best within a business environment or in some highly structured organization such as the army or police. Anyone who has ever worked in an office or factory will have seen a boss who is always right, no matter how wrong he may be. Bosses like this don’t argue about the facts of a case (they may well be ignorant of them and, in any case, they regard them as largely irrelevant). No, their chief concern will be that by pursuing a particular course successfully (getting their own way), and putting down any opposition they may encounter, they get to stay Chief Baboon.
Subordinates will often play along with this game by deliberately deferring to the boss and letting his opinions hold sway even when they know he is wrong. In that way they help to confirm his status and thus bolster their own position in the pecking order. One of the features of a pecking order is that people do not mind it as long as it remains unchanged. In fact they will engage in regular rituals that are designed specifically to reconfirm the order. However, someone who dares to try to upset the status quo will spark off the bitterest of status arguments.
Another interesting feature of status is that the people who concern themselves with it do not have to be ‘important’. It is not only officers and gentlemen who worry about their pecking orders. Think for a moment of the stock comedy figures of the mild-mannered gentlefolk who organize the church flower rota. Anyone who has experienced the intrigues and political chicanery attendant upon a church flower rota will know that the issue of status is just as important to the meek and humble as to the high and mighty.
Emotion
Arguments are frequently very emotional occasions. It is surprising that, even when we think we are engaged in a rational discussion about some matter of objective fact, a contrary opinion can stir feelings of resentment or even anger. The truth is that no one likes to be contradicted or, even worse, proved wrong. Issues of status are immediately brought into play in almost any argument. You may not care two hoots about a particular topic until someone tells you that your opinion on the subject is wrong. Then you may well feel inclined to fight to the death to prove yourself right.
This is a human reaction and, as such, we have to live with it. There is no point trying to pretend that you are some sort of superhuman being who is not affected by the heady emotions attached to an argument. However, if you are aware of the extent to which you may be emotionally involved in what is being said you may be able to stand aside from yourself just enough to prevent falling into the worst excesses.
It used to be said that the forbidden topics of polite conversation were sex, politics and religion. Nowadays many people pride themselves on getting to grips with the issues of the day and having full and frank discussions on things that really matter. There are far fewer taboos about what can be discussed. However, there has been no significant inward change in the way people feel about such topics. If you really want to get someone stirred up you have only to attack his religion or his politics, and sex, of course, is just a minefield. I would add another issue to this short list of dangerous topics: children. No issue is more contentious than the upbringing and education of children. For some reason just the mere mention of the word ‘children’ is enough to drive normally sane, sensible people into a frenzy. From that moment no theory is too nutty to be espoused and no statement too extreme to be proposed. Non-believers can expect pretty much the same treatment as heretics at the hands of the Inquisition. Beware when you argue about children!
The emotional content of an argument may often be of far more importance than the intellectual content and this is a fact that you ignore at your peril. Once hurt pride becomes an issue then it will prove the greatest of obstacles to getting a reasonable solution. In any argument in which you may be involved take great care to consider the effects of emotion.
There are various types of argument, each with its own rules and methods.
The first major division is into public and private arguments. It is enormously important to decide whether you are arguing to convince an individual or whether you are merely using that person as a sounding board to help you convince others.
Private Arguments
Those arguments that take place between individuals, or in a small group of people with no audience listening, are clearly in the private category. The fact that such arguments are, by definition, carried on without an audience will have a profound effect on their shape. In a private argument, what is said will tend to be regarded as ‘off the record’ and people may well feel able to reveal feelings and opinions that they would hide from a wider audience. Inevitably a private argument will tend to concentrate on the personal aspects, even when matters of public importance are being discussed. Anecdotal evidence is very common in private arguments and people will frequently use their own experiences, and those of friends and relatives, to try to prove a case. They will often not be able or willing to see that just because Uncle Harry smoked forty cigarettes a day every day of his life from the age of eleven, and lived till he was eighty-seven, then that doesn’t mean that it must be a load of rubbish that smoking gives you cancer.
Unless the participants are experienced arguers they will tend to make common mistakes such as confusing fact and opinion or quoting facts inaccurately. One of the strongest ploys you can use in private arguments is Know-all (see page 49), the simple ruse of knowing the facts and quoting them accurately. However, know-alls are never popular in any sphere and in arguments, where emotions are usually heightened, you risk making yourself unpopular by always knowing better. It may be wise to save this technique for occasions when it really matters.
Another important facet of private arguments is that the participants will take the outcome intensely personally and will frequently carry it over into other parts of their private life. You must have noticed how an argument with friends or colleagues can have repercussions quite out of proportion to the importance of the original disagreement. People have been known to refuse to speak to each other for days, months or even years because of some minor squabble that got out of control.
One of the troubles with private arguments is that they often serve as an outlet for underlying hostilities. In fact such an argument will frequently be engineered solely for the purpose of providing an outlet for past grudges. Even where the original argument is genuine, it is surprising how, when emotions become aroused, the placid surface of everyday behaviour gets completely disrupted. Once this has happened there are no limits to what can result. Look, for example, at what happened in the former Yugoslavia when some of the constituent peoples informed their Serb neighbours that they would like to go their own way and form independent states. This may at first appear to be a matter of politics but, when you listen to the stories of those involved, it becomes apparent that many of the grievances and hostilities had their origins in squabbles between neighbours that got completely out of hand. News reports all emphasized that people suffered atrocities that were committed not by a foreign army but, in many cases, by people they knew by name.
Public Arguments
On the other hand, in a public argument the participants are usually much more interested in the effect their words will have on the audience than in whether they can convince an opponent. Indeed, most of the people who argue in public (businessmen, lawyers, politicians, journalists) come into the category of professional arguers. Their whole career is conducted in an atmosphere of verbal strife and they attack or defend a point of view on a purely professional basis. It is not being cynical to suggest that frequently they do not personally believe in the point of view they are expressing with such eloquence at all. For the most part, ‘ordinary’ people do not come into contact with the world of professional public arguments. But it can happen. If it does you must be able to decide whether you should
