The Number 1 Mistake That Will Always Make You Fail to Convince (Even When You Are Right)

Once you've made an exhaustive list of the arguments that support your position and selected the most rigorous and effective ones, you now need to decide which ones you're actually going to use.

And it's often at this stage that most people fail to convince. For a very simple reason: once they've selected the most rigorous arguments, they think they’re going to convince without taking into account the person they're trying to convince.

The rigorous-speakers paradox: right yet unconvincing

The most rigorous arguments in absolute terms are not necessarily the most effective for our audience.

For example, some arguments that require in-depth technical knowledge to be properly understood are totally inappropriate for neophytes. Conversely, as we saw last week, arguments based on incredulity or a single example can be very convincing. 

It's the paradox of rigor: having taken care to prepare well-researched arguments from reliable sources (and therefore “being right"!) but failing to convince.

It's a brutal reality: in rhetoric, the most rigorous arguments are not necessarily the most impactful. Often, it's rather the path of simplicity through effectiveness that has to be taken.

We're almost faced with an ethical dilemma: should we give in to the call of efficiency at the risk of sacrificing our personal demand for rigor? Or should we try at all costs to be rigorous, even at the risk of rendering our words meaningless?

There are no right or wrong choices. But you have to make one. And above all, take responsibility for it.

This paradox is twofold. It is undoubtedly the hardest to overcome.

The blind-speakers paradox: right yet convincing only themselves

There's one important aspect we haven't mentioned yet: we tend to choose arguments that we, as speakers from our own perspective, find most important, without taking into account what might be most effective or relevant for the audience.

The risk is that we want to use them at all costs.

Building a line of argument adapted to our target audience goes beyond being able to identify a few personas. We must also be able to see beyond our own value system and mental representations. Our personal beliefs and worldview cause us to overestimate the strength of arguments that we find convincing.

For one simple reason: these arguments were persuasive to us initially!

This is the paradox of the blind speakers who, by selecting arguments that only they find convincing, fail to persuade others. But taking the time to adopt our audience's perspective is easier said than done.Isn't it difficult to set aside an argument that once seemed crucial? Or worse: wouldn't it be demagogic to systematically tell our audience what they want to hear?

Here's a compromise solution. Let's say you absolutely want to use a specific argument, but you know it's likely to be ineffective (or worse, counter-productive). The idea is to put it aside and focus on arguments that will convince your audience. Once we've planted the seeds of conviction in our audience's minds with, we can then take advantage of the opportunity to add the secondary argument we've been so keen on. This argument alone isn't pivotal on its own and won't undermine the entire process if it doesn't succeed. It serves as a bonus, as the ‘icing on the cake’. However...

...Be very cautious!

Every additional argument not only extends the process of persuasion but also opens you up to new objections. The danger is that your secondary argument, no matter how crucial it seems to you, might weaken rather than strengthen your overall case. Therefore, use them with care and discernment.We must also remember that our sincerity is perceptible. If we appear genuinely convinced by an argument we strongly believe in, we become more persuasive. An argument, even if not the most effective, can gain strength when presented with conviction.

The 3 pillars of every valuable argumentative line

To sum up, a solid line of argument must combine 3 ingredients: rigor, effectiveness and subjectivity.

The issue of subjectivity raises a crucial question for speakers: should we primarily align with our audience's aspirations, or should we strive to assert our own convictions at all costs?

There is no universal answer to this question for every rhetorical situation, but there is a three-step method:

1. List the objectively rigorous arguments available.

2. Select the arguments that are most subjectively effective for your audience.

3. Decide whether or not to use secondary arguments, which can either reinforce or ultimately undermine your position

One last golden rule, valid in any situation: keeping your ideas short and simple to control the time factor as much as possible.

That's all for today! See you next Wednesday, stay tunes !