Parry arguments. What does it mean to parry: in the dictionary, when communicating
PARRY meaning
T.F. Efremova New dictionary Russian language. Explanatory and word-formative
parry
Meaning:
steam And́rovat
1. nesov. and owls trans.a) Repel an enemy’s blow with a sword or saber in fencing.
b) Reflect an opponent’s blow in sports.
c) Repel an enemy attack, enemy blows in battle.
2) transfer Repel attacks or arguments of an opponent in a dispute.
2. nesov. nepereh. outdatedBet.
S.I. Ozhegov, N.Yu. Shvedova Explanatory dictionary of the Russian language
parry
Meaning:
PARRY, -ru, -ruesh; -anny; owls and Nesov. , What.
1. In fencing: parry (press) an opponent's blow.
2. trans. Immediately, quickly present indisputable objections to something. (book). P. opponents' arguments.
| owls Also from~, -ruyu, -ruesh; -anny.
Small Academic Dictionary of the Russian Language
parry
Meaning:
I rip, you rip; owls And nesov., trans.
(nesov. parry).
Reflect (reflect), repel (repel) (originally a blow - in fencing).
Soldiers and officers fought for three days, fending off enemy attacks from all sides. B. Polevoy, Twin Cities.
To fend off possible counterattacks, we moved the 31st Light Rifle Brigade closer to the enemy stronghold at night. Shcherbakov, Offensive.
2. trans.
Immediately, quickly reflect (reflect), refute (refute) (someone's attacks, arguments, etc. in a dispute).
I always remember the calm dignity with which Ballod parried my objections. Korolenko, History of my contemporary.
Without interrupting the thread of his report for a single moment, Vladimir Ilyich casually parried the cries of the Mensheviks, and the Menshevik screamers immediately fell silent, faded, mowed down by the murderous Leninist logic. Samoilov, In the footsteps of the past.
Methods of defense in a dispute
Argument is the most inappropriate form of communication between interlocutors. As a rule, this is an expressive clash between two sides, when both strive at all costs to achieve the triumph of their opinion. In nine cases out of ten, the argument ends with each interlocutor becoming even more convinced that he is right. Even if you managed to gain the upper hand at first, in the end it turns out that victory is no closer. Why? Here the wounded pride took its toll, and it was no longer ideas that came to the fore, but ambitions. We touched living person, he is naturally indignant. The interlocutors' desire to search for complementary positions disappears. All energy is directed towards repelling the enemy, and his stubbornness erects the final barrier. The search for truth turns into confrontation. Two or three more drops of bile - and controversy will begin to rage, and this is already a brutal verbal battle. Is swearing necessary for the sake of business? V.I. Lenin, for example, believed that it was necessary. “I love it when people swear - it means they know what they are doing and they have a line” (V.I. Lenin, Poln. sobr. soch. T. 47. P. 19).
What to do if a dispute breaks out? Defend your position (if you claim the truth) and defend yourself using polemic techniques. The totality (by no means complete) of such means is shown in Diagram 3. Conventionally, they are divided into logical, parrying, speculative and incorrect. They all boil down to refutation, neutralization and defense. Discrediting statements are refuted, misconceptions and incorrect conclusions are neutralized, and defended against attacks.
The functions of the techniques complement each other. The same technique, but in different situations plays a different role. Let's look at some techniques without knowledge of which you should not get involved in a dispute. Anyone who masters the means of polemics feels like a trained boxer.
AN EFFECTIVE COMPARISON. This is a very easy logical operation. The technique itself works on the power of trust. If, on the basis of any fact, a person believes in the truth or falsity of something and then encounters a fact that contradicts the first, then his trust is reduced by the amount of the persuasive power of this new knowledge. Let's see how this happens using the following example.
Scheme 3. Means of verbal confrontation in various disputes
“The French bacteriologist Louis Pasteur studied the culture of smallpox bacteria in his laboratory. Unexpectedly, a stranger appeared to him and introduced himself as the second of a nobleman, who thought that the scientist had insulted him. The nobleman demanded satisfaction. Pasteur listened to the messenger and said: “Since I am being called, I have the right to choose a weapon. Here are two flasks; in one smallpox bacterium, in another - clean water. If the person who sent you agrees to drink one of them to choose from, I will drink the other.” The duel did not take place."
Let us analyze the train of thought of Pasteur’s opponent. He was offered a choice: a pistol duel, where the probability of staying alive was the same as dying; and an unusual duel, frightening with an incurable disease. The strength of confidence in one's ability to shoot accurately turned out to be less than the confidence to choose a glass of water. A contradiction arose in which the desire to “shoot” disappeared and was suppressed by the persuasive power of the new weapon proposed by the scientist for a duel. The opponent abandoned his idea, which, by the way, was based on an assumption and not on explicit premises.
