5.1. How to repel an attack in dialogue
And now let's look at the methods and strategies of attacks and their parry in short dialogues.
Method one: best defense is attack.
If the interlocutor reproaches you for something, use the momentum of his blow against him. Defend by attacking, emphasize the difference between situations on your side and his, give a tangible click.
For example:
“– you don’t know how to communicate with a client, for the third time a visitor leaves you without a purchase”
“- and you, then, have time instead of work duties to consider my statistics?”
“- you refer too often to the works of the classics”
“- because, unlike their contemporaries, they were able to develop themselves, and did not teach others”;
Method two: Convert negative to positive.
This is the most win-win method, because it allows you not to escalate relations, but, on the contrary, turns a barb into a compliment and can disarm anyone. This soft method works very well with aggressive interlocutors.
For example:
"- your apartment is more like a cluttered barn"
"- what do you! This is only in comparison with your sterility "
“Your work does not correspond to the given topic at all”
“- but it allows you to look at it from a different angle, which you correctly noticed”
"You talk too much!"
“- with such an interlocutor you want not just to talk, but to sing”
Method three: clarification
When an opponent shows a negative, he can be disarmed by asking for clarification on what exactly this or that moment is bad. It often turns out that it is not at all what is criticized that is bad, but the bad mood of the interlocutor casts everything in a black light. As soon as you show a person that his discontent is far-fetched, it disappears without a trace.
«– you have a disgusting product!”
“What exactly do you not like about it?”
"I don't like this color"
“Is he unpleasant to you only today or always on Thursdays?”
"- it is very expensive!"
“What price would be acceptable for you?”
Fourth Method: comparisons in your favor.
When they try to prick you, using your weaknesses or character traits, do not shy away. This is a forbidden trick that distinguishes tactless people, be humorous that you can be seen in this light and draw a series of analogies that will show the interlocutor that you are in wonderful shape.
For example:
"You have a big belly!"
“- This is a lifeline that you are deprived of because of your own causticity”
"You're mean!"
“- but you can always“ intercept me before payday ””
"You eat too much!"
“But I don’t drink much and don’t fight”
“– you work slower than others”
“But I can’t be blamed for inattentive haste”
Method five: boomerang
If you are reproached for something, you can address the same reproach to its author, using in an unexpected way what he wanted to offend you as a weapon, referring to his skills and abilities.
For example:
"- you dance disgustingly!"
“then teach me how to do it beautifully”
"It's too crude an idea"
“- then, can you tell me how to cook it?”
"You don't do anything around the house"
"- then let's you tell me what you're doing, and we'll share the responsibilities"
Method six: mirroring
When the interlocutor runs into you, do not waste time and repel the attack with lightning speed, for this, use the most elementary method, which is also very effective. It is built on the principle of “he is like that”, remember how in childhood, when they called you an unflattering word in the sandbox.
“– you are completely incompetent in this matter”
“But you have a diploma of a specialist in…”
"You are too harsh"
"but you can hear me better"
There is another variation of this method, when even his own words are used against the interlocutor. For example:
"- This is too long!
“- and “too long” for you - how much, and how much time do you interpret as “too short?”
"Your proposal is not viable"
“- and what are your gradations of viability?”
Seventh Method: categorical
In order to disarm the opponent and temporarily withdraw him from the exchange of remarks, you can use the principle of categoricalness, when you agree with his statement in an exaggerated form or completely deny it. With your consent, you seem to take a step to the side when they swing at you, and the enemy is carried by the inertia of his own blow past you. When you categorically and sharply deny, it is like a frontal attack, which not everyone is able to withstand without swerving.
For example:
"You look disgusting today!"
“- you are observant today as never before”
“– you do not understand that you are talking nonsense”
"- exactly! So I try to speak your language"
“Your offer is more expensive than other firms”
“You are out of your mind! Have you seen what their commissions are?
“You were not taught politeness as a child”
"- No!"
"You didn't understand the situation well"
“- it seems so to you, because your information is outdated”
Method eight: genius
As you know, people tend to believe in the general image and often obey those who position themselves head and shoulders above the rest. You can use this feature of the human psyche in a conversation and suppress your opponent with a sense of your own superiority and genius. To do this, you can use ingenuity or a share of arrogance.
For example:
"Your offer didn't work for me"
“- that’s great, because it should catch customers, and you are not one of them”
"You're not tech savvy"
“But I offer effective, not beautiful methods”
Why do you think your offer is a good one?
