Rule #2: Mention Anything You’ve Learned

“It’s the exact opposite of what I trained to do in law school. I was trained to think litigiously. [W]henever you say something, I’m listening with an eye toward invalidating — anything I can say to undermine you. And that’s typically the way we approach an argument,” Freeman said on

Listing the points on which you agree can defuse the situation and bring the temperature down. It also reminds you that the argument is much larger than the points of contention, reducing the winner-take-all mentality to silence our inner lawyers.

Taken together, rules one to three are abo...

That’s the ultimate takeaway of Rapoport’s rules. No one has to pay, and we don’t have to approach disagreements as the do-or-die death matches of ideas and identity. Will we always reach an agreement or solution? Of course not. Smart, rational, and responsible people can differ in opinion. But i...

Additionally, Freeman recommends praising the other person when appropriate. You could mention the eloquence or passion they bring to the conversation. It could be their knowledge of the subject or their ethically minded approach. The point isn’t to substantiate their position; it’s to recognize ...

This response is graded: “The more trust one is shown by others, the more oxytocin is released in the brain,” Zak wrote for Greater Good Magazine . Therefore, the more we can use r...

With that said, there are times when you may want to swap this rule out for another strategy. For instance, sometimes it’s best to walk away. You may find yourself in an argument with someone who perversely en...

During heated arguments, information and intentions can be obliterated beneath a fusillade of feelings. That’s because yelling and aggressive body language effectively weaponize words . When that happens, you and the other ...

Research by neuroeconomist Paul Zak has shown that when we feel trust, our brains release oxytocin. While popularly known as the “love hormone,” oxytocin isn’t just about romantic intimacy. Zak’s studies have shown that oxytocin increases cooperation, reduces social wariness of others, and enhanc...

This rule has been used by Chris Voss , businessman and former FBI negotiator, to great effect in many potentially hazardous conversations. On the Lex Fridman Podcast , he sha...

Voss agreed but under one condition: Before being allowed to state their arguments, participants had to summarize the other side’s position strongly enough that their interlocutors would say, “That’s right.”

As Voss pointed out in an interview with Big Think+: “The issue of winning and losing needs to fall away to: Was this a great collaboration where we were both better off and I was treated with respect? Because if I feel like I was treated disrespectfully, I’m going to make you pay.”

Similarly, you can choose to build on the conversation rather than offer a critique. An alternative that Freeman advises is to probe further. Ask open-ended questions. Discuss areas where you are confused. Show where your position may be an extension of theirs. This creates a sense of co-ownershi...

We’ve all had one of those arguments. You know the kind: Things start civil enough, but then the other person says something that rankles you. Maybe it was their tone, a mistaken fact, or them repeating the same point yet again. You shout that they aren’t listening. They hit back that yo...

Enter mathematical psychologist Anatol Rapoport. Rapoport devised a code of conduct for offering critical commentary that he hoped would advance, rather than inhibit, further discussion. That code would later be synthesized by philosopher Danie...

But even when arguments center on intense or highly personal subjects, they don’t have to regress into verbal fisticuffs. They can be sources of learning and clarity that leave us better off — whether we reach an agreement or not....

The first rule is to explain the other’s position as accurately as possible. However, your paraphrase shouldn’t be a perfunctory tit-for-tat exchange —  that is, “See, I listened to you; now, it’s your turn to listen to me.” Your goal instead is to demonstrate care for the other person’s feelings...

Did the conversation end with everyone in agreement? No. But Voss recalls that no one lost control either. “We wanted to show people that you can have conversations that don’t devolve into screaming matches with vitriol, talking about how you’re dedicated to the destruction of the other side,” he...