Indirect criticism worked in this technique. Pasteur did not analyze the accusation made to him by the nobleman at all, but immediately neutralized it.
It must be borne in mind that the persuasive power of a new message when compared with existing information (conviction) is not the same for everyone. What dissuades one may not have any effect on another.
A variant of effective comparison is the technique of contrasting comparison of assessments. The power of the technique is impressive due to the contrast in assessments of the same phenomenon (fact). Associations from opposing opinions represent the event three-dimensionally. As a result, the side that was previously not noticed is clearly highlighted.
“When comparing Khrushchev to Brezhnev, Nixon focuses on detail. A poorly tailored suit for the first, an elegantly tailored suit for the second. Khrushchev loved duck hunting and took an active part in it. Brezhnev preferred hunting big game, but the huntsmen did all the “dirty work” for him. He only shot from a gun with an optical sight” (Sturua Melor. Two photographs for one portrait // Week. 1988. No. 43. P. 16).
KILLING ARGUMENT. The name of this technique, frightening at first glance, corresponds to the crushing power of its impact. A killer argument is a judgment (counter-argument or fact) that deals an irreparable blow to the opponent’s thesis. After this technique, further defending an opinion becomes vain and meaningless. It is used when other, “softer” techniques do not produce any effect.
A killer argument is especially devastating when related to the opinion of an authority figure. More often in this version it is used to put an end to the discussion. Let's look at an example.
At the June Plenum of the CPSU Central Committee in 1957, the Stalinists tried to persuade the Central Committee to decide to release Khrushchev from the post of First Secretary of the CPSU Central Committee. And then Marshal G.K. Zhukov threw out a killer argument: “The army is against this decision, and not a single tank will budge without my order.” This phrase subsequently cost him his political career and the position of Minister of Defense. Another evidence that this technique requires special caution.
AUTHOR'S COMMENT. The essence of the technique is to “unwind” frauds, falsifications, false analogies, sophistry and other tricks and abuses of the opponent. By destroying the camouflaged argumentation, it allows you to deprive the thesis of supporting grounds. The thought becomes unreliable, does not necessarily follow from the premises given by the interlocutor, and, therefore, cannot claim to be true.
The reception mechanism is simple. First, we present a quote from the publication, a statement from the speaker’s speech, in which we found “fig leaves,” as V.I. Lenin put it, that is, untenable arguments. We analyze the course of the opponent’s argumentation. At this stage, we establish the falsity of interpretations, the illogicality of the conclusion, and reveal the reasons for speculative fraud.
By destroying the reasoning, which should undermine the credibility of the conclusion, we attack the source itself, the author. With the help of discrediting facts, we show the dishonesty of the person from whom the thesis comes. Thus, by questioning the sincerity of the other side’s intentions, we undermine the authority of the opponent. This step serves as an indirect criticism.
We complete the refutation with humor, irony, and sarcasm in order to evoke emotional reinforcement of the analysis. Anecdotes, sharp words, and parodies are appropriate here.
COUNTER QUESTION. Effective reception neutralization, effective avoidance of the substantive statement. As a result, we don’t give “yes” or “no,” just think as you know. In another case, counter-questions reveal vulnerabilities in the interlocutor’s position or reveal nonsense. The technique does not affect the thesis and antithesis, but does not allow further discussion, development of the conversation in an unpleasant direction, and excludes the possibility of criticism. Let's look at how it worked in one discussion.
In the novel by Y. Skola “Safety Techniques” (Moscow, 1980, p. 157) there is a situation where one of the managers of a mining and processing plant, in a discussion with members of the Swedish delegation, used counter-questions and got out of a difficult situation to the applause of his opponent and listeners.
“The lanky Swede with a strangely bloodless face took the floor. Turning to Kryakvin, he spoke as if he had fired at him in short bursts. The translator translated:
Tell me, Mr. Kryakvin, why do you, at your very excellent enterprise, have so many slogans calling for good work?
“One,” Kryakvin bent his finger.
Is it possible to work badly if they pay good money for your work?
And finally, aren’t your workers irritated by this monotony of treatment?
Three! - Kryakvin balled his fingers into a fist. - I'll answer. I’ll answer... But this is how - four questions? Do you agree?
The Swedes looked at each other: questions for questions?.. Nonsense...
Kryakvin noticed how intently Vereshchagin was looking at him from the side.
So how? - Kryakvin broke the pause.
The lanky one nodded: I agree.
Let’s go,” said Kryakvin. - So the first question is... How many of you, gentlemen, sitting here, are true believers?