“- because otherwise I would not have insisted on it”
Ninth Method parry: paraphrase
This method is widely used in working with clients, when the purpose of the conversation is to convince the buyer, overcome his distrust and work out objections. It is very effective, but requires a certain care from you. When the interlocutor reproaches you for something or questions your proposals, check with him, detailing the phrase he uttered, whether you correctly understood the reason for the objection.
For example:
"- it is very expensive!"
“- that is, you want to say that your comfort and convenience are cheaper?”
"That sounds unbelievable"
"Are you saying that I'm lying to you?"
“What you sold me broke the next day”
“- that is, the operation of the item by you led to its breakdown?”
Method ten: scattered counterattack
We called this counterattack scattered because you, repelling a blow, do it without a targeted direction and appeal to a specific person, but, as it were, in general, but everyone takes what was said personally. This helps to disqualify several opponents at once.
For example:
"You've been horribly cut"
"- but I'm the least like a crowd with the same hairstyles"
“- you have an eternal mess in the papers”
“It’s better to have a mess in papers than in your personal life”
"You're just inadequate"
“- individualism has always caused envy among those who do not possess it”
These techniques, of course, are conditional, but they reflect the general nature of repelling attacks quite realistically. Let's go over the ten basic parry techniques again. So, this is a counter attack, clarification of the statement, drawing a comparison in one's favor, mirroring the attack, using disarming categoricalness, suppressing the interlocutor with authority and genius, paraphrasing the statement and bringing it to the point of absurdity, and scattered counterattack. Using them in life is quite simple, and with a little practice, you will automatically be able to give your opponent a proper rebuff. In order to consolidate them as a habit and bring them to automaticity, exercise constantly - in a circle of like-minded people, friends, at home while watching movies or TV programs.
There are a number of people who hone their parrying skills on television announcers, addressing them with their barbs. This training method is also good because it teaches you not to wait for a response from your opponent, which is the right behavior at the moment of a real exchange of remarks.
As a breather, let's turn to famous sayings that have become popular and are often used as aphorisms.
Faina Ranevskaya, the great actress of all time, was famous for her wit, today you can even find a whole selection of her pearls, with which she masterfully besieged too curious and not quite tactful people.
- Do you have a significant other? asked the actress a journalist who was well aware of her loneliness.
- The second half is in the brain, pills and asses, but I was originally whole!
Once, an actress asked Faina Ranevskaya what she thought about Mrs. N, to which the brilliant actress replied: “My dear, I can only think about real things, not ephemeral and empty ones.”
Somehow a question addressed to Mayakovsky sounded from the crowd:
Is it true that from the great to the ridiculous is just one step?
“Yes,” answered the poet, “and I am making this step towards you.
This ability to parry and repel an attack is a brilliant opportunity to express yourself brightly. In secular salons of the past century, such a feature was very popular and in demand among a languid society, which nevertheless skillfully showed its teeth. Consider the following classification of tactics that can allow you to get the upper hand in verbal battles when you are in a situation with several opponents, for example, at a negotiating table or in a company.
PARRY
PARRY
1. In fencing - to reflect (reflect) something (strike).
2. trans. Reflect (reflect) something (attacks, arguments of the opponent in a dispute, etc.). Parry the arguments of opponents. Parry the argument.
Explanatory Dictionary of Ushakov. D.N. Ushakov. 1935-1940.
See what "PARRY" is in other dictionaries:
- (fr. parer, from lat. parere to cook) to reflect blows in fencing. Dictionary of foreign words included in the Russian language. Chudinov A.N., 1910. Parry [fr. parer reflect, beat off] 1) sport. in fencing: to reflect the blow of the enemy, ... ... Dictionary of foreign words of the Russian language
Reflect, beat off, refute, snap back, answer, parry, refute, beat off, reflect, give an answer Dictionary of Russian synonyms. parry 1. see reflect (reflect). 2… Synonym dictionary
PARRY, roar, roar; this; sovereign and inconsistent, that. 1. In fencing: to reflect (press) the opponent's blow. 2. trans. Immediately, quickly present (vlyat) indisputable objections to what n. (book). P. arguments of opponents. | sovereign also… … Explanatory dictionary of Ozhegov
parry- I. PARRY I parer, parieren reflect, beat off.1. To reflect the blow of the enemy with a sword or saber (in fencing). BAS 1. In fencing, repulse, reflect, avert, brush off a blow. Jan. 1806. [Vskipyatilin:] Hey! Someone! .. what to do, So be it; … Historical Dictionary of Gallicisms of the Russian Language
Reflect (attack), from it. parieren - the same (originally - a professional term for equestrian sports and fencing) from lat. parāre to cook (Kluge Götze 433) … Etymological Dictionary of the Russian Language by Max Fasmer
I carry and owls. 1. transition Reflect with a sword or saber an opponent's blow in fencing. ott. Reflect the blow of the enemy in sports. ott. Reflect the attack of the enemy, the blows of the enemy in battle. 2. transition; trans. Reflect the attacks or arguments of the enemy in ... ... Modern explanatory dictionary of the Russian language Efremova
parry- (in different meanings) what. Soldiers and officers fought for three days, fending off enemy attacks from all sides (B. Polevoy). I always remember the calm dignity with which Ballod parried my objections (Korolenko) ... Control Dictionary
parry- parry, rue, rue ... Russian spelling dictionary
parry- (fr. parer to reflect, beat off) Deftly reflect the attacks or arguments of the enemy in a dispute ... Dictionary of linguistic terms T.V. Foal
Books
- Missiles of medium and shorter range. Doomsday weapon, Shirokorad Alexander Borisovich. President Trump's decision to withdraw from the INF Treaty has led to the most serious crisis in Russian-US relations in the 21st century. What are Intermediate and Shorter Range Missiles? How and why do they...
