When I was working in a surgery in a hospital on the ambulance brought her grandmother. In appearance she was 70 years for Passport data specified the age - 74. It was in the middle of the dashing 90's, when the hospital was nothing. Even the bedding, not to mention the medications. Illness grandmother demanded the use of antibiotics. And as it was accepted, I wrote a list of medications and handed to his relatives, so that they have purchased drugs at the pharmacy, and we began treatment.
Grandma looked critically list, and told his son not to buy antibiotics. And it is very necessary. Naturally, I asked the question, why it suddenly. What grandmother said that she was treated with antibiotics for three days. I asked, "How?". "Aspirin" - said Grandma
"But aspirin - not an antibiotic," - I said. Granny looked at me and said look wiser sacramental phrase, intonation mother that accesses unreasonable child: "Son. You still see the young. Many do not know. I always treat germs aspirin. And as you can see, alive and well. »
I was on years of youth began to argue that the grandmother is mistaken, that does not have any effect, because grandmother was 100% confident in the antimicrobial action of antibiotics. As a result, I was not able to convince granny. So I had to agree with relatives, and antibiotics we pricked it, but under the guise of liquid aspirin. Grandma safely discharged, really I think that her faith in antibiotic aspirin after treatment strengthened, which could play tricks on her in the future.
In later life I have noticed that there are quite a lot of people with limited knowledge, with a minimum of argument, but which emphatically stand on his own opinion. Attempts to convince these people of anything, even if you are a professional in the field under discussion, is impossible.
I remember a discussion on the site with a girl, living in Kazakhstan, and there are a couple of times in Russia. She claimed that the Russians, who are dissatisfied with something the situation in the country and the economy in particular "oborzeli" and do not understand what they are living in paradise. A main argument, which allowed her to learn Russian as a paradise, is the speed of the Internet in airports. And its availability.
In any argument, she led a counter-argument, by type, so you have access to the Internet. What are you dissatisfied?
friend recently invited to a birthday party. It is based on hunting, which was commanded by the huntsman Petrovich. When the conversation turned to cars, then Petrovich firmly and categorically stated that the Russian people should ride a Russian car. Where did he get this clear. Maybe because he went to the UAZ, but to move it from this position it was impossible.
For fun, I just started talking to friends "include the fool", and achieved amazing results. They tried me in something persuade, angry, cry to my mind. But I, in accordance with the role has remained deaf to all arguments and stupid brought their few arguments. I was invincible.
Finally, I will briefly formulated for themselves components of such a position. Why did I do it?
Firstly, to be able to recognize and not to try to convince these people. Do not spend the time and energy.
Second, in some situations, you can include a "fool for technology", which is sometimes useful.
Components of an invincible position in the dispute:
1. The irrationality of the argument. That is, no matter where you take the argument. It does not matter that you can not answer why you think so, what is the actual scientific basis or reasoning. It is important that this is your argument, and it does not matter its rationale. Especially effective arguments built on:
Someone else's opinion. Good television, authorities and so on.
Superstition. Stars, signs, power.
You can, after all, does not justify anything, explaining that phrases like "everyone knows».
2. Limitation of arguments. The less you have arguments, so much the better. The man with one argument does not win at all. No need to be sprayed. You do not need to see the situation systematically. The strength of the limitations. Then you are invincible. In this case, education and systemic vision of the situation become enemies, betrayed the vision of contributing to the situation from different angles.
3. The categorical arguments. Definitely consider their arguments ultimate truth.
4. Do not take the partner's arguments. Better they do not even penetrate. Just stand on his own. In an extreme case, to help you to work out clearly allow all partner arguments.
5. Everybody thinks so, but you're different. Do you take a lot on yourself.
6. abasement partner: "What naivety»
7. Charges partner or argument: "So can talk only traitors»
8. Reception Panikovski: remember how agitated Panikovski Balaganov steal weights at Koreiko under the pretext that they were gold. And when Balaganov questioned: "What if they are not gold." What Panikovski laughed and said: "And what else?»
9. It is easy to go to the individual, accusing opponents around what you want. Especially good working doubts mental faculties, charges of naivete, not awareness, lack of understanding of the situation.
10. Use the value judgments, irony, jokes. From this opponent is nervous and irritable.
11. Take the position of "I do not spend." Take a look at the opponent, as a psychiatrist to the patient, or Lenin, the bourgeoisie.
You can also add items is more than one, but that's enough. If you see that your partner adheres to these arguments, believe me, you its nothing convincing can not. It is 100% effective position, which guarantees invincibility.
Truth and communicate with such a person does not want to. But that is another story.