The translator translated, and almost all the foreigners bowed their heads.
Thank you. Question two... How often do you turn to the Almighty in your prayers with the same thing?.. Third... Doesn't he get tired of such monotony of appeals? And finally, the last question, the fourth, as agreed. Doesn't this monotony irritate the Almighty? - Kryakvin smiled slyly...
The translator had not yet finished the translation, and laughter had already broken out at the table. Someone clapped their hands. Someone shouted: “Bravo! Ka-ra-sho! The lanky man approached Kryakvin and silently shook his hand.”
In this example, no response is given to the unkind hint, and the opponent’s thought is camouflaged. Kryakvin neutralizes it with counter-questions quite tactfully and quite witty. The interlocutors retreated to their positions, maintaining pleasant impressions of each other.
TAKE AT YOUR WORD. The essence of the technique is to indicate to the interlocutor that he does not accept the thought that he himself proposes. In other words, “if you call yourself a milk mushroom, get into the back.”
At one of the “Memory” rallies, a speaker asserted that their society does not have “any bad intentions against Jews,” much less has the goal of persecuting them. During the pause, someone asked permission to ask a question.
Please speak,” the speaker agreed.
Here I am a Jew. I want to join your organization and participate in the implementation of your plans. Tell me how can I do this? Who should I contact?..
The speaker was confused. The pause dragged on. It ended with him having to leave the podium. The speaker who replaced him was no longer accepted, and the crowd began to disperse.
Thus, with the help of this technique, the listeners’ faith in the concept proposed by the heralds of “Memory” was undermined.
OUTPUT ANALYSIS. The technique is an analysis of the interlocutor’s reasoning, which leads to error. We destroy the logical consequences derived by induction, deduction and analogy. What is reasoning using these logical methods?
Logical inference from particular, isolated cases, experimental data, from the observation of certain facts, leading to a generalized conclusion (“brilliant generalization”) is called inductive. If the facts are isolated, manipulated, observations are given with prejudice, or the case is extremely rarely repeated (not typical), then the conclusion of the conclusion is not strong.
This fragility of the argument must be discovered and the rationale for the thesis itself must be destroyed. For example, from the fact that among those leaving the USSR there are representatives of the intelligentsia, the conclusion is erroneously drawn: “The intelligentsia in the USSR is initially dissident and is in conflict with the existing system.” This conclusion is derived inductively. But a private fact is not yet the truth, although someone may believe it.
More often, false conclusions are drawn by analogy, when a conclusion is made on the basis of the similarity of two objects, phenomena, facts in some respect. This similarity extends to other relationships between these objects, processes, life situations. Conclusion from particular to particular - analogy - third method logical thinking. Noting similarities and concluding that these objects are identical in other characteristics and relationships, we reason by analogy. Analogy is a simple, faith-based method of influence in discussion, argument, and controversy.
There is a literal analogy when objects belong to the same class and are similar. For example, an Englishman and an Australian aborigine are in this relationship, despite the fact that one may prefer oatmeal, and the other earthworms. Both of them are people... And a figurative (or rhetorical) analogy establishing the similarity of objects various classes. For example, the flight of thought and the flight of a bird.
Literal analogy is very valuable for logical proof. A rhetorical analogy awakens the imagination and enlivens the subject of speech, but it would be a mistake to use it as evidence. It is in speeches that speakers most often abuse figurative analogies. The message looks convincing in itself, due to the trust in the image that has formed in our brain under the influence of words and impressions.
Remember: an analogy improves the accessibility of reasoning, but does not increase its persuasiveness. It can be used as a source of justification only when the similarity has been carefully verified.
How to neutralize the analogy and thereby the thesis? First, determine whether there is a significant difference between the compared items. We must remember that complete similarity between objects and phenomena does not exist. The greater the difference, the more untenable the analogy.
Logical refutation techniques are based on detecting deliberate violations of logic in the interlocutor’s reasoning. They are directed against fraud, falsification, substitution of concepts, theses and other sophistical tricks.
A group of parrying techniques is used to repel attacks and incorrect remarks that compromise the opponent’s intentions. They serve to protect the speaker's personality and, indirectly, their own position. These means of argument do not lead to a constructive result, but without them it is difficult to fight, it is difficult to demonstrate confidence, assertiveness, and readiness to fight. The main function of parrying techniques is to cool down violent debaters, and in some cases, demoralize the enemy. Let's look at some of them.
RETURN KICK (BOOMERANG). The essence of this technique is contained in the words of Aristotle: “We will turn what is said against ourselves against the one who said it.” This blow can be carried out by people with a powerful mind, quick reaction and a sharp tongue.