- Personal territory. Psychological defense against aggression and manipulation, Sergey Klyuchnikov. The book of the well-known practical psychologist, business coach and creator of the system for activating the creative potential of a person S. Yu. Klyuchnikov is devoted to a very topical problem today ...
Methods of defense in a dispute
An argument is the most inappropriate form of communication between interlocutors. As a rule, this is an expressive clash of two sides, when both strive at all costs to achieve the triumph of their opinion. In nine cases out of ten, the argument ends with the fact that each of the interlocutors is even more convinced that he is right. Even if they managed to get the upper hand at first, then in the end it turns out that victory has not come close. Why? Here hurt pride affected, and it was no longer ideas that came to the fore, but ambitions. We touched a man's nerve, he, naturally, is indignant. The desire of interlocutors to search for complementary positions disappears. All energy is directed to repulse the enemy, and his stubbornness erects the final barrier. The search for truth turns into a confrontation. Two or three more drops of bile - and the controversy will begin to rage, and this is already a fierce verbal fight. Is swearing necessary for the cause? V. I. Lenin, for example, believed that it was necessary. “I love it when people swear, which means they know what they are doing and have a line” (V. I. Lenin, Poln. sobr. soch. Vol. 47, p. 19).
What to do if the dispute still flared up? Defend your position (if you claim the truth) and defend yourself with the help of polemic techniques. A set (far from complete) of such means is shown in Scheme 3. Conventionally, they are divided into logical, parrying, speculative and incorrect. All of them come down to refutation, neutralization and defense. Discrediting statements are refuted, misconceptions and incorrect conclusions are neutralized, and they are protected from attacks.
The functions of the methods complement each other. The same technique, but in different situations, performs an unequal role. Consider some tricks, without the knowledge of which you should not be included in the dispute. The one who owns the means of polemic feels like a trained boxer.
EFFECTIVE COMPARISON. This is a very easy logical operation. The reception itself works on the power of trust. If, on the basis of any fact, a person believes in the truth or falsity of something and then encounters a fact that contradicts the first, then his confidence is reduced by the magnitude of the convincing power of this new knowledge. Let's see how this happens with the following example.
Scheme 3. Means of verbal confrontation in various disputes
“The French bacteriologist Louis Pasteur studied the culture of smallpox bacteria in his laboratory. Suddenly, a stranger appeared to him and introduced himself as the second of a nobleman, who thought that the scientist insulted him. The nobleman demanded satisfaction. Pasteur listened to the messenger and said: “Since they call me, I have the right to choose a weapon. Here are two flasks; smallpox bacteria in one, pure water in the other. If the person who sent you agrees to drink one of them, I will drink another. The duel did not take place.
Let us analyze the course of thought of Pasteur's opponent. He was offered a choice: a duel with pistols, where the probability of staying alive is the same as dying; and an unusual duel, frightening with an incurable disease. The power of trust in your ability to shoot accurately was less than the confidence to choose a glass of water. A contradiction arose, in which the desire to "shoot" disappeared, turned out to be suppressed by the persuasive power of the new weapon proposed by the scientist for the duel. The opponent abandoned his idea, by the way, built on an assumption, and not on explicit premises.
In this technique, indirect criticism worked. Pasteur did not analyze the accusations made to him by the nobleman at all, but neutralized him on the move.
It must be borne in mind that the persuasive power of a new message that comes into comparison with the available information (conviction) is not the same for everyone. What dissuades one may not affect another at all.
A variant of effective comparison is the method of contrasting assessments. The strength of the reception impresses with the contrast in the assessments of the same phenomenon (fact). Associations from opposing opinions represent the event in volume. As a result, the side that was not previously noticed is brightly highlighted.
