QUICK TACTICS

BEFORE ENGAGING in any disagreement, ask yourself four questions:

1. What do I want to be true when this is over? → If you don't know, don't argue yet.
2. What does the other person probably want? → Find the goal beneath their position.
3. What's the strongest version of their position? → If you can't articulate it, you don't understand it.
4. Am I willing to change my mind? → If no, you're not arguing, you're performing.

IF THINGS GO WRONG:

• Argument is going in circles → Return to question 2: "What are you actually trying to achieve?"
• You're getting defensive → Return to question 4: Are you protecting a position or seeking truth?
• Conversation feels hostile → Return to question 1: State what you want out loud. "What I'm hoping we can figure out is..."

EXAMPLE: Before arguing with a colleague about project priorities, ask: "What outcome am I after? (Clear expectations.) What do they want? (Recognition that their work matters.) Strongest version of their case? (They've already started this work and switching would waste it.) Am I open to changing my mind? (Yes—maybe their project is more time-sensitive.)"

COMMON MISTAKE: Skipping question 4. If you're not willing to change your mind, you're not having a conversation—you're having a confrontation. That's fine sometimes, but know which one you're in.

Before trusting an online voice, check:

1. Credentials: What qualifies them to speak on this topic?
2. Incentives: How do they make money? What do they gain from your belief?
3. Track record: Have their past predictions and claims held up?
4. Disagreement handling: Do they steelman opponents or strawman them?

Before any persuasive communication, quickly assess:

1. Ethos: Why should they trust me on this topic?
2. Pathos: What emotional state will help them receive this?
3. Logos: What's my actual argument in one sentence?

If you can't answer all three, you're not ready to persuade.

Before responding to any argument, especially online:

1. Is this person persuadable? (If not, you're performing, not persuading)
2. Is this the right moment? (Timing affects reception)
3. Is this the right venue? (Some conversations need privacy)
4. Will I regret this in 24 hours? (If unsure, wait 24 hours)

Strengthen your online ethos:

1. Consistency check: Do your public positions align across platforms?
2. Receipts: Can you point to past predictions that came true?
3. Vulnerability: Have you publicly acknowledged mistakes?
4. Sources: Do you cite evidence, or just assert?

Small moves that build trust in digital and workplace contexts:

1. Acknowledge before asserting: "I see why you'd think that" before "Here's why I disagree."
2. Name your uncertainty: "I'm about 70% confident on this."
3. Credit publicly, critique privately.
4. Return to past errors: "Remember when I said X? I've updated my thinking."

Before making emotional appeals:

1. System 1: What feeling am I trying to evoke? Is it appropriate?
2. System 2: If someone analyzed this rationally, would the appeal hold up?
3. Integration: Do the emotion and the logic point the same direction?

Ethical pathos survives rational scrutiny.

Before evoking any emotion in an argument:

1. Accuracy: Would someone with complete information feel this emotion?
2. Proportion: Is the intensity appropriate to the stakes?
3. Purpose: Does this emotion move toward action, or just feeling?

Emotions that pass all three checks are legitimate.

Before sending any important communication:

1. State it in one sentence: "I'm arguing X because Y."
2. Complete the "because": Every claim needs a reason.
3. Name the assumption: What must they already believe for this to work?

Visible logic invites engagement. Hidden logic invites suspicion.

Before citing any evidence:

1. Recency: Is this data current, or has the situation changed?
2. Source quality: Peer-reviewed > journalism > blog > random post
3. Sample size: One example ≠ trend
4. Conflicts: Who funded this? What do they gain?

Match structure to time available:

1. 30 seconds: Claim + one reason + call to action
2. 2 minutes: Hook + claim + 2-3 reasons + brief counterargument + conclusion
3. 5 minutes: Full structure with evidence for each point

Know your time, then fill the structure.

THE DECISION TREE: When you hear an argument, run through these options in order:

1. Deny — Is the claim factually false? → "That's not accurate. The data shows..."
2. Minimize — Even if true, does it matter? → "Even granting that, it doesn't change the outcome because..."
3. Turn — Can I use their point against them? → "Actually, that supports my position because..."
4. Expose the link — Does evidence actually support the conclusion? → "How does that evidence prove that conclusion?"
5. Outweigh — Is my argument more important? → "Even if you're right, my point matters more because..."

HOW TO CHOOSE:

• If their facts are wrong → Deny (bring receipts)
• If their facts are right but irrelevant → Minimize
• If their facts help you → Turn (devastating when it works)
• If their logic is broken → Expose the link
• If everything else fails → Outweigh

IF THINGS GO WRONG:

• Your denial is challenged → Shift to minimize: "But even if that were true..."
• Your turn doesn't land → Shift to outweigh: "Setting that aside, here's what matters more..."
• You're running out of time → Go straight to outweigh—it's always available.

EXAMPLE: Opponent says, "Remote work hurts collaboration." Your options: (1) Deny: "Studies show async communication can match or exceed in-person." (2) Minimize: "Even if true, the productivity gains outweigh collaboration loss." (3) Turn: "Actually, remote work enables global collaboration that wouldn't exist otherwise." (4) Expose link: "What evidence connects physical presence to better collaboration?" (5) Outweigh: "Even if collaboration dips slightly, employee retention and satisfaction matter more."

COMMON MISTAKE: Trying all five. Pick one and commit. Judges and audiences notice when you're throwing everything at the wall.

