Getting by in conversation while holding to opinions?

[yatagan]

Hi,
I'm at a loss here. It so happens that I sometimes get caught up in conversations with people about subjects I have opinions about and I have a hard time not coming across like a know-it-all, which I hate. The problem is that very often (let me be honest) I know my stuff better than they do (otherwise I'd shut up and listen), and even though I take every precaution to talk objectively and to state that it's only my opinion, I get bad reactions: people getting moody, confrontational, passive-aggressive and the like.

I really don't know what to do about that because it's against my nature to be the guy who agrees with everything people say. Does this ever happen to you? Is there any kind of magic trick or do you just avoid talking deeply about such subjects (sadly, the only thing I appear not to have controversial ideas about is the weather. As soon as I start talking about art, people start to hate me for some reason...)? Or do you just have to live with the fact people like to be right (which is not necessarily my case -- I love it when someone proves me wrong and shows me why)?

This happens to me more in social situations, with friends or acquaintances at dinner for example, than in seduction as I try not to talk seriously with girls (it's counterproductive and the dynamics are too different).

 

[Big Daddy]

Save deep diving into subjects to one-on-one talk with a girl you like.

If they're close friends who can handle some confrontation, just keep asking further and probing them to prove the point because you're really interested in their view -- you might be wrong after all -- up to the point they might crack. Then suggest what you have in mind and move away the subject to something more productive to both of you.

In a group setting, bring the energy, lead them to talk about things they want to talk and ask light questions/banter with the girls and you'll be good.

 

[Lotus]

Hey Yatagan,

It's all about the manner in which you are conveying the message. You can't force feed your ideas to people whether you are right or wrong. Telling someone they are wrong is almost never going to change their minds. Ego's will kick in.

I don't know exactly how you communicate your points, but i'd recommend checking out "How to win friends and influence people" by Dale Carnegie. Specifically the section on winning people to your way of thinking. I'm not going to try to explain it because he does a much better job.

Lotus

 

[ray_zorse]

Personally I keep my opinions to myself unless I see an advantage in coming out, especially with people I don't know well. It may be a bit gutless and/or related to my "nice guy" background but OTOH if they want my opinion they can ask for it. Rules change a bit with close friends, but when seducing MAKE IT ABOUT HER, same with groups. Draw them out on their opinions and try to discover WHY they hold such fucked up opinions, without saying you disagree (you can always do that later). You might even learn something
Ray

 

[yatagan]

Thanks guys.

Yes, Dale Carnegie's book... I recognize myself in the chapter where he quotes from Ben Franklin's autobiography. I'm just too damn opinionated I'm afraid... The thing is, I like to get to the bottom of things, and since I rarely take it personally when someone says I'm wrong and shows me why, I assume others should be the same but they aren't. Tell them they're wrong to assume the Earth is flat and show them a picture, they'll still think you're an idiot. An interesting read, that book. Thanks for making me read it again.

Ray, I think I should just learn from people like you. It's difficult for me to keep quiet when I hear something stupid, especially when combined with arrogance or entitlement (caused me a lot of trouble back at school when I just had to show the teacher he was wrong...) but shutting up is definitely the intelligent thing to do. Though I feel like a phoney when I do...

 

[yatagan]

I very openly talk about things that many people consider "controversial." I don't back down either. It is my screening mechanism to see who is stupid, and who is worth my time. Do I lose sets because of it? Hell yes. Do I care? Hell no, those sets aren't worth my time because their opinions are stupid and I wouldn't be able to respect them anyway.

I'm not surprised you do! However I never judge people that fast. I have some friends who are the kind of liberal goody two shoes whose company you'd enjoy and I must say I always learn a thing or two from them as they can be very knowledgeable and intelligent in some of their respective areas and are good people all around. I just have to refrain from going into politics or sociology with them (but then I have the same problem with ultraconservative people...)

More to the point, I don't think being controversial is a very elegant thing to be and I don't like to alienate others. I know there must a way to be agreeable while disagreeing with people. Judging from his articles, Chase seems to be good at that...

 

[yatagan]

It seems like just one more reason to talk less and go straight to sex (...)

 

[lux7]

.....

Man, just like all the times.

In my case -and I suspect it's the same for you- it's this: I don't talk "just to talk", it's either to laugh and/or have a good time, or to exchange information TO or FROM someone who knows about that topic (or two people exchanging views they BOTH know what they're talking about).

Not like that for many people, for whom talk is just... Talking for talking sake, not matter how factual or inaccurate what they're talking about is.

Ie.:
-"God ISIS is really dangerous, they might invade neighboring countries and launch expeditions to Europe"
-"yes, those guys are nuts, I read they are planning their next mass killing in the West "
-"craaazy people, I actually saw the other day in TV that... "


And you sit there thinking "they have not a single goddamn tank and not a single ship, who are they going to invade! And you just read that planning ballony on a stupid weekly newspapers. Maybe they are plotting the next mass murder indeed, but YOU don't know that".

