Are you allowed to interfere with the other?
Accomplishment lives from reacting directly to an attack. In a discussion with the audience, however, it is often the case that each person delivers his or her speech and the other person has to remain silent. He then has the opportunity to comment on the accusations, attacks, claims.
This tacit agreement has something for everyone, everyone should be allowed to spread his arguments unmolested, that's only fair, and yet there are two possible disadvantages for you:
- Before you speak, it's about something else. No one really knows what you're referring to now. You seem like someone who lags behind the discussion and wants to turn back the wheel - that does not suit well.
- A repetitive response comes from the fact that she gets out of the situation. Each delay reduces its effectiveness. If you wait for it to be your turn, you can make your remark the same.
Be sparing with interruptions
What, then, when a repentant response comes to your mind while the other one is talking? Can you just interrupt this? They may. However, only if your remark is really real. Because you have to weigh whether the thing is worth it. If you land a hit, then no one asks if you were at all in line.
On the other hand, you undoubtedly break the unwritten rules. So, if your comment is not so sparkling, shoot an own goal. On top of that, you can not complain now if your counterpart now interrupts you. Some "old hands" know how to use such mistakes masterfully.
Even if you always come up with repetitive replies, leave it in one or two interruptions. Otherwise, you will not be ready to hit, but will be stingy and obtrusive. At all, you must be careful not to push the other one too much against the wall.
Beware of the "Niedermachern"
In discussions, we want one thing above all: one's own arguments should be brilliant, the arguments of the opponent of the discourse, on the other hand, are to be made manifest in their entire gaps. This, of course, makes us very happy when the other knowledge gap is revealed, cramped, helpless or right-handed.
Finally, we collect points. It is, of course, triumphal, if you catch the other with a self-contradiction, and indeed one that your listeners also understand. Then you almost won.
Almost, because you are well advised to prepare. Above all, beware of so-called "Niedermachern", remarks that completely "settle" your counterpart. Such "Niedermacher" fall back on you very easily. Even if your adversary is discredited once and for all, it may not benefit you in any way. On the contrary, the public resents your behavior. It will make your opponent impossible, but you too.
Never go to the last
They will reap a much more striking success if the audience is impressed with the impression that the other has comparatively mildly come away. This implies that the other person must never appear completely weak. When he has talked about his head and collar, do not trample on him for God's sake, but help him, strengthen him, praise him. You will think you are very fair and objective. And in a sense this is true.
It is not advisable to provoke your conversation partner too pushy. The stronger your provocations, the more sympathy you pay.
"Will you please excuse me?"
By far the most common sentence that comes up in discussion is, "Will you let me finish, please?" Yes, it can certainly be predicted on certain roundtables. The higher the proportion of politicians, the more likely this magic mantra falls.
First of all, there is nothing wrong with this sentence. Everyone has the right to present his view of things. It goes without saying that one speaks to the end and that one does not need to tolerate comments and malicious interruptions. An unequivocal "Now it's my turn!" Ensures that you enforce your right.
Unfortunately, in many discussions there is a veritable "Auseritis". The saying "Will you please excuse me?" Is used for two purposes, both equally questionable:
- to get more speaking time,
- to put the other wrong.
You should not put up with both. Whenever "Auseritis" spreads, you should act.
Punish the other: Let him talk it out!
The most effective remedy for "Auseritis" is simply not to interrupt the other, not to interrupt it, even if, in your opinion, it is telling the greatest nonsense. In that case, he has to spend all his speaking time on intellectual property and that's not so easy. He repeats himself, his reasoning is lengthened and - what a gnawing for you! - he starts to contradict himself.
A famous writer once said that no sensible person could speak five minutes at a time without contradicting each other. There is certainly something to it. So sit back, open your ears, and listen to what your counterparts call together.
More knowledge - Podcast, PDF download, eCourse or personal advice
Offline download: Download this text as PDF - Read usage rights, Because we do not automatically submit the title of this text for privacy reasons: When buying in "interests" the title register if support is needed. After buying text exclusively Download at this URL (please save).
Listen to Podcast & Download MP3: You can listen to this text for free, as member even without annoying popup, or download the MP3 for a fee - Read usage rights, After the purchase page refresh, then you will find the download link here. Because we do not automatically submit the title of this podcast for privacy reasons: When buying in "interests" the title register if support is needed.
Your eCourse on Demand: Choose your personal eCourse on this or another desired topic, As a PDF download. Up to 30 lessons with each 4 learning task + final lesson. Please enter the title under "interests". Alternatively, we are happy to put together your course for you or offer you a personal regular eMailCourse including supervision and certificate - all further information!
Consultant packages: You want to increase your reach or address applicants as an employer? For these and other topics we offer special Consultant packages (overview) - For example, a personal phone call (price is per hour).