“Comparing Khrushchev to Brezhnev, Nixon focuses on the details. Poorly tailored suit of the first, elegantly tailored - the second. Khrushchev loved duck hunting and took an active part in it. Brezhnev preferred to hunt big game, but the huntsmen did all the "dirty work" for him. He only fired from a rifle with an optical sight” (Sturua Melor. Two photographs for one portrait // Week. 1988. No. 43. P. 16).
DEADLY ARGUMENT. The name of this technique, frightening at first glance, corresponds to the crushing power of its impact. A murderous argument is a judgment (counterargument or fact) that inflicts an irreparable blow to the thesis of the opponent. After this technique, further upholding of the opinion becomes vain and meaningless. It is used when other, more "soft", techniques do not work.
A killer argument is especially devastating when paired with an authority figure. More often in this variant, it is used to put an end to the discussion. Consider an example.
At the June 1957 Plenum of the Central Committee of the CPSU, the Stalinists tried to persuade the Central Committee to decide to release Khrushchev from the post of First Secretary of the CPSU Central Committee. And then Marshal G.K. Zhukov threw a deadly argument: "The army is against this decision, and not a single tank will budge without my order." This phrase subsequently cost him his political career and the position of Minister of Defense. Another indication that this technique requires special care.
AUTHOR'S COMMENT. The essence of the reception is in the "untwisting" of frauds, falsifications, false analogies, sophisms and other tricks and abuses of the opponent. Destroying the camouflaged argument, it allows you to deprive the thesis of supporting grounds. The thought becomes unreliable, does not necessarily follow from the premises that the interlocutor brought, and, therefore, cannot claim to be true.
The reception mechanism is simple. First, we give a quote from the publication, a statement from the speech of the speaker, in which we found "fig leaves", in the words of V. I. Lenin, that is, untenable arguments. We analyze the course of the opponent's argument. At this stage, we establish the falsity of interpretations, the illogicality of the conclusion, and reveal the reasons for speculative fraud.
Having destroyed the reasoning, which should shake the credibility of the conclusion, we attack the source itself, the author. With the help of discrediting facts, we show the dishonesty of the person from whom the thesis comes. So, calling into question the sincerity of the intentions of the other side, we undermine the authority of the opponent. This step serves as an indirect critique.
We complete the refutation with humor, irony, sarcasm in order to evoke emotional reinforcement of the analysis. Jokes, sharp words, parodies are appropriate here.
COUNTER-QUESTION. An effective method of neutralization, effective avoidance of the statement on the merits. As a result, we do not give either "yes" or "no", think, they say, as you know. In another case, counter-questions allow you to identify vulnerabilities in the position of the interlocutor or to detect nonsense. The reception does not affect the thesis and antithesis, but does not allow further discussion, development of the conversation in an unpleasant direction, excludes the possibility of criticism. Consider how it worked in one discussion.
In Yu. Skola's novel "Safety" (M., 1980, p. 157), a situation is described when one of the leaders of the mining and processing plant, in a discussion with members of the Swedish delegation, took advantage of counter-questions and got out of a difficult situation to the applause of his opponent and listeners.
“The word was taken by that lanky, with a strangely bloodless face, a Swede. Turning to Kryakvin, he spoke - as if fired at him in short bursts. The translator translated:
Tell me, Mr. Kryakvin, why do you, at your quite excellent enterprise, have so many slogans calling for good work?
One, - Kryakvin bent his finger.
Is it possible to work badly if good money is paid for your work?
And finally, do not your workers get annoyed by such monotony of attitude towards them?
Three! Kryakvin crumpled his fingers into a fist. - I will answer. I will answer ... But here's how - four questions? Do you agree?
The Swedes looked at each other: questions for questions?.. Nonsense...
Kryakvin noticed how concentrated Vereshchagin was looking at him from the side.
Well, how is it? - Kryakvin broke the pause.
The lanky nodded: they say, I agree.
Let's go, - said Kryakvin. - The question, then, is the first ... How many of you, gentlemen, sitting here, are true believers?
The interpreter translated, and almost all the foreigners bowed their heads.
Thank you. The second question... How often do you turn to the Almighty with the same thing in your prayers? And finally, the last question, the fourth, as agreed. Doesn't it, this monotony, irritate the Almighty? - Kryakvin smiled slyly...
The translator had not yet finished translating, and laughter broke out around the table. Someone clapped their hands. Someone shouted: “Bravo! Ka-ra-sho! The lanky one went up to Kryakvin and silently shook his hand.
