I hate to be the one to say this, but this clearly is not argumentation. It is called sophistry because it relies not on logic or reason but on an emotional appeal, albeit a psychologically inherent one that all humanity shares.
This example you provide is quite minor, compared to the more common hegelian dialectic and other critical methods not based in logic but instead used for malign influence, what you mention in your article is nothing in comparison, because these tactics and their uses are truly diabolical.
At first glance, it sounds like an argument, but it really couldn't be further from it. Deceitful people commonly use these tactics to confuse, and disorient their critics, or create a similar strawman in a question form, seeking agreement, so they can use your own psychology against you. The 5 or 6 basic principles are outlined in Robert Cialdini's book, Influence; as levers of influence. They are psychological blindspots, and mass manipulation is all about using those non-alerting tactics to coerce people to do what you want. Sometimes its a win-win for both parties, but that is often very rare.
When you agree to something, psychology doesn't reverse, and you defend that standpoint to remain consistent. You see a perfect example of this when you try to convince someone they are wrong (when they clearly are). The more you try, the less receptive and more defensive they get. It's called the consistency principle. If you trick someone into it, their psychology aligns with what they agreed to. This is also how brainwashing worked in PoW camps in the Korean War (1950s). They started off with giving them the choice of writing essays on topics like "Why the US isn't the best government" with the alternative torture/hard labor. This was reinforced through radio broadcasts the camps were required to listen to, and then progressed slowly to why Communism is the best government.
Mao did horrific things in struggle sessions designed to break people's psychology. People ultimately either had a psychotic break or aligned with the ideology. This is described in historical documentation/observation in the book the Psychology of Totalism by Robert Lifton.
Given that Logic and Reasoning is no longer taught in schools aside from college courses for specific majors, and persuasion/communication is almost not taught at all. Very few people really understand the dangers, such as Sapir-Whorf or the psychological blindspots, and it is being used regularly but floats just beneath the surface just about everywhere that matters today.
News, social media, anywhere an echo chamber exists (i.e. many fake profiles to one [you]). The more exposure, the more likely you are to accept it, and remain consistent with what you accepted.
The use of these techniques for malign purposes, or purposes that cause any kind of loss directly or indirectly is a greater evil, and unfortunately most people today are taught to be blind to evil. Most cultures have some local form of good vs. evil, and thus this statement can't be dismissed solely as a normative statement with no basis (such as this just being my personal opinion). There is quite a lot of old school literature dealing with the nature of lies and falsity in its many forms. The worst notably often being the most tempting, such as where is the harm...
As far as I'm aware, there is no practical application of use for these techniques in defense. The only use is that by knowing them you can sidestep the pitfalls, or potentially create your own associative triggers of alarm; and re-evaluate if you were tricked, although that is much more difficult as it involves knowing a lot about psychology and creating associative anchors.
Hegelian dialectic structure, comes in many forms, but bears mostly on association where there may be none. Its circular, with valid purposes in philosophy as meta-analysis but has been re-purposed in more modern times for deceit.
First of all, thanks a ton for writing such a thorough and thoughtful response! I'm unfamiliar with the brainwashing in the Korean War that you referenced or the struggle sessions, definitely want to read up on this.
I disagree with two of the statements you made though:
1. "..this clearly is not argumentation." In the example I give, both people say things in hopes of convincing the other that they are right, is this not the definition of an argument? Whether or not someone uses deceitful tactics in an argument doesn't mean they are not still arguing, does it?
2. "As far as I'm aware, there is no practical application of use for these techniques in defense." This is what the post is trying to present: a way to recognize when someone is trying to progress the conversation without addressing your arguments. That practical application is to make the person aware that you know they did not address your arguments and to halt the conversation.
No worries, I've done a lot of research on the subject. Its a dark subject but very useful to know.
With regard to 2, simply halting the conversation is often not enough because the person utilizing such tactics will continue speaking or criticizing, and silence in the face of something wrong or false is consent of the person not responding that what is being said is true or that they are in agreement.
With regard to 1, we will have to disagree on that for now, and that's fine. This is all covered material in an introductory college philosophy Logic/Critical Thinking course so its not just an opinion I hold.
In short, argumentation, logical reasoning and proofs are all about rationally determining truth from falsity and argumentation is based in rational logic and reason. There are rules that must be followed for it to be an argument, and when those rules aren't followed its no longer an argument. Logical Fallacy and its many forms under sophistry may be influential but are not an argument.
