My theory on the same is what I mentioned as the title of this blog, "same page". The same page. Now let's see a typical group with a debate going on within.. You have
A.. A group that's on one side
B.. The group that supports the other
C.. Spectators
For example, say the conversation is about say Justin Bieber.. One side being a bieber fan and the other guy thinking bieber is a weapon canada made against the world. both are seeking the approval of the spectators who love Brian Adams with no specific reason to love/hate bieber. That's the inherent behavior of humans being a communal animal.. To try and get a majority support.
I think, the trick of the trade is to take the majority to the "same page".. Ie, talk about stuff which everybody agrees and then state a non-disagreeable harmless statement. You automatically win. I'll explain..
Say I'm speaking for the side of bieber being a Canadian "secret weapon".
If the conversation goes like
"He sucks"
"He doesn't"
"His songs are horrible"
"No it's not"
Etc etc..
Basically it's a street fight where the spectators are pure spectators with no real contribution except for a kick when noone's looking at anyone they can reach.
Instead if the conversation is like:
"He sucks"
"He doesn't"
"He sings love songs being a 14 year old kid and the video he's going behind a 25 year old girl.. What the hell is this. If Brian Adams is doing that, we can understand. Maturity, song, the music blend is just wrong."
" (... The guy can't say anything about the statement as most of the spectators are Brian fans ..) ehh... Hm.. No no no it's not like that blah blah.."
Well, how did he do that? Basically he involved the crowd. Instead of keeping them as spectators. The guy brought everyone to the same page. just like the horse in Troy.. Now if you are the only one who thinks there's something wrong with the horse, you're bound to be frowned upon by every single person around you..
Now fighting through this mess and claiming success is not for faint hearted.
Now say you got no crowd to get a majority. You are arguing with a friend about something. That's when u again try to find the majority. You split your friend into two. Obviously not split literally.. Although that'll win u the fight for sure but no further fun with conversation. Now U don't wanna do that do you?. What I'm saying is you make a crowd of 3... You, a part of him that agrees with you and the other part that is trying to prove his point.
A typical conversation may be like..
"Bieber is bad"
"He's not"
"The music is great, the lyrics are ok.. (And u continue).. But the song context just feels wrong!! Esp how he's portrayed in video"
"... Ah hm.. (Explaination). "
What u just did is to split the guy in agreeing to you because if he disagrees, he would be disagreeing with his own point of those being great song.
Like barter system which I think is another inherent human behavior, he'll feel obligated to kind of let go on his 100% stance and say yeah maybe the videos are not that great... Well now somebody does the music, someone else prolly writes the lyrics and the part where bieber comes in is the singing and video part which your friend just let go..
I'd say.. Another win...
