As an introvert, it's really annoying when I'm talking to someone else and tell them something, only to be told I'm wrong, with no arguments or data whatsoever.
If I wasn't certain, I wouldn't be talking about it in the first place.
If I wasn't certain, I wouldn't be talking about it in the first place.
1. Re-iterate your points, counter points, data, etc. 2. Acknowledge their point, assume it to be true and ask questions to clarify their point by digging further into the details
In my exp, method 1 generally does not lead to much. Method 2 will either give YOU a new perspective on things OR the other person will back off once they hit rock bottom and think twice before bringing up nonsensical points with you.
It is MUCH MUCH harder going down path 2 as it requires you to put YOUR point/perspective aside for a while and empathize with their view. But being able to cross-question people like this is an incredibly useful skill worth developing.
As an introvert, you are inherently more curious. Use that to your advantage.
Granted this can become exhausting with people who socialize without any care for those around them; but this is basic soft skills 101 lesson... 3.
Like you say, sometimes that can be exhausting if you're dealing with a particularly bad communicator. You don't want to be the one doing all the work, all the time. On the other hand, if communication needs to happen, then you need to figure out a way to get that communication to happen otherwise you're going to really struggle.
There is a reason Socratic method is used primarily in a class room setting
You can be right about the big picture/abstraction and wrong about a specific. Just because you argued or proved part of an argument wrong doesn't make the whole thing wrong.
I think this frequently happens because people aren't making the same assumptions. Ask about assumptions so you find out why two people who are both probably reasonable apparently have such a hard point of disagreement. It's very possible you agree on more than you think.
I have some techniques that I utilize when dealing with people who are vague and hand wavy usually pointing out some barely relevant counter example that supposedly debases your point and proves them right. These conversations typically come up in scientific or health related fields.
1. Remind them that the world is not black and white. Just because an argument has a counter example or isn't 100% for certain a known fact doesn't mean that we shouldn't strive to make our models of the world more consistent and move towards being less wrong.
2. Just because one person says something doesn't make it so. There is a spectrum of authority. In a particular field, yes laypeople like youtubers can be right sometimes and people in high authority can be wrong sometimes, that doesn't mean that a layperson's opinion is equally valid to a professional in all circumstances in that field
While this article uses the term "concrete" for introverts and abstract for extraverts, in my experience extraverts are looking for much more "binary" views of the world that they can quickly memorize, express, impress and move on. Introverts are a bit more "rational" and lean towards consistency between arguments as they speak less and thus the views they express are a bit more constructed as opposed to regurgitated.
Regarding introversion and fear of social consequences, I am definitely introverted but have been told that I speak my opinion too much sometimes, so I cannot agree that introversion is related to fear of making statements other may object to. In my case at least.
Basically you're trying to force them into positions where they reveal they don't know what they're talking about.
They'll then commonly start trying to squirm out of it by talking around the topic or using dishonest techniques. Each time you do, you just make sure to softly bring attention to the fact, in your very next response, that they haven't addressed your previous point, and the importance of it. You never let them sidestep or squirm away for a split second.
Their game is to go vague and talk shit, yours is to keep asking for details and pointing out why they're needed, revealing to others that they're a "fake it til you make it" idiot, until they either back off or others do something about them.
Doesn't work though if they're in a clear position of power over you, as this behavior is indicative either of stupidity or narcissism, and in which case you nod your head, and save your energy for breaking out.
Is it possible that in some cases they're talking in good faith, but using an approach to communicate or collaboration that you misunderstand?