The way most people argue is all messed up.
Instead of exploring a topic — be it a moral dilemma or a transgression committed by a spouse — and kicking it around like a soccer ball, as relationship expert John Gottman says we should do, a lot of folks go straight for the jugular.
They try to "win" the argument.
In his most recent book, "Intuition Pumps and Other Tools for Thinking," philosopher Daniel Dennett explains that arguments can still be civilized discussions if people don't let their egos get in the way.
Dennet offers these four steps:
1. Re-phrase the person's argument in a new way
Your goal should be to hear what your opponent has to say and echo it back in a way that causes them to say "Hey, I'd never thought of it that way," Dennett advises.
The tactic helps show the other person that you understand where they're coming from. Or, if you don't, it will at least become clear once you put the argument into your own words.
2. When you agree with one of their points, say so
Since the goal of a discussion is to move closer toward the truth, it's not a sign of weakness to agree that some things the other person said are valid.
Fair points should be acknowledged. It shows you're capable of considering new perspectives and sets a more helpful tone for moving the conversation in a productive direction.
3. Mention what you've learned from the other person
As Bill Nye likes to say, everyone you will ever meet knows something you don't.
This insight is especially valuable during arguments because it puts you in the mental position to respect what the other person is saying. If you enter a conversation thinking your side is impenetrable and all-knowing, you won't be able to take advantage of new information.
Vocalizing what you learn helps disarm the other person from thinking they know everything, too.
4. Offer your critique
We may like to jump right into countering their point with ours, but staying patient actually makes your argument better once it's time to deliver it. It will be more well-informed and more defensible.
Dennett admits not everyone will be receptive to the approach. Some people just like to argue for arguing's sake. But if given the choice between skewering your opponent and taking the high road, he says the superior choice is clear — at least for him.
"It is worth reminding yourself that a heroic attempt to find a defensible interpretation of an author, if it comes up empty, can be even more devastating than an angry hatchet job," Dennett writes. "I recommend it."