Having intercepted a word (concept) thrown by an opponent, we beat it and parody it. Let us see how two of the strongest polemicists mutually used this technique in the dispute of 1925.
“Metropolitan Vvedensky. I do not at all insist on the point of view that we all did not descend from monkeys. You materialists know your relatives better.
A. Lunacharsky. But I don’t know who is better - the one who, having come from the bottom, descended from animals, rose through the efforts of his genius to the present humanity, or the one whom the highest God created in his own image and likeness and who descended to the point where, as says gr. Vvedensky, it’s a shame for animals when people are compared to them” (quoted from: Lunacharsky A.V. Christianity or Communism. L., 1926).
The return strike is most effective when the opponent has a dubious reputation, causes distrust, and shows disrespect for opponents in the debate.
ANGER RESPONSE. A technique aimed at neutralizing the interlocutor’s thesis, but at the same time it also affects the individual. Essentially, this is an objection in a sharp, even sometimes aggressive, form to statements camouflaged as a benevolent judgment. A low, mean, sycophantic phrase should be whipped and your anger should be directed to the service of a just cause. We find an example of such a parry in the political practice of Ekaterina Dashkova.
“Prime Minister, Prince Kaunitz Wenzel Anton (1711 -1794) - Austrian State Chancellor,
the main leader of Austrian politics under Maria Theresa, vain and spoiled by the empress, who believed that he had no equal in intelligence and deep knowledge of politics, in a conversation with Ekaterina Dashkova about the role of Peter I in the history of Russia, expressed the idea:
Don’t you think at all, princess, that he brought Russia closer to Europe and that it has only been recognized since the time of Peter I?
A great empire, a prince, with such inexhaustible sources of wealth and power as Russia, does not need to get closer to anyone. A mass as formidable as Russia, properly governed, attracts whomever it wants. If Russia remained unknown until the time you are talking about, your lordship, this proves - forgive me, prince - only the ignorance or frivolity of European countries that ignore such a powerful state" (quoted from: Ekaterina Dashkova. Notes. 1743 - 1810 . L., 1985. pp. 126-127).
COUNTEREXAMPLE. It is not always worth answering the question asked by your interlocutor. Of course, he has the right to ask about everything, but his opponent also has the right not to answer, especially if he notices his opponent’s attempt to extract information from him, which he can then use against him. There is only one thing left to do - tactfully answer the question.
But you also need to be able to avoid answering without offending your interlocutor. In this case, a counterexample is quite suitable. You can conditionally approve the question, even agree with your opponent’s thought without repeating it, and give a similar example, a case that is well known to all participants in the dispute. Associations will do their job. The opponent will receive a click.
“In a conversation with cosmonaut A. A. Leonov at a meeting in the United States, one of the reporters remarked, as if in passing: “Isn’t space exploration too expensive?” “Of course, it’s expensive,” agrees Leonov and retorts: “Probably, the Spanish queen also felt sorry for the money for Columbus’s expedition.” But she gave them. And who knows when America would have been discovered if the queen had been greedy.” Everyone laughs and applauds. And the loudest reporter" (quoted from the book: Nozhik E. A. Fundamentals of the Soviet oratory. M., 1981. P. 313).
IRONY. This is a deep, hidden mockery, but it sometimes hurts the enemy more than the strongest words of indignation. Of course, you need to be sure that you are right in order to use this means of expression. The place of irony is at the end of logical conclusions. Here she provides emotional support for the thesis. Just as a master delivers the most confident final blow to a nail, so a polemicist, turning to irony, puts the final point.
The technique of irony involves the use of words in the opposite meaning, a feigned, serious-looking statement that contradicts the everyday. This technique can be enhanced by contemptuous mockery, grotesque, sarcasm and other effects of a polemical situation.
Irony is divided into good-natured, sad, angry, caustic, angry, etc.
We find many examples of irony in Lenin. Ironic parting words: “Good riddance, my dears!”
Ironic exaggeration: “Praise you, Comrade Bazarov! During your lifetime we will erect a monument to you: on one side we will write your saying, and on the other: to the Russian Machist, who buried Machism among the Russian Marxists!” (Lenin V.I. Complete collection of works. T. 18. P. 115).
The simplest option is ironic quotation with paraphrasing, accompanied by revealing and mocking remarks, reservations, caustic remarks: “let’s note in parentheses,” “what can you say,” “no words,” etc. Let’s give an example of how V.I. Lenin uses such techniques. Criticizing Mikhailovsky, who confused the obvious meaning with terminology like “child production, which has its own physiological and psychological roots,” he makes remarks: “For other children, are you telling this, Mr. Mikhailovsky, that child production has physiological roots?! Well, why are you talking with your teeth?” (Ibid. T. 1. P. 150).
