Have you ever found yourself having a discussion with someone that shifts into an argument, only to find yourself flabbergasted by their responses? Many people try to use psychological tricks to win arguments rather than trying to handle differences of opinion with respect and understanding. They’ll either bulldoze or manipulate others with various tricks and underhanded approaches.
Keep an eye out for the following methods, as they will tell you that the person you’re arguing with has no intention of finding a resolution: they just desperately need to be right by any means necessary.
1. The straw man attack.
Psychology Today tells us that a straw man attack is a trick that involves a person misinterpreting what you’ve said, then arguing the version of your point that they’ve made up and are accusing you of making. One hallmark of this attack is the phrase: “So, what you’re saying is ____”, followed by something you never actually said. They’ve twisted your words or flat-out made up a completely different narrative, and then vilified you for supposedly saying it.
An example of this might be if someone says that current farming practices are cruel, and another person responds with: “So what you’re saying is that everyone should be vegan because animals are more important than humans.” That’s not what was said at all, and they know it.
2. Invalidation due to identity or personal experience.
When a person doesn’t have a valid leg to stand on concerning their argument, they may attack some aspect of your identity or personal experience to invalidate your side of things. Essentially, they’ll imply that your opinion isn’t valid because of your background, gender, educational level, perspective, etc., attacking who you are rather than what you’re saying.
For example, you might be trying to convince an older relative about the very real issue of climate change, and they’ll dismiss whatever you’re saying because A, they’re older than you and therefore know better, and B, you don’t have a degree in environmental science. As such, in their eyes, you don’t know what you’re talking about, and they don’t have to listen to your naive, uneducated opinion.
3. Making false equivalencies.
While some situations might share similar attributes, the intention and the reasons behind them may be vastly different. Unfortunately, some people will make false equivalences (in layman’s terms, they’ll compare apples to oranges) to bully or manipulate others during arguments.
For example, a person who’s arguing for the ethics of a plant-based diet might be told that since plants communicate with each other, they’re just as sentient as mammals and therefore a vegan or vegetarian diet isn’t any more ethical than an omnivorous one.
4. Whataboutism.
This is a tactic that a lot of people use when they don’t want to take accountability for something they’ve done wrong. Basically, if someone brings their attention to something they’re doing (or not doing) that needs to be addressed, they’ll try to accuse the speaker of a similar type of wrongdoing. They do this in an attempt to excuse their own actions and invalidate their accuser’s point.
For example, let’s say you discover that your spouse lied to you about where they were going one day, and found out it was to go see a “friend” they’ve been flirting with online. They might argue, “What about that time when you lied to them about going to your sibling’s place when you were actually planning their surprise birthday party?”
While both of these situations involved a measure of deceit, they are clearly not the same: it’s the intention behind them that makes them completely different.
5. Tone policing.
You might be discussing a subject calmly with someone, and they’ll tell you to calm down, stop panicking, etc. Alternatively, they might say that you’re behaving hysterically or irrationally and refuse to continue talking with you until you change your tone.
Your tone isn’t the issue at all. This person is simply seeking to control the situation — in which they don’t want to address the valid concern you’ve raised — by focusing on how you’re expressing yourself, rather than the issue at hand. It’s essentially a form of silencing another person by implying that they’re expressing themselves in an unacceptable fashion.
6. Appealing to emotion by playing the victim.
A person who doesn’t want to accept responsibility for wrongdoing will often try to turn things around to elicit sympathy by playing the victim and appealing to other people’s emotions. They do this in the hope that others will let go of the issue and turn their attention to soothing them and making peace with the situation instead of forcing them to be accountable for their actions.
People who use this tactic will sometimes fake a panic attack or health issue, or break down weeping about how horrible they are, how they don’t deserve love, etc. They try to make themselves look as frail and pathetic as possible to elicit care and kindness, thus manipulating the situation to their greatest benefit.
7. Attempts to overpower you with repetition or info flooding.
You’ve likely experienced something like this before: someone who realizes they’re in the wrong might start repeating the same thing over and over again like a drill sergeant, usually at increasing volume, not acknowledging what anyone else is saying. Their goal here isn’t resolution: it’s simply to overpower you so you relent and let them win.
Similarly, they might flood you with information in an attempt to intimidate you into silence. They may cite references to bolster their stance, or even try to confuse you by using language that they think (or know) you don’t understand. This is the intellectual equivalent of a bigger kid pushing a smaller one around just because they can.
8. Deflection.
This can be both an evasive maneuver and an attack, depending on how it’s used. A person who uses deflection to try to win an argument isn’t trying to prove that they’re right: they’re simply trying to redirect focus away from the discussion so they can get away from it. They do this by suddenly changing the topic, or going on the attack about something irrelevant to the discussion at hand — usually something that’ll hit a nerve.
For example, person A might be trying to discuss their partner (person B’s) lack of responsibility with a particular issue, and B may respond by asking A if they’ve gained weight lately because they’re looking pudgy and unattractive, especially when angry. This derails the conversation, is potentially hurtful to A, and is likely to end the original argument.
9. Shifting the goalposts.
You’ve undoubtedly encountered this online or in academic circles. Someone will demand that their opponent in a particular argument needs to provide proof, credentials, or some other requested item, and only then will defeat be conceded. When that item is presented, however, the goalpost moves and something else is demanded. Basically, they change what counts as “winning” mid-conversation.
An example of this might be if person A says that unless the person they’re arguing with (person B) is a medical doctor, they won’t listen to anything they have to say about a particular health concern. When B proves that they are, in fact, a doctor, the goalpost is moved: they’ll only be listened to if their degree is from Harvard or Johns Hopkins; otherwise, they’re a quack who got their degree in a cereal box and don’t know what they’re talking about.
Final thoughts…
When people are intent on winning arguments, it doesn’t occur to them to seek mutual understanding. To them, the entire goal is to prove that they are right, and for their perceived opponent to acknowledge this and either back down or apologize as needed.
You can often shut them down (or at least make them back off) by asking them what goal they’re hoping to achieve with their approach. This puts them on the defensive, rather than being aggressive, and can allow you to end the discussion on your own terms.
