3 ms·

The trick to success in those conversations is to realize that, as long as you're not offensive, no one gives a fuck about the verbal content, most of which is

The trick to success in those conversations is to realize that, as long as you're not offensive, no one gives a fuck about the verbal content, most of which is excruciatingly boring. Intellectually, it's like a 6-year-old's soccer game where no one will remember the score tomorrow. Those are the conversations in which 90%+ of how you're perceived is based on body language, tone of voice, etc. If you think for too long about what you're going to say, or get really into what you're talking about and ignore others' lack of interest, or get into debate mode, you'll lose.

dkarl 18y ago
As in a six-year-old's soccer game, there is some structure to the conversation. There are two sides, and both teams try to kick the ball as hard as they can in the right general direction. Trying to introduce a third opinion to the fray is like a confused child dribbling the ball out of bounds; the ball will be taken away from him and put back into play. The only way for a third possibility to achieve consideration is for the original game to end in defeat for one side, at which point a third opinion may be able to call "next" before the crowd's attention wanders. If you... get into debate mode, you'll lose Not to sound like a dick, because I'm not any good at this myself, but a skillful debater always takes the audience into account, whether the audience is the Supreme Court or a crowd of rowdy partygoers.
- enneff 18y ago
  I respectfully disagree with your comments re: third opinions. Often the best way to 'win' an argument in a group context is to derail the current thread of conversation (in which both sides have their arguments clearly in mind) and change the term of the debate in a way that suit you. This will have the effect of throwing off would-be adversaries (by the time they have their shit together to counter your new argument, the conversation is long gone) and gaining followers of your new idea.

dkarl 18y ago

As in a six-year-old's soccer game, there is some structure to the conversation. There are two sides, and both teams try to kick the ball as hard as they can in the right general direction. Trying to introduce a third opinion to the fray is like a confused child dribbling the ball out of bounds; the ball will be taken away from him and put back into play. The only way for a third possibility to achieve consideration is for the original game to end in defeat for one side, at which point a third opinion may be able to call "next" before the crowd's attention wanders. If you... get into debate mode, you'll lose Not to sound like a dick, because I'm not any good at this myself, but a skillful debater always takes the audience into account, whether the audience is the Supreme Court or a crowd of rowdy partygoers.

enneff 18y ago
I respectfully disagree with your comments re: third opinions. Often the best way to 'win' an argument in a group context is to derail the current thread of conversation (in which both sides have their arguments clearly in mind) and change the term of the debate in a way that suit you. This will have the effect of throwing off would-be adversaries (by the time they have their shit together to counter your new argument, the conversation is long gone) and gaining followers of your new idea.