What I do is this: unless it's my family, I don't correct anybody. Most of the times I force myself not to intervene not even with my family these days.
If the level of the conversation is constantly that low, and happens often, do not ever take the conversation seriously.
I would try to veer it into something lighter.

And if it happens too often, it probably means those people are not worth your time, nod your head, and don't take those people as friends.

 

[Chase]

Yatagan-

More to the point, I don't think being controversial is a very elegant thing to be and I don't like to alienate others. I know there must a way to be agreeable while disagreeing with people. Judging from his articles, Chase seems to be good at that...

I suggest reading up on the Socratic Method. It is, essentially, a way to let people either hang or validate themselves by drawing out of them exactly what they believe, in no uncertain terms, by asking pointed questions.

Like, say someone believes we should take all the rich people's money and give that all to the poor people, and then all the poor people can be rich and all the rich people can be poor. And maybe this will teach them all empathy. And then we can just change who's rich and who's poor every year. And a lot of people applaud and say wow, that's a great idea. It would do so much good for the world. And you hear that and think man, that's a terrible idea, I need to stop this idiocy!

The problem there is usually you and they are thinking about completely different factors: you're thinking it'll obliterate the economy if you take the people who've spent decades building up expertise running businesses efficiently and well and putting them in boxes on the sidewalk, and taking people whose areas of expertise are rattling tin cans on the street corner and putting them in charge of accounting, supply chain, and product development. Meanwhile, they're not thinking about the economy at all; instead, they're thinking about what a tremendous boon it would be to empathy and interpersonal relations if everyone literally walked a mile in one another's shoes.

In a case like this, you'd use Socratic questioning to draw out their opinions from them, like so:

• You: How do you think that would affect the economy, if we switched everyone's positions?
  
  Him: The economy would be fine. Poor people aren't dumb just because they're poor! They would soon adapt to their new positions.
  
  You: Do you think it'd be wasteful to throw out huge numbers of people who've spent their whole lives learning to do things, and replace them with people who aren't skilled or interested in those things?
  
  Him: It's not about waste, it's about teaching people to care about each other.
  
  You: I get that. So this is more of a mental exercise where you think it'd be nice for kind of this one area of empathy, not something where you're saying let's sit down and have a think on how this would effect people on a multitude of levels.
  
  Him: Um, yes.
  
  You: Okay, cool. Hey, so anyway [topic change]

That's probably the least-asshole way you can shoot down dumb arguments without being a complete ass. Also notice in that case the guy doesn't actually want to discuss real policy implications, which I find is generally the case with most people. Most folks are only thinking about one or two dimensions in anything they discuss, not 10 or 12 or 50. So as soon as you highlight that, you can basically say okay, so you aren't actually serious, in kind of a nice way, and at that point no one's going to take the guy's argument seriously because he's already said yeah, I haven't really thought this out, and there're a whole bunch of implications I have no interest in discussing or pondering.

The really advanced form of this is to never directly state your own opinions, but instead to draw others' opinions out of them until you reach something either obviously profound or something obviously foolish. At which point, either way, you can just go "Hmm", and change the topic, this other person now validated or discredited, as the case may be.

Something you will discover when you start doing this is people often surprise you; you may go in thinking, "This person is a complete fool," but when you start asking questions you discover his position is much more practical than you thought and it's much easier to reconcile his and your views than you suspect. And you leave respecting the guy, or at least agreeing to disagree. You would never reach this point if you went with your gut response of, "Let me just jump in and tell this idiot how it really is"; instead, you'd merely end up in an ideological debate in which both sides become more extreme in their positions and grow increasingly further apart.

Chase

 

[OldSelf]

In a case like this, you'd use Socratic questioning to draw out their opinions from them, like so:

You: How do you think that would affect the economy, if we switched everyone's positions?

Him: The economy would be fine. Poor people aren't dumb just because they're poor! They would soon adapt to their new positions.

You: Do you think it'd be wasteful to throw out huge numbers of people who've spent their whole lives learning to do things, and replace them with people who aren't skilled or interested in those things?

Him: It's not about waste, it's about teaching people to care about each other.

You: I get that. So this is more of a mental exercise where you think it'd be nice for kind of this one area of empathy, not something where you're saying let's sit down and have a think on how this would effect people on a multitude of levels.

Him: Um, yes.

You: Okay, cool. Hey, so anyway [topic change]

I'm very curious. Doesn't that come off as a little passive or even mildly insulting to the person? I read this and thought, "I'm asking you questions to open your eyes a bit, but in a way that I need to sugar coat it because I don't want to: look like a dick, make you look like a fool, or blatantly state my own view."

There is SO much nuance in communication. It's humbling quite frankly.

