When we have to convince someone of something, most of us choose to focus only on the good arguments in our case. The following rhetorical trick explains why that is not a good idea.
Yes, you read that right. If you want to argue for a cause – whether it’s about implementing a new strategy or whether it’s your or your colleague’s turn to get the pretzel – then you have to include arguments against your own cause in your argument! What we rhetoricians call “vaccinating”. Why that? Let’s illustrate with an example.
Imagine you are standing with a very eloquent used car salesman. He leans against the rusty Opel Kadett he is trying to sell you. He tells you that it is a beautiful car that almost “floats over the roads like a Mercedes”. In your eyes, there is nothing “floating” about that car at all, but he says that it is a wonderful car that will last for many years. Do you trust him?
Now imagine that you go to another dealer who also picks up a half-rusted Opel Kadett – same year, same mileage, same spotted patina. The difference is the seller. He can see that the car is rusty, and that it is also a bit sluggish in the acceleration because the gearbox is old, but that the engine is in very good condition, and it is his assessment that the car can run for about four years without major repairs. A little rust may need to be repaired before the next inspection, but it will not cost much. Which seller would you prefer to do business with?
Most of us would probably choose salesperson number two, and that’s because we don’t like to feel cheated. Salesperson number one may very well be right that the car is a steal for the price and brand, but if he doesn’t take into account how the recipient sees the matter, he’s missing the mark. Furthermore, he doesn’t think about how bad his credibility is, and if he doesn’t address our skepticism and show real goodwill towards us, we still don’t believe him.
To stay with the car metaphor, it may be worth acknowledging the rust spots if the car dealer wants you to take his statement about the car’s condition seriously. The same is true of your argument. It may be worth “vaccinating” your claim against external attacks by mentioning the counterargument yourself. Imagine the strength of addressing the weaknesses of your case yourself, rather than your opponent doing so. You demonstrate great knowledge in the field and at the same time leave the opponent without any effective defense.
Choose the strongest counterargument (which requires you to thoroughly put yourself in the recipient’s shoes) and acknowledge it. Then explain why your claim still holds up despite the pressure from the counterargument. Doing so makes you appear more credible and therefore more persuasive. And if your own argument can’t stand that test, it certainly can’t stand the fact that your skeptical employees behind your desks start tearing your arguments apart afterwards.
When many people instinctively fail to counter-argue, it’s probably because they’re afraid of giving the other party strong arguments. But think about the car: If you can see the rust spots, others probably can too!
So the next time you have to argue – either in an email, at a meeting or at a major conference – bring up the counterargument and have it de-dramatized, and you will be much stronger:
Do you or your organization need to be better at arguing and handling counterarguments? We would be happy to offer suggestions on how we can help you.
When we have to convince someone of something, most of us choose to focus only on the good arguments in our case. The following rhetorical trick explains why that is not a good idea.
Yes, you read that right. If you want to argue for a cause – whether it’s about implementing a new strategy or whether it’s your or your colleague’s turn to get the pretzel – then you have to include arguments against your own cause in your argument! What we rhetoricians call “vaccinating”. Why that? Let’s illustrate with an example.
Imagine you are standing with a very eloquent used car salesman. He leans against the rusty Opel Kadett he is trying to sell you. He tells you that it is a beautiful car that almost “floats over the roads like a Mercedes”. In your eyes, there is nothing “floating” about that car at all, but he says that it is a wonderful car that will last for many years. Do you trust him?
Now imagine that you go to another dealer who also picks up a half-rusted Opel Kadett – same year, same mileage, same spotted patina. The difference is the seller. He can see that the car is rusty, and that it is also a bit sluggish in the acceleration because the gearbox is old, but that the engine is in very good condition, and it is his assessment that the car can run for about four years without major repairs. A little rust may need to be repaired before the next inspection, but it will not cost much. Which seller would you prefer to do business with?
Most of us would probably choose salesperson number two, and that’s because we don’t like to feel cheated. Salesperson number one may very well be right that the car is a steal for the price and brand, but if he doesn’t take into account how the recipient sees the matter, he’s missing the mark. Furthermore, he doesn’t think about how bad his credibility is, and if he doesn’t address our skepticism and show real goodwill towards us, we still don’t believe him.
To stay with the car metaphor, it may be worth acknowledging the rust spots if the car dealer wants you to take his statement about the car’s condition seriously. The same is true of your argument. It may be worth “vaccinating” your claim against external attacks by mentioning the counterargument yourself. Imagine the strength of addressing the weaknesses of your case yourself, rather than your opponent doing so. You demonstrate great knowledge in the field and at the same time leave the opponent without any effective defense.
Choose the strongest counterargument (which requires you to thoroughly put yourself in the recipient’s shoes) and acknowledge it. Then explain why your claim still holds up despite the pressure from the counterargument. Doing so makes you appear more credible and therefore more persuasive. And if your own argument can’t stand that test, it certainly can’t stand the fact that your skeptical employees behind your desks start tearing your arguments apart afterwards.
When many people instinctively fail to counter-argue, it’s probably because they’re afraid of giving the other party strong arguments. But think about the car: If you can see the rust spots, others probably can too!
So the next time you have to argue – either in an email, at a meeting or at a major conference – bring up the counterargument and have it de-dramatized, and you will be much stronger:
Do you or your organization need to be better at arguing and handling counterarguments? We would be happy to offer suggestions on how we can help you.