Further, when Mikhailovsky goes on and on with his learned nonsense, piling one nonsense phrase on another: “Without the products of ‘child production,’ without them and without this complex and intense psyche that is directly adjacent to them,” Lenin again rewards this gibberish with mocking irony: “No, pay attention to the language: the complex psyche is “adjacent” to the products of childbirth! After all, this is a delight! (Ibid. p. 151).
Irony must be accompanied by the necessary intonation, gesture, and refined speech technique (pause, raising the voice, highlighting the main word with emphasis, force of sound, repetition, etc.)
Knowledge of the methods of criticism certainly gives confidence to the polemicist, but does not yet guarantee success. It's all about skills, a sense of the communication situation, and tactics of balancing on the edge of what is permitted and what is not permitted. In a dispute, the positive and critical-negative elements of statements are dialectically merged, and the birth, the search for truth, occurs in an emotionally intense form. Here you need to figure out along the way at what point to weaken resistance, make a concession or compromise; where to increase the requirement for the opponent’s argumentation, for the reliability of the facts he cites; what to do in case of a psychological barrier, rejection of each other; and most importantly, when to stop, interrupt the monologue and give the other person the opportunity to speak out and understand his point of view. All this forces you to learn self-regulation. Need good practice, constant training.
RESUME
What does it mean to prepare for argument and controversy?
2. Have at the ready means of neutralizing the incorrect actions of your interlocutor.
3. Don’t count on immediate support from your friends, rely on the masses.
4. Don’t be discouraged by discovered errors. Perhaps this is an escape from failure. Delusion is a property of the mind.
5. Be sociable. Don't avoid talking to smart people.
6. Avoid arguing with a narcissistic and arrogant person.
7. Beware of the timid, their consent is unreliable.
8. Know how to defend your position: choose tactics and an appropriate method of neutralization or refutation.
9. Respond to questions and comments knowledgeably. An interlocutor without comments is an opponent without his own opinion. There is little benefit from it.
From the book Dictionary of Psychoanalysis author Laplanche JPROTECTION MECHANISMS German: Abwehimechanismen. – French: mechanismes de defense. – English: mechanisms of defense. – Spanish: mйcanismes de defensa. – Italian: meccanismi di difesa. – Portuguese: mecanismos de defesa. Various types operations characteristic of psychological defense. The main mechanisms differ according to the type of emerging
From the book Comments on Life. Book three author Jiddu Krishnamurti"Won't you join our humane society?" The sun in the sky was very bright and a cool breeze was blowing from the sea. It was still quite early in the morning, there were very few people on the streets, and heavy traffic had not yet begun. Fortunately, today is not the day
From the book The Art of Thinking Correctly author Ivin Alexander ArkhipovichABOUT DISPUTE FOR THE SAKE OF DISPUTE The art of arguing is usually called eristics (from the Greek eris - dispute). Eristics should teach the ability to convince others of the truth of the views expressed and, accordingly, the ability to persuade people to behave in ways that seem necessary and
From the book The Grammar of Sets: Towards the Analysis of Forms modern life by Virno PaoloIS IT POSSIBLE TO WIN THE ULTIMATE IN A DISPUTE? This question seems strange to say the least. Nevertheless, there are people who, one might think, are seriously convinced that this is impossible. “If you argue and object, you can sometimes achieve a victory, but it will be a useless victory, because
From the book The Philosopher's Universe author Sagatovsky Valery NikolaevichTRUTH IN DISPUTE In a dispute, one must strive to clarify the truth - this is one of the most important, if not the most important requirement for a dispute. The fundamental importance of this requirement was perhaps first emphasized by Socrates, who sharply polemicized with the Sophists. The latter, as is known,
From the book Revolution.com [Fundamentals of Protest Engineering] author Pocheptsov Georgy GeorgievichINCORRECT TECHNIQUES These techniques are varied, but their essence is the same - to present unreliable, unverified, or even simply false as true and trustworthy. Such techniques include, in particular, the previously discussed sophisms. Unlike involuntary logical
From the book How to Win an Argument: On the Culture of Controversy author Steshov Anatoly ValentinovichFirst day. Forms of fear and defense
