Arrogant people

well i'd take the approach of the philosopher A.J.Ayer when he confronted Mike Tyson.

Taken from his wiki page:

'At a party that same year held by fashion designer Fernando Sanchez, Ayer, then 77, confronted Mike Tyson who was forcing himself upon the (then) little-known model Naomi Campbell. When Ayer demanded that Tyson stop, the boxer said: "Do you know who the fuck I am? I'm the heavyweight champion of the world," to which Ayer replied: "And I am the former Wykeham Professor of Logic. We are both pre-eminent in our field. I suggest that we talk about this like rational men". Ayer and Tyson then began to talk, while Naomi Campbell slipped out.'[16]

Seems to have worked well, Mike Tyson is pretty wise these days.

I'm soft spoken but with a booming voice, or so im told. When i debate with someone who's being rash, lying, or incorrect, the truth hurts their ego and the conversation becomes heated resulting in shouting, then i get nervous and my ability to communicate lessens, and i just end up listening to verbal vomit, and some times just ending the conversation by agreeing with something that's obviously wrong.

i'd start by not being a pussy

In the situation I was recently in, I would have been told that I was lying about my credence (not sure if that word is being used properly) and his argument would have been, "well why aren't you successful" then i'd have to explain something unrelated, which would have been deflected further and so on. I'm getting really pissed about my ineffectiveness to communicate with some people.

How can I work on this?

On October 22 2013 19:21 Skoal wrote: i'd start by not being a pussy

lol

--- Nuked ---

First explain ur not trying to attack them. I think the problem with arguments is that some people tend to view them as a battle. They are not supposed to be battles with victors and losers, just conversations where two people should try to walk away with a better understanding about the world.

When he asks, 'why arn't you successful' If you are unsuccessful, explain to him why. You could also challenge his pre-conceived notion of what success is though, since it is likely you both have two different definitions of success.

if you can't work around it this way, then your fucked, i don't know any better way to argue.

troll them










troll them hard

Stoggoz, good comment!

I end up shitting on him cause i get pissed. Then i get pissed at myself for letting him get me pissed and then shitting on him.

Poo everywhere.

Close my eyes and walk away. Like, seriously, nigga, it's a computer. Just turn off the screen and walk away Haha.

Also, give him rope to hang himself with. If you're quiet, and he's loud, accentuate that. People will notice and start to side with you. Once you have people on your side, they'll twist the truth for you, or simply state the truth.

I wish it was a conversation on the internet, but it wasn't. I need him to agree with me, not be win over a crowd.

I think i would have shipped it in an unbiased crowd

If he's going to outshout you, you have to outshout him for him to even hear you. You don't have to actually shout, just get everyone else to say the same thing. Why do you need him to agree with you? You're not going to be able to change everyone's minds.

On October 22 2013 19:22 GameOverNoob wrote: "well why aren't you successful" then i'd have to explain something unrelated, which would have been deflected further and so on. I'm getting really pissed about my ineffectiveness to communicate with some people.

Sounds to me like you need to surround yourself with better people in your life. Very few successful people would hold this kind of an argument with you so that's probably what confuses you when said person calls you unsuccessful. pot kettle imo

--- Nuked ---

On October 22 2013 19:16 Stroggoz wrote: well i'd take the approach of the philosopher A.J.Ayer when he confronted Mike Tyson. Taken from his wiki page: 'At a party that same year held by fashion designer Fernando Sanchez, Ayer, then 77, confronted Mike Tyson who was forcing himself upon the (then) little-known model Naomi Campbell. When Ayer demanded that Tyson stop, the boxer said: "Do you know who the fuck I am? I'm the heavyweight champion of the world," to which Ayer replied: "And I am the former Wykeham Professor of Logic. We are both pre-eminent in our field. I suggest that we talk about this like rational men". Ayer and Tyson then began to talk, while Naomi Campbell slipped out.'[16] Seems to have worked well, Mike Tyson is pretty wise these days.

Mike Tyson is probably the person i know that has intelectually evolved the most in my life, he went from a beligerent retard to quite an insightful man, that rarely happens.

Actions speak louder than words

I'm pretty bad arguing online, I just give up, or change topic, or try to humor myself. In real life I'm ferocious and I seem to never feel I "lose" or get out of loss, words just pop in. I feel confident arguing if I feel I'm right, I tend to comment on our body language, how loud/low we're talking, clues like that.

I ask a question, and he drags on one or a few of the first words he says, then seem to get annoyed, then raises his voice a little and then talks all confidently, it's already over then lol.

Well the answer is to argue with pure logic, but that won't work on illogical people.

Also: The Backfire Effect

The matter is simple: he attacks you personally, i.e. he openly said you were a liar.

1- Make things clear: ask him if he says you are a liar. He'll either push forward or retreat.
2- If he pushes forward, the mistake is to get into defensive mode and try to bring justifications, instead come back at him on something related to being a liar/credence/something he bragged about and you know is not true.
3- The attack should be proportionate to the argument he made and if you can also embed your own argument within humor, the better.

To sum it up, be as douchy as he is, no more, no less, and don't defend but attack. The key is to win the support of third parties listeners by making them laugh or agree with you, if you can make them laugh you won't even need the latest.

On October 22 2013 19:06 GameOverNoob wrote: How do you reason with loud, arrogant people who bend the truth and twist words to give themselves justification for what they're saying?

