Basic consulting techniques. Organization of the daily routine in different age groups of the Reception kindergarten is that
The law provides for the procedure for admission to citizenship in a general manner (Article 13) and simplified (Article 14).
Acquisition of Russian citizenship as a result of admission to citizenship.
Acquiring Russian citizenship by birth.
Grounds and procedure for acquiring citizenship Russian Federation.
In Art. 11 of the Law on Citizenship of the Russian Federation establishes four grounds for acquiring citizenship of the Russian Federation:
1) by birth;
2) as a result of admission to citizenship;
3) as a result of restoration of Russian citizenship;
4) on other grounds provided for by this Law or international treaty.
For example:
The main, permanent basis for replenishing the corps of citizens is the acquisition of citizenship by birth. In this case, the “law of blood” (i.e., taking into account the citizenship of the parents) and “law of the soil” (i.e., depending on the place of birth) are applied as the basic principles.
A child acquires citizenship of the Russian Federation by birth if, on the child’s birthday:
His parents or only parent have Russian citizenship (regardless of the child’s place of birth);
One of the parents has Russian citizenship, and the other parent is a stateless person, or declared missing, or his location is unknown (regardless of the child’s place of birth);
One of the parents has Russian citizenship, and the other parent is a foreign citizen, provided that the child
was born on the territory of Russia or if otherwise he would become a stateless person;
Both parents living in Russia are foreign citizens or stateless persons, provided that
that the child was born on the territory of the Russian Federation, and the states of which his parents are citizens do not provide
him his citizenship.
A child who is on the territory of Russia and whose parents are unknown becomes a citizen of the Russian Federation if the parents do not show up within six months from the date of his discovery.
Foreign citizens and stateless persons who have reached 18 years of age and have legal capacity have the right to apply for Russian citizenship provided that they:
Live on the territory of Russia from the day they receive a residence permit until the day they apply for admission to
Russian citizenship for five years continuously. The period of residence is considered continuous if the person traveled outside the Russian Federation for no more than three months within one year;
They undertake to comply with the Constitution of the Russian Federation and Russian legislation;
Have a legal source of livelihood;
They contacted the authorized body of a foreign state with applications to renounce their existing citizenship. Renunciation of another citizenship is not required if this is provided for by an international treaty of the Russian Federation or law, or if renunciation of another citizenship is impossible due to reasons beyond the control of the person;
Speak Russian
The five-year period of residence in Russia is reduced to one year if at least one of the following grounds is present:
The person was born on the territory of the RSFSR and in the past had citizenship of the USSR;
The person has been married to a citizen of the Russian Federation for at least three years;
A disabled person has a capable son or daughter who has reached the age of 18 and has Russian citizenship;
The person has high achievements in the field of science, technology and culture, has a profession or qualification that is of interest to Russia;
A person is granted political asylum on the territory of the Russian Federation or the person is recognized as a refugee.
In most cases, when translating into Russian, specifications must be made English verbs speech, as well as verbs of motion, such as: say, be, have, get, take, give, make, come, go, etc.:
At the by-election victory went to the Labor candidate. - The Labor Party candidate won the by-election.
The rain came in torrents. - It rained heavily.
“So what?” I said. (J. Salinger “The Catcher in the Rye”). - Well, what then? - I ask.
Didn't tell me to come right over, if I felt like it. (J. Salinger “The Catcher in the Rye”) - He told me to come now, if necessary.
Here you can present examples of changing a Russian nominal predicate into an English verbal predicate, which always requires a definition of clarity for the verb be:
She is at school - She is studying at school;
The concert was on Sunday - The concert took place on Sunday.
Not is in the Army - He serves in the army;
Generalization. The exact opposite of specification is generalization. The essence of this technique is the replacement of a specific concept with a generic one, a particular concept with a general one. Due to the fact that words in English are more abstract in nature than similar Russian words; when translated from English into Russian, generalization finds much less use than specification. However, one cannot do without its use, for example:
The eagle rose higher and began to circle above the ground again. The bird went up and circled again.
Doesn't come over and visits me almost every weekend. -...He comes to see me often, almost every week.
Didn't show us this old beat-up Navajo blanket that he bought off some Indian... - ...He showed us an old shabby Indian blanket, bought from some Indian...
Acceptance of lexical additions. In some cases, in order to more correctly and clearly convey the meaning of the source material, the translator may need to enter a few additional words. This happens both when translating from English into Russian and vice versa.