Confounding or conflating the meaning of argumentation with sophistry is an unfortunate result from a common corruption of language, and its important to use existing words that have one generally held correct meaning.
There are people out there intentionally promoting these type of corruptions, this was a major theme in the book 1984 with reference to 'newspeak'.
The idea being if you don't have the words to communicate or share meanings for things in any definite way you can't think such thoughts, with differences in thought being the main driver of inequality, if one can eliminate such nefarious thought one can change people and make them better towards their fellow man.. Then a utopia could be built...
That is all quite absurd really, but there are many large groups of people today who promote it dogmatically in practice, and it only leads to destruction. The process ends up driving people quite insane because communication is a core part of our identity formation through reflected appraisal. You see many of the same indicators in deeply polarized individuals who can no longer think rationally about certain trigger subjects.
While I don't agree, and arguably few would agree with this ideology knowing the consequences, part of what it uses does have some true basis in science in the area of linguistics under the Sapir-Whorf hypothesis, which as far as I'm aware hasn't been refuted in any meaningful way. Those practicing deceit use some small amount of truth woven in.
Hey! I was reading your comments and it’s clear to me you are not very educated. You also seem very young, 15 would be my guess? I am creating a business model where i help provide young kids discounts and rebates to whichever university they choose to apply to. Let me know if you would be interested, trying to get 1000 future students onboard so i can complete my application for funding. I can see a lot of potential in you, and think you will do great once in university! @throwaway
John, it is clear to me that you have little idea what you are talking about, and have no business being in education. While most of what you said is true in a fashion, it neglects important distinctions of fact. You cannot share meaning if there are no underlying words to meaningfully describe it.
If you have to explain fundamentals that are self-evident with the proper education to someone who lacks that education, how can you share that meaning. You can't, when there is no credibility; you have to trust the cited facts are correct and not a lie. You see this all the time in complex IT environments with dysfunctional management. Some qualified people can break it down by metaphor but you still have to trust in their credibility and good judgement. Following rational steps and structure eliminates the need for credibility; the conclusion becomes evident.
In a work environment you are paying people for their expertise, and they have a lot of incentive to not lie inherent in their continuing to hold their position and be paid. The job of some are devoted to ensuring you are hiring people that aren't lying. Now when those incentives are not there; like if you can't fire them when they are wrong and cause losses. You get something similar to common academia, where people lie, undercut, backstab, etc and social standing, coercion, and corruption are the currency you work in.
You are very far off the mark, in almost every regard about me. I'm a Gen Xer, highly educated with a college education and decades long career.
I'm probably older than you, and everything I've said is backed by sound academic literature, which was taught commonly at one time. Its also still supported by decades of experience and observation. You almost couldn't be further off the mark.
It is not primarily about trying to convince or seek agreement for rational non-deceitful people. The goal of rational discussion is in the absence of credibility to provide a base following and using rational logic which is first and foremost a time-tested strategy and structure for the means of discerning what is true given the presence of falsehoods. Credibility is important, but you need to be able to impart meaning in a way that is testable or supportable in its absence.
If those rules or structure can't be followed, which are required for rational argumentation/communication, this means there would be absolutely no point in the communication coming from you as a source given an absence of credibility. It would reasonably be discarded.
Also, you can't really maintain or develop real credibility without following those rules. Many business people today make the mistake that marketing and authority are the same as credibility.
Simply put; when you meet a lion that is hungry, you don't argue with that lion; You shoot animals that attack and endanger you.
The capability for rational thought is the generally accepted property that raises most of humanity above that of simple animals. The ability to rationally manage conflict and not resort to violence is a key tenet of civilized society, but violence is what happens when those structures fail.
The very real threat of violence is why societal feedback mechanisms such as protesting are functional, such as the conflict with Ghandi and the British Empire in India, unlike current-day activism. These are basic principles starting with John Locke and further refined.
Rational thought based in logic and reason are why we've attained the great heights we have today as a society, but it has been under attack for quite awhile by those that would seek to manipulate, deceive, and effectively enslave for personal enrichment; before it all falls apart inevitably (because of structural issues Mises detailed out in the 1950s that go ignored). The overall goal being centralization before nationalization, before property is seized, and we already meet 8 or so of the pillars listed in Marx's manifesto.
Unfortunately, the people pushing and supporting it are misleading, naive, and suffer from an acute form of hubris that is often incurable. When it can't work and they and faced with public failures they revert to less rational means to manipulate and blame; despite their actions being classically 'evil', in the fullest sense of the word, as is apparent if you've studied literature such as Paradise Lost.