In this example, no answer is given to an unfriendly hint, and the opponent's thought is camouflaged. Kryakvin neutralizes it with counter-questions quite tactfully and witty enough. The interlocutors retreated to their positions, retaining pleasant impressions of each other.
CATCH ON THE WORD. The essence of the reception is to indicate to the interlocutor that he does not accept the thought that he himself proposes. In other words, "he called himself a load - climb into the body."
At one of the “Memory” rallies, the speaker argued that their society does not have “any bad intentions against the Jews,” and, moreover, does not aim to persecute them. In a pause, someone asked permission to ask a question.
Please, speak, - the speaker has agreed.
Here I am a Jew. I want to join your organization and participate in the implementation of your plans. Tell me how can I do this? Who to contact?..
The speaker was confused. The pause dragged on. The matter ended with the fact that he had to leave the podium. The speaker who replaced him was no longer perceived, and the crowd began to disperse.
Thus, with the help of this technique, the listeners' faith in the concept proposed by the heralds of "Memory" was undermined.
OUTPUT ANALYSIS. Reception is an analysis of the reasoning of the interlocutor, which leads to confusion. We destroy the logical consequence, derived by induction, deduction and analogy. What is reasoning by these logical methods?
Logical inference from particular, isolated cases, experimental data, from the observation of certain facts, leading to a generalized conclusion (“brilliant generalization”), is called inductive. If the facts are single, rigged, observations are given with prejudice, or the case is extremely rare (not typical), then the conclusion of the conclusion is not strong.
This fragility of the argument must be discovered and the substantiation of the thesis itself must be destroyed. For example, from the fact that among those leaving the USSR there are representatives of the intelligentsia, the conclusion is erroneously drawn: "The intelligentsia in the USSR is initially dissident and is in conflict with the existing system." This conclusion is deduced inductively. But a particular fact is not yet the truth, although someone may believe it.
More often, false conclusions are drawn by analogy, when a conclusion is made on the basis of the similarity of two objects, phenomena, facts in some respect. This similarity extends to other relationships of these objects, processes, life situations. Conclusion from particular to particular - analogy - the third method of logical thinking. Noting the similarity and concluding that these objects are identical in other signs and relationships, we reason by analogy. Analogy is a simple, calculated on faith, method of influence in discussion, dispute, polemic.
There is a literal analogy, when objects belong to the same class and are similar. In this relation are, for example, an Englishman and an Australian native, despite the fact that one may prefer oatmeal, and the other - earthworms. Both of them are people ... And a figurative (or rhetorical) analogy that establishes the similarity of objects of different classes. For example, the flight of thought and the flight of a bird.
Literal analogy is very valuable for logical proof. Rhetorical analogy awakens the imagination, enlivens the subject of speech, but it would be a mistake to use it as evidence. It is in speeches that speakers most often abuse figurative analogies. The message looks convincing in itself, due to the trust in the image that has developed in our brain under the influence of words and impressions.
Remember: the analogy improves the accessibility of reasoning, but does not increase its persuasiveness. It can only be used as a source of justification when the similarity has been carefully verified.
How to neutralize the analogy and thus the thesis? First, to establish whether there is a significant difference between the compared items. It must be remembered that there is no complete similarity between objects and phenomena. The greater the difference, the more untenable the analogy.
The logical methods of refutation are based on the detection of deliberate violations of logic in the reasoning of the interlocutor. They are directed against fraud, falsification, substitution of concepts, theses and other sophistic tricks.
A group of parrying techniques is used to repel attacks, incorrect remarks that compromise the opponent's intentions. They serve to protect the identity of the speaker and indirectly their own position. These means of argument do not lead to a constructive result, but without them it is difficult to fight, it is difficult to demonstrate confidence, assertiveness, and readiness to fight. The main function of parrying techniques is to cool violent debaters, and in some cases to demoralize the enemy. Let's consider some of them.
RETURN IMPACT (BOOMERANG). The essence of this technique lies in the words of Aristotle: "What is said against ourselves, we will turn against the one who said." This blow is within the power of people with a powerful mind, quick reaction and sharp tongue.
Having intercepted the word (concept) thrown by the opponent, we beat him and parody. Let us trace how the two strongest polemicists mutually used this technique in the dispute of 1925.
Metropolitan Vvedensky. I am not at all insisting on the point of view that we are not all descended from monkeys. You materialists know your relatives better.
A. Lunacharsky. But I do not know who is better - whether the one who, descending from the bottom, descending from animals, rose through the efforts of his genius to the present humanity, or the one whom the highest God created in his own image and likeness and who descended to the point that, as says gr. Vvedensky, it’s a shame for animals when people are compared with them ”(quoted from: Lunacharsky A.V. Christianity or Communism. L., 1926).