English sentences usually more concise, and when translating them it is necessary to add the missing units.
Wherever you go – I follow. Wherever you go, I will follow you.
Also, lexical additions are required when adapting any information for the end reader:
I think, everyone can find a job for summer season in the Mediterranean, in hotels, themed parks or else. I think that everyone can find a job for the summer season on the Mediterranean coast, in hotels, theme parks or other places.
Another common case of using additions is the translation of single words and phrases, which have not only a lexical but also a grammatical meaning.
For example, English word industry has the plural form – industries, while the Russian noun “industry” is a collective noun and is used only in the singular.
Sometimes such a grammatical difference is erased with the same meaning - the industries of France - the industry of France. But, if it is necessary to preserve the plural in the translation into Russian, then the translator cannot avoid entering the additional word “industry”, for example:
The problems of various industries - problems of various industries.
The case with attributive phrases is also interesting - while in Russian case management plays a special role, in English the use of combinations of two or more words combined is widespread general meaning without changing them.
Sometimes both languages have an equivalent version of such combinations - earth quake - earthquake. But what if there is no such equivalent?
At literal translation we will still have to use the case management - Gun license - a license for a weapon - however, this option is still incorrect, it is necessary to use the lexical addition - a certificate for the right to carry a weapon.
Job offer – Job offer.
Sometimes such combinations can consist of entire sentences, the words in which are connected only by the “-” sign.
Girl-next-door – a girl living in the next house
In all cases of using lexical addition, the translator needs to be more knowledgeable about the topic of the source text. It is necessary to understand “what” the author wanted to say and “why” he did it that way, because knowing this, you can translate the text as adequately and understandably as possible for the end reader.
The technique of lexical deletion- ignoring in translation some semantically redundant words that do not carry an important semantic load, and their meaning is often comprehensively restored in translation. For example, the use of paired synonyms:
brave and fearless - brave;
just and equitable treatment - fair treatment;
He was breathless and dead - He was dead;
by violence and force - by force;
normal and regular - normal;
Other examples: So I paid my check and all. Then I left the bar and went out. (J. Salinger, The Catcher in the Rye). I paid and went to the machines.
Left the bar is redundant, due to the fact that a similar action is also implied by the verb went out. Therefore, in the Russian translation, omission is quite appropriately used, and the sentence with it is combined with the previous one.
Next example:
Winter rains in the Jordan are violent, while they last. (K. Kenyon. Digging up Jerico) In winter, there are terrible rainfalls in the Jordan Valley.
And in this case, an entire English sentence is unnecessary for Russian speech.
As a result, the use of omission allows the translator to make some reduction in the total volume of the work, which is called “text compression”.
Striving for maximum specificity. Such tendencies are expressed in the use of names of weights and measures or in the use of numerals, even in cases where this is not supported by semantic factors. Here, too, omission is used, for example:
About a gallon of water was dripping down my neck, getting all over my collar and tie. (J. Salinger, The Catcher in the Rye)Water poured from the head down the collar, soaking the whole collar and collar.
A trick in a dispute is any technique with the help of which one wants to make the argument easier for oneself or make it more difficult for one’s opponent.
A great contribution to the development of the theory of tricks was made by the ancient Greek thinker Aristotle, the German philosopher A. Schopenhauer, the Russian logician S. Povarnin and other researchers (K. Pavlova, P. Mitsich, L. Averyanov, I. Melnik, A. Nikiforov, etc.) , who managed in their works to significantly improve the classification of possible tricks in disputes.
Analyzing previous experience in systematizing tricks and expanding their arsenal of use, we will reduce the entire set of tricks into three groups: organizational-procedural, psychological and logical:
1. Organizational and procedural tricks
The tricks of this group can only be used by the organizer of the negotiation process or discussion. They are aimed either at disrupting the discussion, or at deliberately clashing the opposing views of the discussion participants in order to heat up the atmosphere, or at reducing negotiations to a discussion option that is obviously unacceptable to the opponent. Let us give characteristics of the main organizational and procedural tricks.1.1. Formation of the initial installation.
The essence of the trick is to initially give the floor to those whose opinion is known, appeals to others and is capable of forming in them a certain attitude towards the perception of any idea. In this case, the “frame” effect is triggered, according to which the tone and direction, precisely at the beginning of the discussion, forms in the minds of others the necessary attitude toward their directed perception of certain provisions of the problem being discussed.