It goes unsaid that if you support something, you have a fundamental responsibility to do a bare minimum of due diligence to ensure you are not unknowingly promoting falsehoods that are harmful. Not knowing is not a defense, and those that fail to do this or continue anyway are actively putting evil out into the world even if they don't believe so.
Uni is hardly a place of education anymore. Its solely a cult of credentialing which forms old-style Guild socialism.
The good teachers for the most part have left and retired, it has now largely been taken over by socialist administrators and their comrades in publishing, pushing objectives that align with the Fabian's and Paulo Freire's published material, as well as other related forms more recently recognized as DEI, Cultural Marxism, Moral Relativism, and Woke/Cancel Culture whose structures pressure or trick onlookers into joining in and supporting arbitrary Maoist struggle sessions without their knowledge; to harm and torture someone psychologically for some arbitrary violation, and they primarily use dualism of meaning with contradictory meanings of words like Equity in classical Marxist fashion.
Exchange society based on a distribution of labor produces and works without Socialism, but Socialism can never structurally work long-term without a functional Exchange society.
It is structurally unsound and trends towards collapse/destruction, which begins as shortages and self-sustains a downward spiral afterwards. Regardless of what name one calls that structural arrangement (they use many to hide the source), if the elements are the same it is the same. Good parents don't knowingly send their kids to Maoist re-education camps.
Mises thoroughly covers all the various forms which arise including Syndicalism and the old-style central Guilds, they all have the same structural issues; and some have even more dire structural issues than most.
Anecdotally, socialism and its structural failures was both the premise of the sattirical work Atlas Shrugged and Brave New World which appear to be following close to reality, or more accurately seem to be being used as guidebooks.
In the latter story, the author concludes with everyone dies in a slow descent into madness when the insane end up irrationally destroying the systems they depend on for continued survival, and what goes unsaid was the general knowledge of the time that Malthus law of population re-asserts itself. It crowded out everything else, and then collapsed.
They became insane when they could no longer communicate and share meaning. This is somewhat scientifically backed, and you can find examples in available historical material (de-classified documents) covering isolation and torture starting with WW2, moving forward with East Germany (Stasi), Russia & China. Though most accurate material requires being able to read those languages.
These are serious and relevant subjects that you will be hard pressed to find covered anywhere near adequately at Uni today outside a military academy such as Anapolis/West Point.
For an example of poor coverage, just look at what they've done to the economics curricula at your local college and compare it with the classical Austrian school of economics.
You'll find the former's goal is to show how multiple parties following econometric models can both be right without either side being wrong (in fundamentally mutually exclusive situations where this isn't possible, and saying so is clearly an irrational fabrication/fraud). As opposed to a rational based approach that uses the more appropriate complex stochastic models over the foolish equilibrium based models.
You can find the psychology aspects of agreement and consistency discussed further in Cialdini's work which has been recognized by the Intelligence community/State Department.
You can find more information and sources from the New Discourses youtube podcasts, if podcasts are your thing. There is a lot of relevant sound material on that channel related to Socialism and its more recent forms that plague Academia and business.
To your point 1: I do not believe an intelligent way to approach most arguments is to be "in hopes of convincing the other that they are right." Context is everything with that statement, if you are discussing a business plan with a partner - then yes it makes logical sense to have that approach. That however is not the context you provided in this article. The purpose of an argument should often times be to explain the reasoning why you hold a certain opinion and what facts/experiences/perspectives which led you to this. In turn the individual you are talking with should express the same. With that approach you can identify a certain baseline of facts (or figure out discrepancies each others facts and try to use research to get more of an understanding). If the approach to a conversation is to try and convince someone else to agree with you, there will often be a low success rate. If both people can logically explain what led them to their respective opinions, even if consensus isn't reached a conversation will often result in you learning that you both either have different interpretations of the meaning of certain facts or that you both have different facts altogether. This will allow people to both learn and understand something, even when the conversation does not end in agreement. A question such as - is "a keto diet effective" can still lead to disagreements when there is an agreement on a certain subset of facts. Regardless, I do think it is good to ensure people answer your specific question before moving on to a different topic as your article suggests. I understand that in this example you provided there is a clear intent to potentially influence the other, but in reality regardless of the decision which is reached - there should not be in assumption that it was reached due to agreement. More often than not (personal experience and general analysis of human interaction) the decision on whether to buy the gift card or not will not be because both agreed with each other.