From the book Basics of the Theory of Argumentation [Textbook] author Ivin Alexander ArkhipovichDISPUTE ABOUT DISPUTE Students of one of the universities decided to create a discussion club where they could discuss problems that interest them public life, science, art. They devoted the first meeting to the methodology of the dispute: how to conduct discussions so that they give
Chapter Four Change of regimes from the outside and methods of protection against
From the book Art and Life by Morris WilliamEvaluate your interlocutor in a dispute. Is it possible to start a fight without knowing anything about your opponent? A difficult interlocutor should be considered a person about whom we know nothing. The most powerful may be the one about which we do not want to know anything. On the other hand, not prepared for
From the author's bookRules of conduct in a dispute Imagine that you have not fulfilled an agreement on any issue and entered into a dispute, having a debt behind you. The interlocutor has doubts about your commitment. It would seem like a trifle. You don’t attach any importance to this, and neither does your partner
From the author's bookPositions in a dispute Of all the positions (relationships) in a dispute, constructive and destructive approaches stand out most contrastingly. How are they characterized? By what signs can one judge what position the enemy took? As for the apodictic dispute, here
From the author's book7. GREAT THINKERS ABOUT DISPUTE AND CRITICISM The party of the revolutionary proletariat is strong enough to openly criticize itself, to bluntly call error and weakness error and weakness. V.I. Lenin...Criticism is the duty of a revolutionary. V. I. Lenin...Everyone
From the author's book8. Is it possible to win an argument? This question seems strange to say the least. Nevertheless, there are people who are seriously convinced that this is impossible. “If you argue and object, you may sometimes win, but it will be a useless victory because you never
From the author's bookStandard package of programs for body protection In modern times, people only extremely rarely demonstrate absolutely fantastic, from the point of view of the average person, miracles of body invulnerability. They sometimes, without scorching hair and clothes, pass through the fire in which metal and
From the author's bookManifesto of the Society for the Protection of Ancient Buildings The Society with the indicated name addresses a wide circle of the population, and therefore it is obliged to explain how and why it proposes to protect ancient buildings, which, as most people believe, have so many beautiful
Often in the Russian language people come across expressions that have a figurative meaning. Correct pronunciation always emphasizes a person’s education. Many people have to get into an argument in life, so it is important to know what it means to retort.
explanatory dictionary
Initially, the verb was used in fencing to denote repelling a blow, repelling an attack. Later the word began to be used in verbal disputes. Used in figurative meaning. Literally: “Repel (repel) the attacks and arguments of the opponent.” What does it mean to parry in conversation? If the enemy parries in dialogue, it means that he has moved to the stage of victory. That is, a person can succinctly defend his position.
Examples of parries in dialogue
It is believed that the best defense is an attack. If the interlocutor reproaches, use the inertia of the blow against him. To understand what it means to parry, you can pay attention to this example of a dialogue between two people.
You don’t know how to work with clients - the second buyer leaves you empty-handed.
And you count how many people made an order, and compare the results with the results of other employees.
Aggressive opponents are dealt with using a soft method. To do this, a barb is turned into a compliment, disarming the enemy.
You talk so much!
This is because you are a great listener.
When expressing negativity, a person is asked to clarify what exactly he does not like. It turns out that everything is actually much better than he imagines.
Your product is of poor quality!
What exactly do you not like?
We have a huge assortment, let's choose another option.
When they try to prick a person using his own weaknesses, this indicates bad manners. The statements of a tactless interlocutor are treated with humor. If you are accused of stinginess, you can offer to borrow money until payday. An excellent way is to parry in the boomerang style. In response to a reproach about the opponent’s inability to dance, they ask him to teach him how to do it beautifully. When trying to show that a person does nothing at home, they respond with an offer to tell the interlocutor what he is doing and to share responsibilities with him.
PARRY
PARRY
1. In fencing, deflect (deflect) something (a blow).
2. trans. Repel (repel) something (attacks, arguments of an opponent in a dispute, etc.). Parry opponents' arguments. Parry the argument.
Ushakov's Explanatory Dictionary. D.N. Ushakov. 1935-1940.
