Speak Well, But Never Argue With Others.

< p > we often say that a certain population is good. Some people are good at communicating. More often than not, a person's communication is more convincing than ordinary people. Such a person can quickly grasp the key to the problem and express it accurately and accurately.

On the contrary, though some people have been talking all the time, they are always saying nothing but being unreasonable.

We are not always able to maintain rational thinking. We often feel helpless about this. We often think about it after the event. What do we do when a real dialogue "master" meets these problems? There are many famous people in the past history. When they fail in the debate, they still stubbornly stick to their fortress, so there are many instances of their defeat.

< /p >

In October 6, 1976 P, President Carter and the United States participated in the first debate for the presidential election. At that time, the question raised by journalist Marx Franken on the question of Poland made a reply that "Poland is not controlled by the former Soviet Union," and said that "the fact that the former Soviet Union has strong power to control Eastern Europe does not exist."

The speech made a clear mistake, so it was immediately rebutted by the reporters.

At the beginning of the refutation, Marx's voice was still more tactful and intended to give Ford president a chance to revise.

He said: "I am sorry to mention this, but do you mean that the former Soviet Union did not convert Eastern Europe to its appendages? In other words, the former Soviet Union did not rely on its own military forces to suppress Eastern European countries!" < /p >

< p > if Ford was very wise at that time, it would be the best choice to admit his own slip of the tongue and retreat. However, at that time, he felt that he was a president of the country. If he faced up to the national television audience to admit defeat, it would not be a good policy. He continued to insist on it and then made a mistake again, which resulted in a heavy price for the upcoming election.

In this debate, the media, including all the columns and editorials, has also made a series of related reports about Ford's serious blunders. Do they wonder if Ford is a real fool or just stubborn as a donkey? < /p >

< p > this is Carter, of course, taking the opportunity to put this question again and again, and three of the put forward.

< /p >

< p > If a wise debator is being hit by the other side, he will ease the embarrassing atmosphere caused by a slight applause or nod and smile. As a result, audiences and listeners will not understand what kind of medicine you are selling in the gourd.

Some think this is a good demeanor for them to obey the truth; some will think it is an open-minded mind that they scorn to justify.

In the final analysis, whether they admit defeat or not can only be described by an unknown answer.

In this way, the debating house can be said more cleverly, and they can say to the other side, "you speak really well!" and if a tendon goes on, it will only make the situation worse and worse.

< /p >

< p > it is well known that in Da Vinci, 2011, an open letter entitled "communication to friends of the media" was issued in the year of Italy. In the letter, it insisted that the furniture sold by the company was imported from the original products of the company. Their firm was determined not to accept the requirement of no return, emphasizing that the presupposition of the presupposition of the media was "counterfeiting", which made consumers more puzzled and unnecessary worries and made it difficult for them to accept.

< /p >

< p > the company's response to the public's doubts is only a news conference, and there is a 62 page open letter, which is the attitude of the media after the exposure of Da Vinci furniture suspected of fraud.

As far as its general content is concerned, its main thrust is nothing more than justifying and shouting ill will, which is exactly the same as that of many other suspected fraudsters. There are not two kinds of them.

< /p >

< p > "we have no intention to shirk our responsibilities, but we have also asked the media friends to pay more attention to whether the problems we have are the common problems in the whole industry or just the personality problems of our enterprises. Is our company doing relatively well or relatively bad in the whole industry?" this is a paragraph written in the lengthy "gully communication".

It is rather a censure if a word is sharp and high in tone.

Da Vinci only knows that his problems are a common disease in the industry, so he generally takes the lead of the industry himself, and accuses the media of injustice and prejudice.

< /p >

< p > the number of wrongdoers can never be the reason for "crying out for mercy". This is like being deceiving the law enforcement officer after being caught cheating. Instead, he blames the law enforcement officer. This is clearly the "savage words of" everyone else is cheating. "

With a little analysis, it is easy to see that Da Vinci's words are clear and unreasonable.

Even if such problems are common in the industry, Da Vinci company is indeed the leader in the industry. Should the "leader" get forgiveness after making a mistake? The phrase "unshirking responsibility" in Da Vinci's letter is just for its own sake.

< /p >

< p > Da Vinci's logic is not logical. It is obvious that it is drilling the authority to deal with the vacancy and straighten the waist to the public.

However, the public is not a fool and will not be deceived. Therefore, the producer of the problem is best able to listen carefully to the aspirations of consumers, and to be more sincere in "changing the situation and not encouraging them".

< /p >

< p > the so-called logic of reasoning is to grasp logic, reason and facts.

Communication needs to be communicated with "heart", always be honest with each other, put oneself on a level equal to each other, and give the other party a sense of security. Since ancient times, facts are more eloquent than words. Let us not ignore facts and use words to reason. Only in this way can you turn from an absolutely dialogic "low hand" into a full dialogue "master" and win the initiative in communication.

< /p >

< p > the most striking feature of a man who is unreasonable is that he has no reason to seek reason, and constantly defends his own wrongdoing.

But bluffing and rhetoric will only aggravate the anger of others, and the unreasonable arguments between people will only cause reconciliation and breed anger, and even more violence.

If the rhetoric is generated in the power organs, it will make the ordinary people in the society imitate and become a negative benchmark, so that the whole society will be involved.

< /p >