possible for both parties.
23. The ability to end a conversation if it has taken an undesirable direction is also of no small importance. It is necessary to know the point at which to retreat, to stop negotiating due to the impossibility of accepting the required conditions.
It may also happen that the result of the negotiations did not meet the expectations of one of the partners. Probably, the reason lies not in the lack of mutual understanding, but in the erroneous tactics of conducting the discussion. Here are some typical mistakes that can occur in negotiation and prevent a successful conclusion of the discussion:
- Improvisation in preparation for a conversation.
- Uncertainty about the purpose of the conversation.
- Poor organization of speech.
- Unfounded arguments.
- Lack of attention to detail.
- Lack of sincerity.
- Absence of tact.
- Reassessment of one's own position.
- Disrespect for the position of the interlocutor.
- Unwillingness to compromise.
Those who take an active role should especially avoid such mistakes. This will help to make the argument more convincing, to gain the trust of the listener, to appear before him as a whole person.
Alexander Vladimirovich Mopozov, Head of the Department of Social Psychology of the Institute for the Humanities, Corresponding Member of the International Academy of Psychological Sciences.
Argumentation is the process of bringing evidence, explanations, sources into the system to substantiate any thought in front of the listeners or the interlocutor.
It can be seen from the above definition that:
- argumentation is a system of statements hierarchically related to each other;
- argumentation is a process , therefore, it is necessary to arrange statements, arguments in a certain well-thought-out sequence.
The fact that the arguments you give form a system and are arranged in a certain sequence should be obvious not only to you, but also to your listeners, that is, the argumentation should be carried out in such a way that the listeners perceive the arguments. Thus, the task of the speaker is not only to offer a certain system of arguments in defense of some idea, but also to ensure its understandability and accessibility to the audience.
Objectives of the argument
The arguments given by the speaker are divided into arguments "for" and arguments "against".
Your pro arguments must convince the audience that they:
Accessible, simple and understandable;
As close as possible to the opinions established in the audience, ideas about justice, honor, social ideal;
Reflect objective reality, correspond to common sense.
Arguments "against" should convince the audience that the positions you criticize, points of view do not have the features that are highlighted above for the arguments "for".
To achieve the goals of argumentation, it is necessary to use the strongest possible arguments. The strength of an argument is a relative concept, as it depends on the situation, the emotional and mental state of the listeners and many other factors - gender, age, professional training of the audience, etc. However, there are a number of typical arguments that are considered strong in most audiences. Such arguments usually include: scientific axioms, provisions of laws and official documents, laws of nature, experimentally confirmed conclusions, expert opinions, references to recognized authorities, quotations from authoritative sources, eyewitness accounts, statistical data.
The optimal number of arguments in proving a thesis is considered to be the number “three”: one argument is still just a fact, two arguments “firstly, secondly” can be objected to, and it is more difficult to do this with three arguments. The third argument is the third blow; starting from the fourth argument, the audience, as already noted, perceives the arguments no longer as a certain system (“first, second and, finally, third”), but as “many” arguments; at the same time, the impression often arises that the speaker is trying to put pressure on the audience, “persuade”. There is an old saying: whoever proves a lot proves nothing. So, "a lot" begins with the fourth argument.
Methods of argumentation
There are various classifications of methods of argumentation. Summarizing them, we can talk about the following methods.
I. Descending and Ascending Argumentation
These methods of argumentation differ in whether the argument strengthens or weakens towards the end of the speech.
Top-down argumentation consists in the fact that at first the speaker gives the strongest arguments, then less strong ones, and ends with an emotional request, motivation or conclusion.
According to this principle, for example, a statement will be built asking for help in solving the housing problem: “Please pay attention to my plight with housing. I live ... I have ... Please help me.
The advantages of top-down reasoning are that it:
Makes it easier to attract and hold the attention of the audience;
Makes the thought actively work at the beginning and feelings at the end of the speech;
The first arguments are better remembered.
Observations show that top-down argumentation is most effective in poorly prepared, uninterested or completely disinterested audiences.
It should also be borne in mind that weak arguments look better with top-down argumentation than with other methods of argumentation. As noted by E.A. Yunin and G.M. Sagach, "if "weak" arguments are used as a complement to "strong" ones (and not as relatively independent ones), then the degree of their "weakness" decreases, and vice versa.
Rising argumentation suggests that the argumentation and intensity of feelings intensify towards the end of the speech.
According to this principle, for example, such a speech is built: “Well, we will see who turns out to be right in the end ... We already have experience ... We have created organizational structures ... We managed to attract leading specialists ... We are now we know exactly what not to do... In general, for one beaten they give two unbeaten!”
The advantage of ascending argumentation is in bringing the mental activity and emotional intensity of the audience to the limit.
This method of argumentation is effective in a prepared, highly interested audience. It works if:
– the atmosphere in the audience is calm and the speaker is ready to listen;
- the idea to be substantiated is complex;
- the problem for the audience is not completely solved;
The audience will be able to draw their own conclusion.
II. One-sided and two-sided reasoning
The speaker's one-sided argumentation of his position suggests that:
- either only arguments “for” are stated (pure positive);
- or only the arguments "against" (pure negative) are stated.
With two-sided argumentation, the listener is given the opportunity to compare points of view, choose one of the two, setting out opposite points of view.
A variation of the method of bilateral argumentation is the so-called method of counter-argumentation, when the speaker presents his arguments as a refutation of the opponent's arguments, having previously stated them. For example: "They say that we do not know how to work, are not able to manage ... Well, let's look at the facts ...".
