It’s both easy and tempting to “demolish” an opponents viewpoint, especially when you can readily see weaknesses in their arguments. Even more so if you don’t like them personally. But if the goal of the debate is to win the other person over (rather than declare victory to an audience), then defeating an opponent in this manner can actually work against you.
It was while reading Daniel Dennett’s Intuition Pumps and Other Tools for Thinking that I first came across Rapoport’s Rules of Argument:
- You should attempt to re-express your target’s position so clearly, vividly, and fairly that your target says, “Thanks, I wish I’d thought of putting it that way.”
- You should list any points of agreement (especially if they are not matters of general or widespread agreement).
- You should mention anything you have learned from your target.
- Only then are you permitted to say so much as a word of rebuttal or criticism.
To quote Dennett:
“One immediate effect of following these rules is that your targets will be a receptive audience for your criticism: you have already shown that you understand their positions as well as they do, and have demonstrated good judgment (you agree with them on some important matters and have even been persuaded by something they said).”
In a business context, this dovetails very nicely into Ray Dalio’s idea of thoughtful disagreement. Do try it.