I hate to be the one to say this, but this clearly is not argumentation. It is called sophistry because it relies not on logic or reason but on an emotional appeal, albeit a psychologically inherent one that all humanity shares.
This example you provide is quite minor, compared to the more common hegelian dialectic and other critical methods not based in logic but instead used for malign influence, what you mention in your article is nothing in comparison, because these tactics and their uses are truly diabolical.
At first glance, it sounds like an argument, but it really couldn't be further from it. Deceitful people commonly use these tactics to confuse, and disorient their critics, or create a similar strawman in a question form, seeking agreement, so they can use your own psychology against you. The 5 or 6 basic principles are outlined in Robert Cialdini's book, Influence; as levers of influence. They are psychological blindspots, and mass manipulation is all about using those non-alerting tactics to coerce people to do what you want. Sometimes its a win-win for both parties, but that is often very rare.
When you agree to something, psychology doesn't reverse, and you defend that standpoint to remain consistent. You see a perfect example of this when you try to convince someone they are wrong (when they clearly are). The more you try, the less receptive and more defensive they get. It's called the consistency principle. If you trick someone into it, their psychology aligns with what they agreed to. This is also how brainwashing worked in PoW camps in the Korean War (1950s). They started off with giving them the choice of writing essays on topics like "Why the US isn't the best government" with the alternative torture/hard labor. This was reinforced through radio broadcasts the camps were required to listen to, and then progressed slowly to why Communism is the best government.
Mao did horrific things in struggle sessions designed to break people's psychology. People ultimately either had a psychotic break or aligned with the ideology. This is described in historical documentation/observation in the book the Psychology of Totalism by Robert Lifton.
Given that Logic and Reasoning is no longer taught in schools aside from college courses for specific majors, and persuasion/communication is almost not taught at all. Very few people really understand the dangers, such as Sapir-Whorf or the psychological blindspots, and it is being used regularly but floats just beneath the surface just about everywhere that matters today.
News, social media, anywhere an echo chamber exists (i.e. many fake profiles to one [you]). The more exposure, the more likely you are to accept it, and remain consistent with what you accepted.
The use of these techniques for malign purposes, or purposes that cause any kind of loss directly or indirectly is a greater evil, and unfortunately most people today are taught to be blind to evil. Most cultures have some local form of good vs. evil, and thus this statement can't be dismissed solely as a normative statement with no basis (such as this just being my personal opinion). There is quite a lot of old school literature dealing with the nature of lies and falsity in its many forms. The worst notably often being the most tempting, such as where is the harm...
As far as I'm aware, there is no practical application of use for these techniques in defense. The only use is that by knowing them you can sidestep the pitfalls, or potentially create your own associative triggers of alarm; and re-evaluate if you were tricked, although that is much more difficult as it involves knowing a lot about psychology and creating associative anchors.
Hegelian dialectic structure, comes in many forms, but bears mostly on association where there may be none. Its circular, with valid purposes in philosophy as meta-analysis but has been re-purposed in more modern times for deceit.
First of all, thanks a ton for writing such a thorough and thoughtful response! I'm unfamiliar with the brainwashing in the Korean War that you referenced or the struggle sessions, definitely want to read up on this.
I disagree with two of the statements you made though:
1. "..this clearly is not argumentation." In the example I give, both people say things in hopes of convincing the other that they are right, is this not the definition of an argument? Whether or not someone uses deceitful tactics in an argument doesn't mean they are not still arguing, does it?
2. "As far as I'm aware, there is no practical application of use for these techniques in defense." This is what the post is trying to present: a way to recognize when someone is trying to progress the conversation without addressing your arguments. That practical application is to make the person aware that you know they did not address your arguments and to halt the conversation.
No worries, I've done a lot of research on the subject. Its a dark subject but very useful to know.
With regard to 2, simply halting the conversation is often not enough because the person utilizing such tactics will continue speaking or criticizing, and silence in the face of something wrong or false is consent of the person not responding that what is being said is true or that they are in agreement.
With regard to 1, we will have to disagree on that for now, and that's fine. This is all covered material in an introductory college philosophy Logic/Critical Thinking course so its not just an opinion I hold.
In short, argumentation, logical reasoning and proofs are all about rationally determining truth from falsity and argumentation is based in rational logic and reason. There are rules that must be followed for it to be an argument, and when those rules aren't followed its no longer an argument. Logical Fallacy and its many forms under sophistry may be influential but are not an argument.