 

[OldSelf]

I usually say,

"I find it pretty fascinating how people could have such different views yet still relate so much, whether they know it or not... (Delivered in a, "You and I are just two people who have two different views and it's not fucking serious... It's interesting and cool)
...I don't really see eye to eye with you on that one... (you're not saying I Disagree which can get ego's going and it's not so damn formal) but hey... to each their own *smile*

Obviously, saying that every time would make you sound like a playback machine so vary it up and use your imagination. I like to keep things as if I'm interesting and so are you, how cool can this conversation get and what experience can we share with one another.

"Now, tell me about that trip out in Brazil. I hear it's pretty jarring to go out there being from the ____." (Works really well when it's someone who was from a somewhat boring town)

No question needed.

The quickly jump in

-ST

 

[Orelfius]

I'm very curious. Doesn't that come off as a little passive or even mildly insulting to the person?

Well, not really, there's 2 scenarios here:
1- The other person really does have something smart to say and then, you come across as the genuinely interested honest guy. People appreciate that.
2- The other person is more or so a fool (like in our example) who didn't thought about the implications and impacts of his/her believes/opinions. Then, this "gentle" way to confront them is perfect because it let the other person make a fool of themselves: That's Spretzaturra my friend! the law of least effort: You let the other guy achieve for you the goal of making a fool of himself. You have almost nothing to do. That's much better and looks much cooler than a heated ideological debate.

 

[OldSelf]

Sprezzatura..... i just got chills man. I never fully understood it till this moment )

Effortlessly: Keep a situation cool, help someone realize they aren't as smart as they thought through a some 'gentle' questions and guidance, and be cool as hell about it all throughout

Thanks a fucking million dude. Great point.

 

[Orelfius]

Sprezzatura..... i just got chills man. I never fully understood it till this moment )

Effortlessly: Keep a situation cool, help someone realize they aren't as smart as they thought through a some 'gentle' questions and guidance, and be cool as hell about it all throughout

Thanks a fucking million dude. Great point.

You're very much welcome.

I had the same problem: I studied and practice most of Chase's articles on social skill set… only to realize at the end that it all go back to spretzaturra (5 ways to handle social challenges, countering cockblock articles, how to be cool, etc.). The things is: you need many practical examples to "awake" to the spretzaturra and suddenly get it and see it everywhere… and suddenly, being cool and interacting with people become so obviously simple.

Enjoy man!

 

[lux7]

I'm very curious. Doesn't that come off as a little passive or even mildly insulting to the person?

Well, not really, there's 2 scenarios here:
1- The other person really does have something smart to say and then, you come across as the genuinely interested honest guy. People appreciate that.
2- The other person is more or so a fool (like in our example) who didn't thought about the implications and impacts of his/her believes/opinions. Then, this "gentle" way to confront them is perfect because it let the other person make a fool of themselves: That's Spretzaturra my friend! the law of least effort: You let the other guy achieve for you the goal of making a fool of himself. You have almost nothing to do. That's much better and looks much cooler than a heated ideological debate.

Honestly, I don't know if that's a good example of sprezzatura man.

You're still engaging a fool and expanding energies and time on a fool.
And, somewhat, you bring yourself to his level.

On a bigger scale, to use an example, it's as if Dawkins would try to dismantle creationist theories with the redneck boor who ended up being in his group.
I think he'd be much more likely not to intervene at all in the discussion, especially if all the people around him know the fool is talking shit and not deserving of your time.

Or you can probably recollect from your own life experience that idiot with crazy social theories and that guy who spends half of the evening actually engaging him while all the rest of the group get on with their businesses.

 

[Orelfius]

Honestly, I don't know if that's a good example of sprezzatura man.

Well, my comment is WITHIN the context of HOW do you intervene and why the Socratic method works BETTER than another method. So there's a little premise here that you want to intervene. The whole thread is about HOW TO and not about IF YOU SHOULD.

Of course, you could also decide to not interact with the other person and keep your opinion for yourself.

 

[OldSelf]

I would agree with both of your points.

Depending on the context, both can be valuable, imo.

For instance, I go to an audio engineering school/post-production - it's 75 guys and 5 girls (two of which I'm shagging thanks to this glorious site!)

I chose to use the socratic method (used it yesterday after reading this post, funny enough ) with a guy who thought that getting girls was genetic and you were born with the skills... I'm sure everyone on here would look at a mindset like that and just say, fuck... that's gonna take some work . I simply asked, "Do you honestly think that EVERY guy gettings girls was born that way? Think of yourself with engineering sound. Every pro was once a beginner."

He simply said, "Man you're right. I like talking to you man! You make me think a lot about shit." To which I just smiled and continued on chatting about killer jams.

Why entertain it? He's a great engineer with 5 years in the scene prior to joining who is willing to show me the industry standard workstation if I show him how to use the more "creative-composer" one.

Win-fucking-win

-ST