I finished reading Ben Franklin's autobiography earlier this year. He was notorious for sparking (and usually winning) debates with the people around him. After getting some negative feedback from a friend regarding just how insufferable he was to be around, he adopted the Socratic method of asking questions so that people would see their own folly.
Eventually, it got to the point where his acquaintances and coworkers would refuse to answer even simple questions of his, out of fear that he'd follow up with more questions that would prove them to be incompetent or illogical.
He later changed his methods to something you might read about in a book like How to Win Friends and Influence People. Rather than leading people to see the logical error of their ways, he moved toward displaying much more diffidence, which allowed others to save face when changing their opinions. Phrases like "certainly X" and "undoubtedly Y" became "If I'm not mistaken, X" and "I imagine that Y."
That change worked out well for him throughout the course of his career in winning many rich and powerful people (along with ordinary citizens, of which he was one) to his side on various controversial issues of the day.
Another benefit was that he opened himself up to helpful suggestions and feedback as well. Most people abhor argumentation, and will allow overly-confident people to persist in whatever mistaken beliefs they hold. But when you display humility, others feel safer telling you what they think of your ideas.
Franklin also describes a technique whereby you don't directly tell someone they're wrong, you simply tell them that in this particular case the circumstances are different.
E.g., the bad way to do it:
Person A: "We should do X!"
Franklin: "You are wrong. We should do Y!"
E.g., the better way to do it:
Person A: "We should do X!"
Franklin: "You are, of course, right that X would work if P and Q were the case, but here R is the situation. Don't you then agree that Y would work better here?"
This way, your "opponent" gets to preserve the feeling of being right, or at least avoids the defensiveness that follows being told you're wrong.
Yes, the trouble is that such exchanges are often a battle of egos on both sides. Person A has an egoic need to be right, and Person B has an egoic need to prove person A wrong and themselves right.
No doubt this is an effective technique, you just have to be able to release your own ego and also not directly challenge that of the other person.
I think the point is that this approach is meant to reduce the effect of ego and allow the other person an easier way to change their position.
All public differences of opinion involve ego, status and other emotional states. It's a case of finding a way to lessen their effect on all parties (oneself included).
> He later changed his methods to something you might read about in a book like How to Win Friends and Influence People.
This anecdote is actually mentioned in HtWFaIP! About halfway through, in the chapter "A Sure Way Of Making Enemies - And How To Avoid It". (I was reading it this morning - underrated book)
Eventually, it got to the point where his acquaintances and coworkers would refuse to answer even simple questions of his, out of fear that he'd follow up with more questions that would prove them to be incompetent or illogical.
He later changed his methods to something you might read about in a book like How to Win Friends and Influence People. Rather than leading people to see the logical error of their ways, he moved toward displaying much more diffidence, which allowed others to save face when changing their opinions. Phrases like "certainly X" and "undoubtedly Y" became "If I'm not mistaken, X" and "I imagine that Y."
That change worked out well for him throughout the course of his career in winning many rich and powerful people (along with ordinary citizens, of which he was one) to his side on various controversial issues of the day.
Another benefit was that he opened himself up to helpful suggestions and feedback as well. Most people abhor argumentation, and will allow overly-confident people to persist in whatever mistaken beliefs they hold. But when you display humility, others feel safer telling you what they think of your ideas.