Confounding or conflating the meaning of argumentation with sophistry is an unfortunate result from a common corruption of language, and its important to use existing words that have one generally held correct meaning.
There are people out there intentionally promoting these type of corruptions, this was a major theme in the book 1984 with reference to 'newspeak'.
The idea being if you don't have the words to communicate or share meanings for things in any definite way you can't think such thoughts, with differences in thought being the main driver of inequality, if one can eliminate such nefarious thought one can change people and make them better towards their fellow man.. Then a utopia could be built...
That is all quite absurd really, but there are many large groups of people today who promote it dogmatically in practice, and it only leads to destruction. The process ends up driving people quite insane because communication is a core part of our identity formation through reflected appraisal. You see many of the same indicators in deeply polarized individuals who can no longer think rationally about certain trigger subjects.
While I don't agree, and arguably few would agree with this ideology knowing the consequences, part of what it uses does have some true basis in science in the area of linguistics under the Sapir-Whorf hypothesis, which as far as I'm aware hasn't been refuted in any meaningful way. Those practicing deceit use some small amount of truth woven in.
Hey! I was reading your comments and it’s clear to me you are not very educated. You also seem very young, 15 would be my guess? I am creating a business model where i help provide young kids discounts and rebates to whichever university they choose to apply to. Let me know if you would be interested, trying to get 1000 future students onboard so i can complete my application for funding. I can see a lot of potential in you, and think you will do great once in university! @throwaway
John, it is clear to me that you have little idea what you are talking about, and have no business being in education. While most of what you said is true in a fashion, it neglects important distinctions of fact. You cannot share meaning if there are no underlying words to meaningfully describe it.
If you have to explain fundamentals that are self-evident with the proper education to someone who lacks that education, how can you share that meaning. You can't, when there is no credibility; you have to trust the cited facts are correct and not a lie. You see this all the time in complex IT environments with dysfunctional management. Some qualified people can break it down by metaphor but you still have to trust in their credibility and good judgement. Following rational steps and structure eliminates the need for credibility; the conclusion becomes evident.
In a work environment you are paying people for their expertise, and they have a lot of incentive to not lie inherent in their continuing to hold their position and be paid. The job of some are devoted to ensuring you are hiring people that aren't lying. Now when those incentives are not there; like if you can't fire them when they are wrong and cause losses. You get something similar to common academia, where people lie, undercut, backstab, etc and social standing, coercion, and corruption are the currency you work in.
You are very far off the mark, in almost every regard about me. I'm a Gen Xer, highly educated with a college education and decades long career.
I'm probably older than you, and everything I've said is backed by sound academic literature, which was taught commonly at one time. Its also still supported by decades of experience and observation. You almost couldn't be further off the mark.
It is not primarily about trying to convince or seek agreement for rational non-deceitful people. The goal of rational discussion is in the absence of credibility to provide a base following and using rational logic which is first and foremost a time-tested strategy and structure for the means of discerning what is true given the presence of falsehoods. Credibility is important, but you need to be able to impart meaning in a way that is testable or supportable in its absence.
If those rules or structure can't be followed, which are required for rational argumentation/communication, this means there would be absolutely no point in the communication coming from you as a source given an absence of credibility. It would reasonably be discarded.
Also, you can't really maintain or develop real credibility without following those rules. Many business people today make the mistake that marketing and authority are the same as credibility.
Simply put; when you meet a lion that is hungry, you don't argue with that lion; You shoot animals that attack and endanger you.
The capability for rational thought is the generally accepted property that raises most of humanity above that of simple animals. The ability to rationally manage conflict and not resort to violence is a key tenet of civilized society, but violence is what happens when those structures fail.
The very real threat of violence is why societal feedback mechanisms such as protesting are functional, such as the conflict with Ghandi and the British Empire in India, unlike current-day activism. These are basic principles starting with John Locke and further refined.
Rational thought based in logic and reason are why we've attained the great heights we have today as a society, but it has been under attack for quite awhile by those that would seek to manipulate, deceive, and effectively enslave for personal enrichment; before it all falls apart inevitably (because of structural issues Mises detailed out in the 1950s that go ignored). The overall goal being centralization before nationalization, before property is seized, and we already meet 8 or so of the pillars listed in Marx's manifesto.
Unfortunately, the people pushing and supporting it are misleading, naive, and suffer from an acute form of hubris that is often incurable. When it can't work and they and faced with public failures they revert to less rational means to manipulate and blame; despite their actions being classically 'evil', in the fullest sense of the word, as is apparent if you've studied literature such as Paradise Lost.