The return blow is most effective when the opponent has a dubious reputation, causes distrust, and shows disrespect for opponents in polemics.
ANGEROUS REPLY. A technique aimed at neutralizing the thesis of the interlocutor, but at the same time the person also gets it. In essence, this is a sharp, even sometimes aggressive, objection to statements disguised as a benevolent judgment. A low, petty, sycophant phrase is worth whipping and directing your anger at the service of a just cause. We find an example of such a parry in the political practice of Ekaterina Dashkova.
"Prime Minister, Prince Kaunitz Wenzel Anton (1711 -1794) - Austrian State Chancellor,
the main head of Austrian politics under Maria Theresa, conceited and spoiled by the empress, who believed that he had no equal in intelligence and deep knowledge of politics, in a conversation with Ekaterina Dashkova about the role of Peter I in the history of Russia expressed the idea:
Don't you think for nothing, princess, that he brought Russia closer to Europe and that she was recognized only from the time of Peter I?
The great empire, the prince, which has such inexhaustible sources of wealth and power as Russia, does not need rapprochement with anyone. Such a formidable mass as Russia, properly managed, attracts whoever it wants to. If Russia remained unknown until the time you are talking about, Your Grace, this proves - forgive me, Prince - only the ignorance or frivolity of European countries that ignore such a powerful state ”(quoted from: Ekaterina Dashkova. Notes. 1743 - 1810 L., 1985. S. 126-127).
COUNTEREXAMPLE. It is not always worth answering the question asked by the interlocutor. Of course, he has the right to ask about everything, but the opponent also has the right not to answer, especially if he noticed the opponent’s attempt to extract information from him, which he can later use against him. There is only one thing left - to tactfully beat off the question.
But you also need to be able to get away from the answer without offending the interlocutor. In this case, a counterexample is quite suitable. You can conditionally approve the question, even agree with the opponent's thought without repeating it, and give a similar example, a case that is well known to all participants in the dispute. Associations will do their job. The opponent will get a click.
“In a conversation with cosmonaut A. A. Leonov at a meeting in the USA, one of the reporters remarked, as if in passing: “Isn’t space exploration too expensive?” - “Of course, it's expensive,” Leonov agrees and retorts: “Probably, the Spanish queen felt sorry for the money for the Columbus expedition. But she gave them. And who knows when America would have been discovered if the queen had been greedy.” Everyone laughs and applauds. And the reporter is loudest of all ”(quoted from the book: Nozhik E. A. Fundamentals of Soviet oratory. M., 1981. P. 313).
IRONY. This is a sloppy, hidden mockery, but it sometimes stings the enemy more than the strongest words of indignation. Of course, one must be sure that one is right in order to use this means of expression. The place of irony is at the end of logical conclusions. Here it provides emotional support for the thesis. Just as the master delivers the most confident last blow to the nail, so the polemicist, turning to irony, puts the last point.
The reception of irony involves the use of words in the opposite sense, a feigned, serious statement that contradicts the ordinary. This technique can be enhanced by contemptuous mockery, grotesque, sarcasm, and other effects of a polemical situation.
Irony is divided into good-natured, sad, angry, caustic, angry, etc.
We find many examples of irony in Lenin. Ironic farewell: "Good riddance, dear ones!"
Ironic exaggeration: “Praise be to you, Comrade Bazarov! We will erect a monument to you during our lifetime: on one side we will write your saying, and on the other: to the Russian Machist, who buried Machism among the Russian Marxists! (Lenin V.I. Complete. collected works. T. 18. P. 115).
The simplest option is ironic quoting with paraphrasing, accompanied by revealingly mocking remarks, reservations, caustic remarks: “note in brackets”, “what can I say”, “no words”, etc. Let's give an example of how V.I. Lenin uses such methods. Criticizing Mikhailovsky, who confuses the obvious meaning with terminology like “child production, which has its own physiological and psychological roots,” he makes remarks: “For other children, is it you, Mr. Mikhailovsky, that child production has physiological roots?! Well, what are you talking about teeth? (Ibid. T. 1. S. 150).
Further, when Mikhailovsky goes on and on about his learned nonsense, piling up one absurd phrase on top of another: "Without the products of 'child production' - without them and without this complex and tense psyche that directly adjoins them," Lenin again rewards this gibberish with a mocking ironically: “No, you pay attention to the language: the complex psyche is “adjacent” to the products of child production! After all, this is a charm! (Ibid., p. 151).
Irony must necessarily be accompanied by the necessary intonation, gesture, perfect speech technique (pause, raising the voice, emphasizing the main word with emphasis, sound strength, repetition, etc.)