An opponent in bilateral argumentation and counterargumentation can be either real (for example, a person who holds certain views) or “fictional”, constructed by the speaker himself. This technique is called the "opponent's stuffed animal": some typical opinion on the issue is modeled, it is stated, all the pros and cons are sorted out and conclusions are drawn.
In the course of the speech, the “opponent’s invention” technique can also be used, when the speaker, having put forward a certain position, objects to himself on behalf of some anonymous opponent: “They can say that ...”, “It is possible to foresee the objection that ...”, “ It is often objected here that...” and so on.
What can be said about the effectiveness of one-way and bilateral argument? A.V. Steshov, Yu.S. Krizhanskaya, V.P. Tretyakov and others correlate these two ways of argumentation in the following way:
One-sided - effective for strengthening the consciousness of people who already have views and attitudes towards the proposed material, has a good effect on poorly educated people, allows you to develop less persistent beliefs, teaches you to perceive ready-made thoughts.
Bilateral, counter-argumentation - effective in influencing the minds of people who have a negative attitude to what is being reported, it has a better effect on a prepared audience, helps to develop immunity to manipulation of consciousness in the future, increases resistance to counter-propaganda, develops more persistent beliefs, teaches to analyze, draw independent conclusions.
III. Inductive and deductive reasoning
Inductive reasoning is based on the construction of the presentation from the facts to the conclusion. Specific facts are given, and in conclusion, the speaker draws a general conclusion from them. For example, several facts about the suppression of freedom of the press are cited. Then the question is posed: “Who is holding back? Apparently, there are forces interested in this. Who are they?". And here the speaker sets out his understanding of the problem and draws a conclusion.
Inductive presentation of material is effective in a female audience, in a youth audience (especially in the age group from 18 to 23 years old), in a social science audience.
A variation of the inductive construction of the argument is the construction of a speech by analogy: “Not only in the Baltic states, but also in Vologda, there are good roads ... In Vologda, the cooperative is engaged in roads, but we have to wait for centralized assistance. In Vologda, the cooperative works like this... We also have conditions... If we create a cooperative, our roads will be no worse than in Vologda and the Baltic States.”
It must be borne in mind that building a speech by analogy significantly increases the accessibility of the idea, makes it visual, but does not increase the persuasiveness of the presentation, since “any analogy is lame” and you can always say: “So it is with them. We will never be like this ... ”- and all the efforts of the speaker are in vain.
Deductive reasoning is built from a general premise to facts. For example: “A lot of old people, pensioners, the elderly need help now. Who will help them? ... They can make their contribution ... They must help ... It is necessary to create special services.
Deductive reasoning is more often effective in a male audience, in a natural science audience, among older listeners (over 23 years old). It has been noticed that this type of argumentation gives a greater effect than others in a critical audience: if the speaker immediately declares that he is preaching or defending, then this reduces the level of critical perception of the audience.
IV. Refuting and supporting arguments
In refuting argumentation, the speaker destroys the real or possible counter-arguments of a real or "invented" opponent. At the same time, positive arguments are either not given at all, or they are given very little attention in the process of speaking.
With supporting argumentation, the speaker puts forward only positive arguments, and ignores counterarguments.
An experimental study by the American scientist W. McGuire showed that refuting argumentation immunizes the position of listeners, the results of such argumentation are more stable in time and more resistant to pressure.
The effectiveness of the argumentation is also affected by the order in which speakers argue with each other. It has been noticed that if a speaker speaks to his opponent, then it is more effective to first present his thesis and evidence, and then briefly criticize the future opponent, sowing doubts in the audience in advance.
If the speaker has to speak after his opponent, then it is more effective to first turn to the analysis of his speech, analyze his arguments, and then bring his own and draw a conclusion.
Obstacles to the perception of argumentation
The speaker, arguing his point of view, encounters a number of factors that weaken the effectiveness of his argumentation. These factors are very diverse, and it is necessary to know at least the most basic and typical ones in order to try to avoid their adverse effects in the performance process.
Favorable perception of the speaker's argument is hampered by the contradiction of information previously perceived. The audience, like any individual person, hearing something, is subjectively ready to perceive the continuation, and not something that overturns existing ideas. Therefore, it is more advantageous to speak at the end rather than at the beginning of the meeting; you need to know what was communicated to the audience before you, in order to build on it and use this information: you need to give the audience the impression that you are continuing what was previously said.
The audience does not like the repeated repetition of the same thought - such repetitions irritate them. It has been established that the repetition of some idea or thought four times increases the number of those who perceived and remembered it only twice, and more frequent repetitions practically do not give the desired result. The optimal number of repetitions is three.
The speaker's abuse of foreign terms interferes with the audience. As special studies have shown, most people do not understand foreign terminology well and do not like it.
The speaker should not make speech errors, deviate from the norms of speech culture. It is interesting that if the audience has fixed a speech error in the speaker, then it has a distrust of the transmitted information, doubts about the professional competence of the speaker.
The abundance of details and arguments worsens the perception of argumentation. We have already noted that the best number of arguments is three. Cicero said: “In public speech, one must say what is necessary, and not say what is not necessary.”
And one more thing: the recognition of the source of information in the speaker's speech greatly undermines the confidence of the audience. If the speaker reports a certain fact, and the audience finds out: “yes, this is from yesterday’s Izvestia” or “this is from the book of such and such”, then this significantly reduces the authority of the speaker, undermines confidence in his speech. How to be? It is impossible not to use sources at all! Of course not. But, taking into account what has been said, it should be remembered: the source of this or that material should not be recognized - for this it must be appropriately “camouflaged”; if it is not possible to present this or that idea as a purely author's one, or there are doubts that the source will still be identified, then it is better to simply name this source - “Yesterday in Izvestia ...”, etc. In this way, you can prevent "exposure" and insure yourself.