It goes unsaid that if you support something, you have a fundamental responsibility to do a bare minimum of due diligence to ensure you are not unknowingly promoting falsehoods that are harmful. Not knowing is not a defense, and those that fail to do this or continue anyway are actively putting evil out into the world even if they don't believe so.
Uni is hardly a place of education anymore. Its solely a cult of credentialing which forms old-style Guild socialism.
The good teachers for the most part have left and retired, it has now largely been taken over by socialist administrators and their comrades in publishing, pushing objectives that align with the Fabian's and Paulo Freire's published material, as well as other related forms more recently recognized as DEI, Cultural Marxism, Moral Relativism, and Woke/Cancel Culture whose structures pressure or trick onlookers into joining in and supporting arbitrary Maoist struggle sessions without their knowledge; to harm and torture someone psychologically for some arbitrary violation, and they primarily use dualism of meaning with contradictory meanings of words like Equity in classical Marxist fashion.
Exchange society based on a distribution of labor produces and works without Socialism, but Socialism can never structurally work long-term without a functional Exchange society.
It is structurally unsound and trends towards collapse/destruction, which begins as shortages and self-sustains a downward spiral afterwards. Regardless of what name one calls that structural arrangement (they use many to hide the source), if the elements are the same it is the same. Good parents don't knowingly send their kids to Maoist re-education camps.
Mises thoroughly covers all the various forms which arise including Syndicalism and the old-style central Guilds, they all have the same structural issues; and some have even more dire structural issues than most.
Anecdotally, socialism and its structural failures was both the premise of the sattirical work Atlas Shrugged and Brave New World which appear to be following close to reality, or more accurately seem to be being used as guidebooks.
In the latter story, the author concludes with everyone dies in a slow descent into madness when the insane end up irrationally destroying the systems they depend on for continued survival, and what goes unsaid was the general knowledge of the time that Malthus law of population re-asserts itself. It crowded out everything else, and then collapsed.
They became insane when they could no longer communicate and share meaning. This is somewhat scientifically backed, and you can find examples in available historical material (de-classified documents) covering isolation and torture starting with WW2, moving forward with East Germany (Stasi), Russia & China. Though most accurate material requires being able to read those languages.
These are serious and relevant subjects that you will be hard pressed to find covered anywhere near adequately at Uni today outside a military academy such as Anapolis/West Point.
For an example of poor coverage, just look at what they've done to the economics curricula at your local college and compare it with the classical Austrian school of economics.
You'll find the former's goal is to show how multiple parties following econometric models can both be right without either side being wrong (in fundamentally mutually exclusive situations where this isn't possible, and saying so is clearly an irrational fabrication/fraud). As opposed to a rational based approach that uses the more appropriate complex stochastic models over the foolish equilibrium based models.
You can find the psychology aspects of agreement and consistency discussed further in Cialdini's work which has been recognized by the Intelligence community/State Department.
You can find more information and sources from the New Discourses youtube podcasts, if podcasts are your thing. There is a lot of relevant sound material on that channel related to Socialism and its more recent forms that plague Academia and business.
To your point 1: I do not believe an intelligent way to approach most arguments is to be "in hopes of convincing the other that they are right." Context is everything with that statement, if you are discussing a business plan with a partner - then yes it makes logical sense to have that approach. That however is not the context you provided in this article. The purpose of an argument should often times be to explain the reasoning why you hold a certain opinion and what facts/experiences/perspectives which led you to this. In turn the individual you are talking with should express the same. With that approach you can identify a certain baseline of facts (or figure out discrepancies each others facts and try to use research to get more of an understanding). If the approach to a conversation is to try and convince someone else to agree with you, there will often be a low success rate. If both people can logically explain what led them to their respective opinions, even if consensus isn't reached a conversation will often result in you learning that you both either have different interpretations of the meaning of certain facts or that you both have different facts altogether. This will allow people to both learn and understand something, even when the conversation does not end in agreement. A question such as - is "a keto diet effective" can still lead to disagreements when there is an agreement on a certain subset of facts. Regardless, I do think it is good to ensure people answer your specific question before moving on to a different topic as your article suggests. I understand that in this example you provided there is a clear intent to potentially influence the other, but in reality regardless of the decision which is reached - there should not be in assumption that it was reached due to agreement. More often than not (personal experience and general analysis of human interaction) the decision on whether to buy the gift card or not will not be because both agreed with each other.