How to win an argument

This is actually a trick question, since arguments are based on at least one three fundamental disagreements:

1. Different information Each of you may have different information, so you will each reach different conclusions. If you pull 4 socks from a drawer and they are all black and the other person pulls 4 socks from the same drawer and they are all white, you will each have a different perspective of what is in the drawer. Only by opening the drawer and looking at the contents will you both come to an agreement.
2. Different beliefs. It is common to see what we believe, to have our beliefs color our perspective of what is true. You will find that information will have different meaning to people with different beliefs.
3. Different trusts. Who you trust will definitely color your opinion. If you have information and a belief system both pulling you in one direction and a trusted source pulls you in a different direction, you are likely to follow the trusted source.

There are also 3 types of people who will disagree with you:

1. The uninformed (who do not have complete information). These people just need more information.
2. The opinionated (who have beliefs and trusts other than yours). These people can not be won to your side with information. They are positive they are right and will resist the impact of information. Indeed, unless the information comes from a trusted source or is in keeping with their beliefs, they will not believe it, or will accept it as true but irrelevant.
3. The boorish, who are just rude and insensitive, much like a bully or a brutish animal.

It is always possible that you might be in the wrong, so an argument should approach the topic as follows:

• Is the person a boor? If so, don't bother, as agreement is not possible
• Is the person very strongly opinionated, and is that opinion based on different trusts or different beliefs? If so, the chance of convincing that person of their error is quite low. The way to approach these people is to ask what leads them to trust that person or why do they feel their beliefs are correct. You will likely get circular thinking ("I trust him because he is always right") or an internal defense of beliefs ("It feels right to me"). You might ask for external confirmation. "Why do you think that good people might not have the same trusts or beliefs as you?" A person who declares that all who do not see things his way are not good people should be challenged with the knowledge argument (so, good people accept blindly. How is that different than any other blind belief?). Can you think of any data that might suggest that your beliefs and/or trusts might be wrong or too strong? Why do you think that I don't have the same beliefs or trusts as you? (watch for ad hominem attacks against you at this point).
• Is the person open to other beliefs and trusts, but just has different information? If so, you have an opportunity to come to an agreement by convincing the other person through information and alternative beliefs and trusts.

In summary, it is easiest to find common ground with those who share your trusts and beliefs. It is much harder to do so when beliefs and trusts are not shared. Facts do not change the minds of those with belief systems different from yours. Shared beliefs will not change minds of those who trust others to lead them.

Most would accept that drinking cyanide is unhealthy for the body (a fact) and many would agree that socialism is the ultimate enlightenment (a belief), but few would drink the kool aid without the command of the trusted leader.