My advice: Get rid off your Fox News anchor friends.

who bend the truth and twist words to give themselves justification for what they're saying?

everyone does this, that's how the brain works and processes vast amount of incomplete information. read Stumbling on Happiness for some research references.

Best way to deal with them is to agree with them and get on their side, even when you disagree, try to see their point first. if you made them angry, if they get loud/you are in an argument, apologise tell them they were right and compliment them on their points even if you know you 100% believe they are bullshitting.

when you are on the same side, try to positively get your point across.

The sales' feel felt found method works pretty well:
I understand how you feel about this, others (I, most people) felt the same way, and what many(or I) have later found is that ________


you can get away with so much and persuade people like you wouldn't believe when you put your ego aside

If you want to know how to deal with this stuff read "how to win friends and influence people", and as long as you can control your natural reactions you can deal with pretty much anybody.

if that's what you want that is, if you want to argue for the sake of arguing which I am guilty of a ton (all I do on forums pretty much- it's fun :D) and think all humans need some drama then try to use "logic" and stick rigidly to your interpretation and use a counter argument to their every argument, but beware that "A Man convinced against his will is of the same opinion still" - some dead yankee dude said that

On October 22 2013 19:17 GameOverNoob wrote: I'm soft spoken but with a booming voice, or so im told. When i debate with someone who's being rash, lying, or incorrect, the truth hurts their ego and the conversation becomes heated resulting in shouting, then i get nervous and my ability to communicate lessens, and i just end up listening to verbal vomit, and some times just ending the conversation by agreeing with something that's obviously wrong.

You should always START the conversation by agreeing with them nomatter how wrong they are, and then start trying to get your point across. Never tell anyone diretly they are wrong either even if you believe it to be the thruth, just persuade them towards alternatives. I read studies during my research that proved that people that take a position no matter how ridiculous it is will always try to defend it the more you try to attack it and try to use confirmation bias, telling them the "thruth" that you believe in that's against their position will not lead to an agreement, quite the opposite.

So imagine this cheesy illustration:
Using logical counter arguments - like standing with arms infront of your body, pushing against his arms - both put up a lot of energy for little movement.
Completely agreeing with his position and then changing it from HIS starting point - like standing next to him with your arm around his back, a lot easier to move him towards your direction as he isn't pushing against you.

On October 23 2013 09:10 LemOn[5thF] wrote: Show nested quote + who bend the truth and twist words to give themselves justification for what they're saying? everyone does this, that's how the brain works and processes vast amount of incomplete information. read Stumbling on Happiness for some research references. Best way to deal with them is to agree with them and get on their side, even when you disagree, try to see their point first. if you made them angry, if they get loud/you are in an argument, apologise tell them they were right and compliment them on their points even if you know you 100% believe they are bullshitting. when you are on the same side, try to positively get your point across. The sales' feel felt found method works pretty well: I understand how you feel about this, others (I, most people) felt the same way, and what many(or I) have later found is that ________ you can get away with so much and persuade people like you wouldn't believe when you put your ego aside

This is a good example of using power effectively and what I was looking for.

How to Win Friends and Influence People by David Carnegie
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/How_to_Win_Friends_and_Influence_People

On October 23 2013 16:25 thewh00sel wrote: How to Win Friends and Influence People by David Carnegie http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/How_to_Win_Friends_and_Influence_People

I was first bitch
But yeah it's the oldest, but the best book on dealing with people, I worked in sales for more than a year and read many books and listened to few hundred hours of audio but that book has the fastest impact because of the story based structure - and it's not boring

Depends on what you re seeking as a result, if you want to manipulate them just acknowledge them as they are only seeking attention and lack confidence and show em you respect them in which case they become easy to manipulate
If they re just annoying you troll them hard and amuse yourself

edit:
ah just noticed lemon's posts ... well pretty much what he said yeah except acknowledging them doesnt necessarily mean you agree with them, as you obviously cant agree with them in this topic cause it would go like :
" why are you not succesful then"
" yeah you got me i lied "
" wow you re an awful lying guy ktnxbye"

and you re left with the same progress as shouting

First I ask myself is this person dumb?

if the answer is yes then I stop right there...arguing with a dumb person is - life EV

if the answer is no then I ask myself the question...Do I care enough?

If the answer is no then I also stop right there...generally in my off time when I'm socializing I try to relax and enjoy the time...not go on pointless arguments ...that's also - life EV

If i answer no then yes to the 2 questions above then I'd likely try to engage in a logical and "agree to disagree" type of discussion. If the other person is again, incapable of doing that then I don't bother.

Pretty simple imo. And if the person still insist on filling the air with useless noise and jibber jabber then I'd likely look for alternative company/friends.

Ok, from reading the wiki summary, that book is good for creating a superficial friendship and inducing desire in people. Not good for creating a real friendship or helping someone learn. You shouldn't really trust someone or think that someone is nice if they are not criticizing you.

Like in my previous example, Aj Ayer didn't go up to Mike Tyson and praise him for his rapist behavior. He made a reasonable critique, and Mike Tyson was willing to learn.

This isn't about creating dominance over another person either, or making a superficial relationship. it's about helping them. Just only use reason and give up if they continue with their fanaticism.

smile at him like he is a puppy and tell him "you know that you always bend the facts to fit your arguments and you know that I know it so who exactly do you fool?"

or

fart in his face

Stroggoz, u shipped it this thread.