In chapter 2 of Thank You For Arguing, the main topic of discussion is how fighting and arguing are different. The author explains that rhetoric is all about arguing and not fighting. When a person fights they use aggression, but when they argue the goal is to change another persons mid set. Fighting will not get you anywhere since its primary tool is not even relate to persuasion. By arguing you can manipulate the other person to agree with you and "want to do what you want."
An example given in the text is arguing with a police officer. There is a clear difference between going all rude on the guy and assuring you will get a ticket, and conceding. This is a clear point in this part of the chapter. By conceding to your opponents view, you can get what you want. By avoiding the fight with the officer and respecting his authority, you will probably leave ticketless. even an officer admits that they don't want you to fight with them. Click here and keep in mind that the officer should be saying fight and not argue.
The other technique used for this case was having an excuse. Once, my mom got pulled over by an officer because it was pico y placa. I was dead asleep on the copilot chair and not sleeping in the most attractive position (mouth open kind of look). My mother decided to start telling the policeman that I was sick and that she was taking me to the hospital. It was not true but it did let us leave, ticketless.
The chapter continues with three main points to seduce:
Changing the mood
Deciding what you want
Get it act
When you change the audiences mood, you make them more willing to listen ergo easier to manipulate. Then when the mood is right you can manipulate them to want what you want them to want. The last step involves more emotion since you are about to make someone do something without them thinking it is a big deal.
I agree with the points you make, especially withthe one in which you state that the main purpose of arguing is to manipulate someone to want to do what you want them to do. The best way is certainly not to act aggressively, rather calmly and cleverly. Also, I liked how you used a personal example to illustrate your idea. This adds profoundness and allows the reader to relate to the topic being discussed. The main idea of the book is the large difference between fighting and arguing and you certainly depict the most important details that prove the author's point. Arguing is not only about convincing, but about getting others to think the way you do with regards to a certain concept.
ReplyDelete