When you spot bad reasoning:

1. Don't name the fallacy (sounds pedantic)
2. Ask a question instead: "How does that evidence connect to that conclusion?"
3. Offer the steelman: "The strongest version of that argument might be..."
4. Focus on the gap: "I see the premise, but I'm not seeing how we get to the conclusion."

When to deploy questions instead of assertions:

1. In meetings: "What would have to be true for that to work?"
2. In one-on-ones: "What options are you considering?"
3. In disagreements: "Help me understand—what am I missing?"

The question that reveals is worth more than the assertion that wins.

BEFORE RESPONDING to any disagreement:

1. Reflect it back: "So if I understand correctly, you're saying..." → Repeat until they say "Yes, exactly."
2. Find the reasonable core: What would a smart, well-intentioned person have to believe to hold this view?
3. Improve it: "The strongest version of that argument might be..."
4. Only then: Respond to the strongest version, not the original.

IF THINGS GO WRONG:

• They say "That's not what I meant" → Good! Ask: "Help me understand what I'm missing." This is the point of step 1.
• You can't find a reasonable core → Possibility: their argument really is unreasonable. Possibility: you're not trying hard enough. Try again.
• They accuse you of putting words in their mouth → Clarify: "I'm trying to understand the strongest version of your point. Did I get it wrong?"
• Steelmanning takes too long in a timed debate → Abbreviate to: "Even granting the strongest version of your argument..." and move on.

EXAMPLE: They say: "We should never hire remote workers." Step 1: "So you're saying remote workers are inherently worse hires?" They say: "No, I mean it's harder to onboard them." Step 2: Reasonable core—onboarding is genuinely harder without physical presence. Step 3: Strongest version—"The argument is that remote onboarding costs more and produces weaker cultural integration in the first six months." Step 4: Now respond to that, not to "never hire remote workers."

COMMON MISTAKE: Steelmanning as a delay tactic. If you use it to avoid responding, people notice. The goal is genuine understanding that leads to better response—not an elaborate stall.

BEFORE THE MEETING (30 min of prep):

1. Who decides? → Name them. Understand their priorities. Your best arguments should land with them, not just sound good to the room.
2. Who influences them? → Map the informal power. Sometimes you need to convince the influencer first.
3. What do they fear? → Loss of control? Looking bad? Wasted resources? Address the fear before pitching the opportunity.
4. What will they ask? → Prepare answers for the top 3 likely questions. Being caught off-guard damages credibility.

IF THINGS GO WRONG:

• Decision-maker is hostile → Pivot to influencers. "I'd value your perspective on this—can we discuss offline?"
• You're caught off-guard → "That's a good question. Let me think about that and follow up by EOD."
• Meeting runs out of time → "Can we schedule 15 minutes to close this loop? I want to make sure you have what you need."
• Someone is blocking you → Ask: "Help me understand your concern. What would address it?"

EXAMPLE: Pitching a new tool to leadership. Who decides? The VP—she controls budget. Who influences? The engineering lead—VP trusts his judgment. What does VP fear? Cost overruns, failed implementations. What will she ask? "What's the ROI? What's the risk if it doesn't work?" Prep those answers. Talk to the engineering lead before the meeting.

COMMON MISTAKE: Preparing your presentation but not your audience analysis. A beautiful deck means nothing if you don't know what the decision-maker actually cares about.

After any debate or argument:

1. What worked? (Arguments that landed)
2. What didn't? (Arguments that fell flat)
3. What did I learn? (New information or perspectives)
4. What would I do differently? (Specific tactical changes)

Growth comes from reflection, not repetition.

FOR ONLINE DISAGREEMENTS:

1. Draft your response in a notes app—not the reply box. The friction helps.
2. Wait two hours (or sleep on it if high-stakes). Set a calendar reminder if needed.
3. Re-read their comment charitably: Did you miss nuance? Are you fighting a strawman?
4. Re-read your draft: Does it represent your best self? Would you show it to your mentor?
5. Then decide: Post as-is / Revise / Delete entirely

DECISION LOGIC:

• If you still feel the same way after 2 hours → the reaction is real, not just dopamine
• If you can't remember why you were angry → delete the draft
• If you've revised more than twice → probably delete—you're trying to make something unsayable work
• If you're posting "for the lurkers" → keep it educational, not triumphant

IF THINGS GO WRONG:

• You posted before waiting → If possible, delete. If not, don't double down—edit or apologize.
• The thread escalated → Stop responding. "I've said my piece" is a valid exit.
• You're getting pile-oned → Mute the thread. You owe no one unlimited engagement.

EXAMPLE: Someone posts a hot take you find offensive. Your immediate draft is four paragraphs of righteous fury. Two hours later: the fury cooled, the take is still wrong, but your response can be two sentences of calm correction—or nothing at all. Delete the four paragraphs. Post the two sentences. Or don't.

COMMON MISTAKE: Thinking speed is an advantage online. It's not. The thoughtful, late response often outperforms the quick, reactive one. Let others exhaust themselves in the first hour.

Before any civic engagement:

1. Know the issue: Facts, not just opinions
2. Know the stakeholders: Who benefits? Who loses?
3. Know the process: What can actually be decided here?
4. Know your ask: Specific, actionable, within their power

Prepared citizens move democracies. Unprepared citizens just make noise.

After any argument, score yourself on:

1. Truth: Did I get closer to what's actually true?
2. Relationship: Did I strengthen or damage the relationship?
3. Character: Did I argue in a way I'm proud of?
4. Growth: Did I learn something, even if I "won"?

Winning on all four dimensions is the philosopher's victory.