Jordan Peterson has delivered some of the internet’s most iconic debate moments. But his Surrounded video doesn’t quite reach that same level. Many will dissect the substance of the debate—the semantic haze, the definitions, the back-and-forth. That’s not where I want to focus. What matters most in a debate, if your goal is to actually change someone’s mind, isn’t clever semantics, gotcha moments, or even airtight logic. It’s the emotional connection you build through rapport and charisma. That human link is what opens the door to real persuasion.
The Primacy of Rapport and Charisma in Debate
- The most important aspect of a debate, if the goal is to change the mind of the person across from you, is the connection formed through rapport and charisma, not solely sound logic or "gotchas".
- A sound argument will not move people if rapport and charisma are absent.
Choosing Amusement Over Frustration
- A key strategy for maintaining rapport is choosing amusement over frustration when someone misunderstands or misrepresents the speaker.
- When Jordan Peterson encountered twisting of his words in the Kathy Newman interview, he chose to comment that he found it "silly" and "funny," allowing him to stay calm and centered to effectively point out inconsistencies later.
- Allowing oneself to get heated or frustrated, as seen in the "surrounded" video when Jordan Peterson reacted defensively to a misuse of "the" instead of "a," hinders rapport.
- If the speaker drops the quest to be perfectly understood, they can actually play with the misunderstandings, which makes them more persuasive.
- People are more likely to open up to the perspective of someone who laughs and finds them amusing than someone who scolds them.
Receptive vs. Interrogative Listening Styles
- Most people respond best to a receptive style of listening rather than an interrogative one.
- Receptive Listening: This style focuses on feeling the person's overall vibe and the "big picture," without getting hung up on specific details.
- Body language includes sitting neutrally or leaning back, smiling, opening the eyes wider, and letting peripheral vision come online.
- It features extended periods of listening without fact-checking every minor detail.
- Interrogative Listening: This style focuses on listening for inconsistencies and details, running every statement through a filter to catch deviations from truth or logic.
- Body language tends to look like leaning forward, grimacing or straining, and narrowing the eyes.
- It uses shorter periods of listening because inconsistencies are immediately fact-checked.
- This style is only effective when suspecting someone is lying and details truly matter. Otherwise, it feels overly aggressive, leading friendly conversations to become contentious.
- Alex O'Connor demonstrated the effectiveness of the receptive style in the "surrounded" episode, spending most of the time listening receptively and immediately catching and apologizing when he briefly drifted into the interrogative style.
Avoiding the "Dunk" and Extending Kindness
- Instead of "dunking" on people (using a moment of confusion or semantic slip to declare victory), effective debaters should extend a helping hand.
- Dunking involves reveling in the other person being wrong and provides only a temporary high at the cost of the relationship.
- Kindness is essential when an opponent's point has been defeated, as it allows them to integrate new information rather than defend their ego from attack.
- Jordan Peterson handled this well in the Kathy Newman interview, following a "gotcha" with extensions of kindness, playful jokes, and implied respect for her as a tough debater.
Using Inclusive Language to Build Connection
- In moments of successful counter-argument, shifting to inclusive language helps the opponent feel less wrong and facilitates connection.
- This involves using "we" sentences and talking about how the speaker also once held the same mistaken belief.
- Inclusive language puts the speaker on the opponent's side in the quest for truth, aiding the process of integrating new information.
The Mindset of Debate and Argument
- It is crucial to realize that an individual has very little to lose in a debate or an argument.
- The speaker is safe; they are not bound to serve anyone who gets them semantically trapped or logically cornered, nor do they become different based on the labels (Christian, atheist, good, bad) others assign to them.
- An opinion, even if presented as objective truth, remains just an opinion, and one does not need to fight with opinions that disagree with their perspective.
- Potential gains in an argument include the enjoyment of a fun spar, the opportunity to expand one's understanding of the world, and most importantly, deeper connection with another person.