Knowledge of the techniques of criticism certainly gives confidence to the polemicist, but does not guarantee success. It's all about the skills, the feeling of the situation of communication, the tactics of balancing on the verge of what is permitted and what is not permitted. In a dispute, positive and critical-negative elements of statements are dialectically merged, and birth, the search for truth takes place in an emotionally intense form. Here it is necessary to orient along the way, at what point to weaken the resistance, to make a concession or a compromise; where to increase the requirement for the argumentation of the opponent, for the reliability of the facts cited by him; what to do in case of a psychological barrier, rejection of each other; and most importantly, when to stop, interrupt the monologue and give the other person an opportunity to speak, to understand his point of view. All this makes you learn self-regulation. It takes good practice and constant training.
SUMMARY
What does it mean to prepare for an argument and controversy?
2. Have ready means of neutralizing the incorrect actions of the interlocutor.
3. Do not count on hasty support from friends, rely on the masses.
4. Do not lose heart from the discovered errors. Perhaps this is a salvation from failure. Delusion is a property of the mind.
5. Be social. Don't avoid talking to smart people.
6. Avoid arguing with a narcissistic and arrogant person.
7. Beware of the timid, their consent is unreliable.
8. Know how to defend your position: choose tactics and a suitable method of neutralization or refutation.
9. Respond to questions and comments competently. An interlocutor without remarks is an opponent without his own opinion. There is little use for it.
From the book Dictionary of Psychoanalysis author Laplanche JPROTECTION MECHANISMS German: Abwehimechanismen. – French: mechanisms de defence. – English: mechanisms of defense. – Spanish: micanismes de defensa. – Italian: meccanismi di difesa. – Portuguese: mecanismos de defesa. Various types of operations characteristic of psychological defense. The main mechanisms differ in the type of emerging
From the book Comments on Life. Book Three author Jiddu Krishnamurti"Won't you join our Animal Welfare Society?" The sun was very bright in the sky, and a cool breeze was blowing from the sea. It was still quite early in the morning, there were very few people on the streets, and heavy traffic had not yet begun. Fortunately, today is not the day
From the book The Art of Thinking Right author Ivin Alexander ArkhipovichABOUT DISPUTE FOR THE SKEKE OF DISPUTE The art of arguing is commonly called eristics (from the Greek eris - dispute). Eristics should teach the ability to convince others of the truth of the views expressed and, accordingly, the ability to incline people to the behavior that seems necessary and
From the book Grammar of the Set: Towards an Analysis of the Forms of Modern Life author Virno PaoloIS IT POSSIBLE TO OVERCOME IN A DISPUTE? This question seems at least strange. Nevertheless, there are people who, one might think, are seriously convinced that this is impossible. “If you argue and object, you can sometimes win, but it will be a useless victory, because
From the book The Philosopher's Universe author Sagatovsky Valery NikolaevichTRUTH IN A DISPUTE In an argument, one must strive to find out the truth - this is one of the most important, if not the most important, requirement for an argument. The fundamental importance of this requirement was first emphasized, perhaps, by Socrates, who sharply argued with the sophists. The latter are known to
From the book Revolution.com [Fundamentals of Protest Engineering] author Pocheptsov Georgy GeorgievichINCORRECT TECHNIQUES These methods are diverse, but their essence is the same - to pass off unreliable, unverified, or even simply false as true and trustworthy. Such techniques include, in particular, the previously considered sophisms. In contrast to the involuntary logical
From the book How to Win an Argument: On the Culture of Controversy author Steshov Anatoly ValentinovichFirst day. Forms of fear and protection
From the book Fundamentals of the Theory of Argumentation [Textbook] author Ivin Alexander ArkhipovichDISPUTE ABOUT DISPUTE Students of one of the universities decided to create a discussion club where they could discuss the problems of social life, science, and art that are of interest to them. They devoted the first meeting to the methodology of the dispute: how should discussions be conducted so that they give
Chapter Four Change of regimes from outside and methods of protection against
From the book Art and Life author Morris WilliamEvaluate the interlocutor in the dispute Is it possible to start a fight without knowing anything about the opponent? A difficult interlocutor should be considered a person about whom we know nothing. The strongest may be the one about which we do not want to know anything. On the other hand, unprepared for
From the author's bookRules of conduct in a dispute Imagine that you have not fulfilled the agreement on any issue and entered into a dispute, having a debt. The interlocutor has doubts about your commitment. It would seem, a trifle. You do not attach any importance to this, and the partner
From the author's bookPositions in a dispute Of all the positions (relationships) in a dispute, constructive and destructive approaches stand out most contrastingly. What are they characterized by? By what signs can one judge what position the enemy has taken? As for the apodictic dispute, here
From the author's book7. GREAT THINKERS ABOUT DISPUTE AND CRITICISM The party of the revolutionary proletariat is strong enough to openly criticize itself, to call mistake and weakness a mistake and weakness without prejudice. VI Lenin... Criticism is the duty of a revolutionary. V. I. Lenin ... Everyone
From the author's book8. Is it possible to win an argument? This question seems at least strange. Nevertheless, there are people who are seriously convinced that this is impossible. “If you argue and object, you can sometimes win, but it will be a useless victory, because you never
From the author's bookStandard software package for protecting the body In today's times, people only very rarely demonstrate absolutely fantastic, from the point of view of the layman, miracles of the invulnerability of the body. They sometimes, without scorching hair and clothes, pass through the fire, in which metal is writhing and
From the author's bookManifesto of the Society for the Preservation of Ancient Buildings The society with the indicated name appeals to the general public, and therefore it is obliged to explain how and why it proposes to protect ancient buildings, which, as most people believe, have so many beautiful
Often in Russian people come across expressions that have a figurative meaning. Proper pronunciation always emphasizes the education of a person. Many in life have to get into an argument, so it's important to know what it means to fight back.
