26d • General
How To Argue: A logician's Guide
I'll show you the exercise + prompt to argue for what is the best way to solve for a common goal.
We use this in business to figure out the right way and end up with a policy that works the best, by questioning the assumptions.
You can do this with others (e.g. my way is the right way) or internally as (Should I do X or Y)
To do this we must
1) Clearly define the argument in a visual, can't argue what you can't describe
2) Question the assumptions with BECAUSE PERMANENT/ABSOLUTE/NEVER (reason)
3) Sides must compromise where faulty logic is e.g. its not a good permanent policy
So lets walk it out
We use the Necessary core logic questions
1) In Order to X, We Must Y, Because Z
First we have a common goal (left most node). In the GRAFTS tree this is whatever common goal. It can be the the biggest one, but whatever can be most focused in scope.
This requires the team has done their quarterly GRAFTS mind map or at least can agree on a common goal or rock or quest or outcome or condition -- something.
The first box (left) is the goal.
The next box (middle) is what is NEEDED
The last box (right side) is what that person (or internal part of you) WANTS to be done.
To get to a resolution, we flesh out the logic (quick) and question the assumptios with because.
You see 5 lines... its that logic
E.g. "Get more opt ins from content" is a common goal, obviously in service of the BIG one (2X the company)
Then you use the In order to X we must Y logic to ask what is the main two big points.
Lets make an imaginary dispute:
In order to 2X opt ins we must... get lots of nurtured qualified buyers with high watch count,
And...In order to get qualified buyers, we need to must commit to longform
OR
In order to 2X opt ins we must... get lots of impressions top of. funnel,
In order to get lots of impressions, we need to focus entirely on shortform...
This is the basic argument.
Most arguments don't even start here, by literally defining the central main point.
Then you question the lines with a because.
Each side voices their reason using because.
And they must use the wording of permanent, extreme language.
ABSOLUTE/NEVER/MUST NOT/ALWAYS etc
Do not use "its sometimes good to do this" -- can't be argued against
But saying "ITS ALWAYS GOOD TO DO THIS" you can find faults.
E.g. ITS ALWAYS GOOD TO BE SAVE MONEY => Well no, we need to spend money to make revenue
There are five lines between the five boxes, each little point of because if disproven (or can be disproven) gets a dot or tally mark that works or nullifies that because argument. E.g. The emotional reason/because got disproven.
If one side has any faulty logic, they concede.
I've NEVER seen both sides be 100% illogical. But in that case, you just need to have better reasons for or against. The D and D' line (between the two) can be shown as a PROS and CONS to generate additional things -- usually
E.g. We should do X because its good, and we shouldn't do (their way) because etc, can all fall under there. A CON of one can be the pro of the other. Then you can see and then question those with Because.
If one side has NO defects, and the other has faulty logic, then the other must concede. If they BOTH have defects, then they both need to compromise.
The compromise can target on the faulty logic... "Its ALWAYS GOOD TO POST ASAP" -> might be illogical as one day might have 1000 posts and the rest empty... After the other side counters with this, they must concede might get reworded to its We Must Always Post 1X per day and queue posts so it looks like we're posting daily" might be what they need to go from illogical to accepted. This change is what was conceded.
Then at the end, I save this as an Argument note and set the title of the note as "Post Content In A Drip Feed and Don't Post ASAP" as our policy. This isn't a UNIVERSAL for everyone in the world, just right now, our business, has that policy (in this example) due to the current habits, workflows, patterns so far. Hormozi says the opposite, but for him, he produces so much high quality stuff that the feedback is good. Again, its between the two sides that argue within the context of their common goals.
To implement this or practice with this, I suggest you start with whatever comes to mind.
What is that decision you want to make (or need to argue with someone else).
And work out those five boxes (with the in order to X we must y) logic to flesh it out...
(And again its in order to X we must Y) basically 4 times for the 4 lines + the pros/cons list.
Then when you get it out have each side flesh out the because.
When I do it internally, for internal problems/ideas that are conflicting, I visualize one part of myself making the argument, and another part making its own. I get super emotional or heated and its both theraputic and finally gives rise to WHY I feel or act in that way.
After I felt good, decided on something I was stalling on, and can move forward with clarity and certinity.
Try it out.
If you want to argue something for the organization, we can do so in private, but for Governance, this is how we'd solve uber complex problems... if we end up with factionalism (every organization has factions) and this is the way we ought to resolve them into disputes.
Anyway, give it a shot and DECIDE.
Pic are some examples
1
0 comments
How To Argue: A logician's Guide
powered by
skool.com/delegate-and-elevate-1300
Get trained, certified and placed into a company as an AI Scaler
Suggested communities
Powered by