See what “PARRY” is in other dictionaries:
- (French parer, from Latin parere to prepare) to reflect blows in fencing. Dictionary foreign words, included in the Russian language. Chudinov A.N., 1910. PARRY [fr. parer reflect, beat off] 1) sport. in fencing: to reflect an enemy's blow, ... ... Dictionary of foreign words of the Russian language
Reflect, repel, refute, snap back, answer, retort, refute, repel, reflect, give an answer Dictionary of Russian synonyms. parry 1. see reflect (reflect). 2... Dictionary of synonyms
PARRY, slash, slash; anna; Sovereign and imperfect., that. 1. In fencing: reflect (press) an opponent’s blow. 2. transfer Immediately, quickly present indisputable objections to what n. (book). P. opponents' arguments. | Sovereign Also… … Ozhegov's Explanatory Dictionary
parry- I. PARIE I parer, parieren to reflect, repel.1. Repel an enemy's blow with a sword or saber (in fencing). BAS 1. In fencing, repulse, deflect, turn away, brush aside a blow. Jan. 1806. [Kipatilin:] Hey! Someone!.. what to do, So be it; ... Historical Dictionary of Gallicisms of the Russian Language
Repel (attack), from it. parieren - the same (originally a professional term for equestrian sports and fencing) from lat. ready to cook (Kluge Götze 433) ... Etymological Dictionary of the Russian Language by Max Vasmer
I nesov. and owls 1. transfer Repel an enemy's blow with a sword or saber in fencing. Ott. Reflect an opponent's blow in sports. Ott. Repel enemy attacks and enemy blows in battle. 2. transition; trans. Repel attacks or arguments of the enemy in... ... Modern explanatory dictionary Russian language Efremova
parry- (V different meanings) What. Soldiers and officers fought for three days, fending off enemy attacks from all sides (B. Polevoy). I always remember the calm dignity with which Ballod parried my objections (Korolenko) ... Control Dictionary
parry- parry, rue, rue... Russian spelling dictionary
parry- (French parer to reflect, repel) Deftly repel attacks or arguments of an opponent in a dispute... Dictionary linguistic terms T.V. Foal
Books
- Medium and shorter range missiles. Doomsday Weapon, Shirokorad Alexander Borisovich. President Trump's decision to withdraw from the INF Treaty led to the most serious crisis in relations between the Russian Federation and the United States in the 21st century. What are intermediate and shorter range missiles? How and why do they...
- Personal territory. Psychological protection from aggression and manipulation, Sergey Klyuchnikov. Book of a famous practical psychologist, business coach and creator of the activation system creative potential person S. Yu. Klyuchnikova is devoted to a very relevant problem today...
5.1. How to repel an attack in dialogue
Now let’s look at methods and strategies for attacking and parrying attacks in short dialogues.
Method one: The best defense is an attack.
If your interlocutor reproaches you for something, use the inertia of his blow against him. Defend yourself while attacking, emphasize the difference between the situations on your side and his, give a tangible click.
For example:
“– you don’t know how to communicate with a client, this is the third time a visitor has left you without making a purchase”
“So you have time to count my statistics instead of work duties?”
“You too often refer to the works of the classics”
“- because, unlike their contemporaries, they knew how to develop themselves, and did not lecture others”;
Method two: transforming negative into positive.
This is the most win-win method, because it allows you not to strain relationships, but, on the contrary, turns a barb into a compliment and can disarm anyone. This gentle method works very well with aggressive interlocutors.
For example:
“-your apartment looks more like a cluttered barn”
"- what do you! This is only in comparison with your sterility"
“Your work does not correspond to the given topic at all”
“- but it allows you to look at it from a different angle, which you correctly noticed”
“You talk too much!”
“With such an interlocutor you want to not just talk, but sing”
Method three: clarification
When your opponent expresses negativity, you can disarm him by asking for clarification of what exactly is bad about this or that moment. It often turns out that it is not what is being criticized that is bad at all, but the bad mood of the interlocutor casts everything in a black light. As soon as you show a person that his dissatisfaction is far-fetched, it disappears without a trace.
«– Your product is disgusting!
“What exactly do you not like about him?”
“I don’t like this color”
“Is he unpleasant to you only today or always on Thursdays?”
“It’s very expensive!”
“What price would be acceptable for you?”
Fourth method: comparisons in your favor.
When they try to prick you using your weaknesses or character traits, don’t hesitate. This is a prohibited technique that distinguishes tactless people, be humorous about being seen in this light and make a series of analogies that will show the other person that you are in wonderful shape.
For example:
“You have a big belly!”
“This is a lifeline that you are deprived of because of your own causticism.”
"You're stingy!"
“But with me you can always “intercept before payday””
“You eat too much!”
“But I don’t drink much and don’t fight”
“You work slower than others”
“But I cannot be blamed for inattentive haste”
Method five: boomerang
If you are reproached for something, you can address the same reproach to its author, using in an unexpected way what he wanted to offend you with as a weapon, turning to his skills.
For example:
“You dance disgustingly!”
“Then teach me how to do it beautifully”
“This is too crude an idea”
“Then maybe you can tell me how to cook it?”
“You don’t do anything around the house”
“Then let’s tell you what you do, and we’ll divide the responsibilities.”
Method six: mirroring
When your interlocutor comes at you, do not waste time and repel the attack with lightning speed; to do this, use the most basic method, which is also very effective. It is built on the principle of “that’s how you are,” remember how in childhood, when you were called an unflattering word in the sandbox.
“You are completely incompetent in this matter”
“But you have a specialist’s diploma collecting dust...”