dictionary
Initially, the verb was used in fencing to denote the reflection of a blow, repulsing an attack. Later, the word began to be used in verbal disputes. Used in a figurative sense. Literally: "Reflect (reflect) attacks, arguments of the opponent." What does it mean to parry in a conversation? If the opponent parries in the dialogue, then he has moved to the stage of the winner. That is, a person can succinctly defend his position.
Parry examples in dialogue
It is believed that the best defense is an attack. If the interlocutor reproaches, use the inertia of the blow against him. To understand what it means to parry, you can pay attention to this example of a dialogue between two people.
You do not know how to work with clients - the second buyer leaves you empty-handed.
And you count how many people made an order, and compare the results with the results of other employees.
Aggressive opponents are fought with a soft method. To do this, the barb is turned into a compliment, disarming the enemy.
You talk so much!
This is because you are a wonderful listener.
When expressing negativity, a person is asked to clarify what exactly he does not like. It turns out that in fact everything is much better than he imagines.
Your product is of poor quality!
What exactly do you not like?
We have a huge range, let's choose another option.
When they try to prick a person, using his own weaknesses, this indicates bad manners. The statements of a tactless interlocutor are treated with humor. If you are accused of stinginess, you can offer to borrow money until payday. A great way is to parry in the style of a boomerang. When reproached for the inability to dance, the opponent is asked to be taught how to do it beautifully. An attempt to show that a person does nothing at home is answered with a proposal to tell the interlocutor what he is doing and to share responsibilities with him.
PARRY meaning
T.F. Efremova New Dictionary of the Russian Language. Explanatory- derivational
parry
Meaning:
steam and rove
1. nesov. and owls. transitiona) Reflect with a sword or saber an opponent's blow in fencing.
b) Reflect the blow of the opponent in sports.
c) Repel the attack of the enemy, the blows of the enemy in battle.
2) trans. Reflect attacks or arguments of the opponent in a dispute.
2. nesov. neperekh. obsoleteBet.
S.I. Ozhegov, N.Yu. Shvedova Explanatory Dictionary of the Russian Language
parry
Meaning:
PARRY, -rue, -roar; -any; owls. and nesov. , what.
1. In fencing: to reflect (-press) an opponent's blow.
2. trans. Immediately, quickly present (-vlyat) indisputable objections to something. (book). P. arguments of opponents.
| owls. also from~, -ruyu, -ruesh; -any.
Small academic dictionary of the Russian language
parry
Meaning:
Ruyu, -ruesh; owls. and nesov., transition
(nesov. parry).
Reflect (reflect), beat off (beat off) (initially, a blow is in fencing).
Soldiers and officers fought for three days, fending off enemy attacks from all sides. B. Polevoy, Brothers.
In order to fend off possible counterattacks, we moved the 31st Light Rifle Brigade closer to the enemy stronghold at night. Shcherbakov, Offensive.
2. trans.
Immediately, quickly reflect (reflect), refute (refute) (someone's attacks, arguments, etc. in a dispute).
I am always reminded of the calm dignity with which Ballod countered my objections. Korolenko, History of my contemporary.
Not for a single moment interrupting the thread of his report, Vladimir Ilyich casually parried the cries of the Mensheviks, and the Menshevik screamers immediately fell silent, faded, slanted by the murderous Leninist logic. Samoilov, In the wake of the past.