Chapter 27 6. Help the other party analyze the problem objectively

Introduction: You must stand in his position to consider the problem and further refute him. Virtually everyone you meet—even the person you see in the mirror—overestimates themselves and thinks they are kind and unselfish.Morgan analyzed in one of his short essays: "A man usually has two reasons for doing anything, one is pleasant and the other is real." As I said before, I am not as sure of many things as I used to be.This is not a pessimistic argument, it's just that I can now understand some things more objectively, and no longer look at things from the narrow personal experience, personal knowledge, personal beliefs and personal standpoints as before.But many times, some people are still convinced of many things that I have confirmed before but now doubt.Thinking of this makes me very anxious.

A murderer called "Two Guns" Crowley once drove his girlfriend on a country road, and he parked his car in the middle of the road.At this time, the police came over and asked him to show his driver's license.Without saying a word, he drew his pistol and shot at the police.When the policeman was lying on the ground, Crowley jumped out of the car, drew the policeman's pistol, and shot the body again.This was, of course, only one of Crowley's many crimes, for he had killed countless people in his life. On May 7, 1931, police surrounded Crowley in his girlfriend's apartment and threw tear gas into the house in an attempt to force Crowley out of the house.But even an hour later, Crowley crouched behind a couch and fired at the police.When the police captured Crowley, who was stubbornly resisting, New York City Police Chief Maroney made a public speech. He said: "This is a veritable murderer, and any trivial matter will become an excuse for him to kill."

But Crowley himself didn't think so.He wrote in his open letter: "No one knows that I hide a tired and kind heart under my vicious appearance. I am not willing to kill anyone." Do you believe the words of this murderer?No, absolutely no one will believe it.But he actually felt that there was nothing wrong with him. Could it be that he deliberately defended himself?no.Because he didn't realize from the bottom of his heart where he was wrong.For such a person, what would you like to say to him? When you're talking, it's not uncommon to meet people who seem stubborn.These very stubborn people, from another perspective, we can call people with strong beliefs.These people will not easily change their views, as long as it is the fact they believe, if there is no more conclusive and stronger evidence, they will never doubt it.

These people are actually very similar to this Mr. Crowley.What, compare them with this notorious murderer?Yes, please don't doubt it.They do have something in common, that is, the same stubbornness.It's just that Mr. Crowley made it look even more unconventional.I don't want to comment on these people, no matter what kind of personality you have, "not enough" and "over" may have the same effect, but for different things, this persistent belief often has different effects.For example, if you insist on something that you should not insist on, then it is your fault; and if there are some correct things, the more firmly you believe in them, the better for you.

You are convinced that your opinion is right and that of others is wrong.But it is not an easy thing for you to let others realize this.You can't say to him: "The facts are clearly there." Such words are not convincing, because he has also seen the facts, but everyone sees the facts differently.But you clearly know that his opinion is a kind of prejudice, he is looking at the problem from what you think is not correct.At this time, you should try to make the other party understand things objectively.In this way, he will truly realize the mistakes he has made. Just like the previous case of the murderer, such a stubborn person is not limited to him.

In our opinion, these heinous criminals are obviously wrong, but why are they so stubborn?Because we have been measuring them with our own values ​​and judging them with our own morality.For them, they are also seeing things from their own perspective, which is why everyone keeps making excuses when they make mistakes. The reasons why they make mistakes or commit crimes are complex, but the reason is simple: they all think what they are doing is right!These people have obviously made common sense mistakes (or crimes) and cannot look at problems objectively. How can we force ordinary people to be objective—they just cannot be objective on some relatively unimportant or unclear issues? Seeing it in a correct way-to see the problem in a completely correct way?

After Theodore Roosevelt left the White House, he was annoyed by the conservative style of his successor, the Republican President Taft.Therefore, he not only severely criticized Taft in public, but also formed the "Elk Party", intending to run for president again.Their debate nearly collapsed the Republican Party, leading directly to the biggest defeat in the history of the Republican Party in the election history. But Taft did not blame himself for this. He said tearfully afterwards: "I don't think I did anything wrong." Let's not care who is right and who is wrong in this matter, but I can find that criticism is like sparks, it is enough to detonate vanity and self-esteem in people's hearts, and make people ignore that doing so may kill people .If Roosevelt had been able to consider the issue from Taft's standpoint - assuming that Roosevelt was right, this would not only allow Roosevelt to consider the issue more objectively, but of course it would also be able to persuade Taft to change his policy.And if Taft was right, he could do the same.And they seem to only know how to criticize, complain and blame each other, which is actually very stupid.

To help others understand things objectively, we must first know what he thinks and how he came to this idea.Everyone has a certain habit of sticking to their own opinions.Of course they look at problems from their own experience and their own standpoint to make judgments, and they think this is right.When someone doubts his correctness, he will not hesitate to defend his views unless you can point out his fatal flaw.Therefore, you must consider the problem from his standpoint and further refute him. I would like to use my own personal experience to illustrate the importance of letting others see things objectively in persuading a person.When I usually persuade or persuade others to do a certain thing, I first stop and think about the question "how to make him do it willingly".This method has benefited me a lot.

When I first gave my lectures, I rented a hotel ballroom in New York City as a venue.Each session of my training requires 20 nights of rental.I didn't worry about it at first, because the rent was an amount I could afford.But once, when a new round of speeches started, the hotel suddenly called me and told me that I had to pay rent that was three times higher than before.I don't want to change the venue of the speech because everything is already in place.I intend to persuade the manager of the hotel to dispel such thoughts.It was clear to me that they only had their own interests in mind, but I believed I could convince the manager.

"Your notice really surprised me." I said to the manager with a smile when I saw him, "But I didn't come here to blame you. I know, if I were you, I would do the same Yes. Because if you don’t, the restaurant’s interests will be damaged, and you will be fired. Now, for the sake of the hotel, let’s analyze the pros and cons of this decision.” I took out a piece of paper that I had prepared a long time ago from my bag, and drew a line in the middle of the paper as a division of "pros" and "cons".Next, I wrote "can be used for other purposes" on the "benefit" side, and explained to him: "Yes, you can rent the ballroom to people for dancing or meetings. There is no doubt that it will definitely be more efficient than that." The price of renting it to me is higher. If you rent it to me, it means that you have lost a lot of money."

Next, I wrote "Reduced Income" and "Advertising Effect" on the other side of the paper, and then explained to him: "First, because I can't pay your rent, I have to find another place. You are bound to vacate this ballroom for a period of time. Relatively speaking, this is a reduction in income compared to now. Secondly, you know that every time I give a series of lectures, it will attract many people - including many celebrities - to your hotel Residence, don't you think it's the best advertisement? How much do you need to spend each time you advertise in the newspapers? If I'm right, $5,000 should be necessary. And, the newspapers The effect of advertising may not be so great. Isn’t it very valuable for a hotel as big as yours?” Finally, I handed this piece of paper to the manager who was still thinking, and said to him: "For your benefit, please think about it carefully, and then inform me as soon as possible." Notified me that my rent only needs to be increased by 50%, not 3 times what was previously decided. I'm not here to explain how clever my approach is, I just want to show that when we persuade others, we can do it in a simpler and more effective way-let others be objective know things.As long as you can stay sane and calm, you can try to do the same. How to make the other party accept your "objective analysis": (1) Don't comment on other people's views, but tell the other party that he is currently bound by some objective condition or some wrong idea, and this prejudice should be eliminated. (2) Don't directly tell others what to do and what to think, but tell him what the real thing is. (3) You don't need to show what is right and what is wrong, but tell him what is true and what is false; or what is obvious and what is easily overlooked.