“You are too harsh”
“But you can hear me better”
There is another variation of this method, when his own words are even used against the interlocutor. For example:
"- This is too long!
“- and “too long” for you – how long, and how much time is interpreted by you as “too short?”
“Your proposal is not viable”
“What are your gradations of vitality?”
Seventh method: categorical
In order to disarm your opponent and temporarily remove him from the exchange of remarks, you can use the principle of categoricalness, when you agree with his statement in an exaggerated form or completely deny it. With your consent, you seem to take a step to the side when they swing at you, and the enemy is carried by the inertia of his own blow past you. When you categorically and sharply deny, it is similar to a frontal attack, which not everyone is able to withstand without collapsing.
For example:
“You look disgusting today!”
“You are more observant today than ever”
“You don’t understand that you are talking nonsense”
"- exactly! So I'm trying to speak your language"
“Your offer is more expensive than other companies”
“You're crazy! Have you seen what their commissions are?”
“You weren’t taught politeness as a child”
"- No!"
“You haven’t studied the situation well”
“It seems so to you because your information is outdated”
Method eight: genius
As you know, people tend to believe general image and often submit to someone who positions himself head and shoulders above the rest. You can use this feature of the human psyche in a conversation and suppress your opponent with a sense of your own superiority and genius. To do this, you can use ingenuity or a bit of arrogance.
For example:
“Your proposal didn’t appeal to me.”
“That’s great, because it should attract customers, and you’re not one of them.”
“You don’t understand technology well”
“But I offer effective, not beautiful methods”
“Why do you think your proposal is successful”
“- because otherwise I wouldn’t insist on it”
Ninth method parries: paraphrasing
This method is widely used in working with clients, when the goal of the conversation is to convince the buyer, overcome his mistrust and work out objections. It is very effective, but requires a certain amount of attentiveness from you. When your interlocutor reproaches you for something or questions your proposals, check with him, detailing the phrase he said, whether you correctly understood the reason for the objection.
For example:
“It’s very expensive!”
“- that is, you want to say that your comfort and convenience are cheaper?”
“This sounds implausible”
“Are you saying that I’m lying to you?”
“What you sold me broke the next day”
“- that is, your use of the item led to its breakdown?”
Method ten: scattered counterattack
We called this a scattered counterattack because, when repelling a blow, you do it without a targeted direction or appeal to a specific person, but as if in general, but everyone takes what is said personally. This helps to achieve the disqualification of several opponents at once.
For example:
“You got a disgusting haircut”
“But I look least like the crowd with the same hairstyles”
“You always have a mess in your papers”
«– better than a mess in papers than in personal life"
“You are simply inadequate”
“- individualism has always caused envy among those who do not possess it”
These techniques are, of course, conditional, but they reflect the general nature of repelling attacks quite realistically. Let's go over the ten basic parry techniques again. So, this is a counter attack, clarifying the statement, making a comparison in one’s favor, mirroring the attack, using disarming categoricalness, suppressing the interlocutor with authority and genius, paraphrasing the statement and bringing it to the point of absurdity, and an absent-minded counterattack. Using them in life is quite simple, and with a little practice you will automatically be able to give your opponent a proper rebuff. In order to consolidate them as a habit and bring them to automaticity, exercise constantly - among like-minded people, friends, at home while watching movies or television programs.
There are a number of people who hone their parry skills on TV announcers, directing their barbs at them. This training method is also good because it teaches you not to wait for a response from your opponent, which is the correct behavior at the moment of a real exchange of remarks.
As a respite, let's look at some popular sayings: famous people, which have become popular and are often used as aphorisms.
Faina Ranevskaya, a great actress of all times, was famous for her wit; today you can even find a whole selection of her pearls, with which she skillfully besieged people who were too curious and not entirely tactful.
– Do you have a soulmate? – the journalist asked the actress, well aware of her loneliness.
– The brain, the pills and the ass have a soul mate, but I’m originally whole!
One actress once asked Faina Ranevskaya what she thought about Mrs. N, to which the brilliant actress replied: “I can only think about real things, my dear, and not ephemeral and empty ones.”
One day a question was asked from the crowd addressed to Mayakovsky:
– Is it true that from the great to the ridiculous is just one step?
“Yes,” answered the poet, “and I am taking this step towards you.”
This ability to parry and repel an attack is a brilliant opportunity to clearly express yourself. In the secular salons of the last century, this trait was very popular and in demand among the languid society, which still knew how to show its teeth. Consider the following classification of tactics that can allow you to gain the upper hand in verbal battles when you are in a multi-opponent situation, such as at a negotiating table or in a company.