1.2. Providing materials only the day before
This trick consists of providing discussion participants with working materials (projects, contracts, programs, etc.) intended for discussion shortly before it begins, when it is simply physically difficult to familiarize yourself with these materials.
1.3. Avoiding re-discussion
The trick succeeds when decisions made are fixed rigidly and repeated discussion is deliberately not allowed, even when new data worthy of attention is received that could influence the development of the final decision.
1.4. The atmosphere is tense with the “aggressors” of the dispute
The trick involves alternately giving the floor to aggressive opponents who allow mutual insults, which are only formally, for the sake of appearances, suppressed. As a result, the atmosphere of the discussion becomes critical and when asked to the discussion participants: “Shall we discuss further?”, as a rule, the majority is inclined to answer: “No!”
1.5. Primary continuity in voting
The essence of the trick is to put proposals to a vote not in the order in which they are received, but according to the degree of their acceptability for the interested party, so that those who are undecided can quickly “cast their votes.”
1.6. Pausing the discussion on the desired option
This trick means stopping the discussion important problem at a speech reflecting the most desirable position. In this case, those around you are influenced by the already well-known “frame” effect, when the ideas of the last speech are able to more strongly form the necessary psychological attitude towards the perception of the necessary information.
1.7. Selective loyalty in compliance with regulations
This is the case when some speakers are strictly limited in regulations, while others are not. There are similar restrictions in the nature of statements: some are forgiven for being “harsh” towards an opponent, while others are pointedly reprimanded.
1.8. Pseudo-de jure decision making
This trick is used when people who do not have the right to vote are specifically invited to a discussion, and during the discussion they ask those invited what their opinion is on the problem being discussed. Then, focusing on the opinions of people who do not have a decisive vote, they make the necessary decision.
1.9. Break in discussion
The trick is to call a break at a key point in the discussion when a highly inconvenient and unacceptable solution may be reached.
1.10. "Blowing off steam" on unimportant issues
This is a model of discussion when, at first, minor, secondary issues are deliberately discussed for a long time, and then, when many are tired of the discussion or are under the impression of some previous verbal-emotional “squabble,” they bring up for discussion the issue that they want to discuss without increased criticism .
1.11. "Random" lack of documents
This is a deliberately created situation when discussion participants are “as if by accident” given an incomplete set of documents, and then along the way it turns out that someone (unfortunately) is not aware of all the available information.
1.12. Over-information
This is the reverse version of the previous trick, which consists in the fact that a lot of drafts of possible solutions are being prepared and it is simply physically impossible to compare them in a short time during the discussion.
1.13. "Loss" of documents
The trick succeeds if “as if by accident” working documents, letters, appeals, notes and anything that could negatively affect the course of the discussion are lost. There are other tricks of an organizational and procedural nature (“Ignoring proposals received,” “Unexpected change of the discussion agenda,” etc.), which are aimed either at disrupting the discussion, or at reducing the discussion to mutual insults, etc. The ultimate goal of the data The trick, as shown above, is to reduce the discussion to options that are obviously unacceptable to opponents.
2. Psychological tricks
Psychological tricks mean such unacceptable (from a moral point of view) methods of argument, discussion, polemics, which are based on psychological impact on the interlocutor in order to put him into a state of irritation, play on his feelings of pride, shame, and use manifestations and other subtle features of the human psyche.2.1. Annoying your opponent
Removing him from a state of mental balance with ridicule, accusations, reproaches and other methods until the interlocutor becomes irritated and makes an erroneous statement that is unfavorable for his position.
2.2. Using unclear words and terms
This trick can give, on the one hand, the impression of the significance of the problem being discussed, the weight of the arguments presented, and a high level of professionalism and competence. On the other hand, the use of incomprehensible, “scientific” terms by the initiator of the trick may cause an opposite reaction on the part of the opponent in the form of irritation, alienation, or withdrawal. psychological protection. However, the trick succeeds when the interlocutor is either embarrassed to ask again about something, or pretends that he understands what is being said and accepts the arguments presented.
2.3. Taken aback by the pace of the discussion
When communicating, a fast pace of speech is used and the opponent who perceives the arguments is not able to “process” them. In this case, the rapidly changing stream of thoughts simply stuns the interlocutor and puts him in a state of discomfort.
2.4. Transferring the dispute into the realm of speculation
The essence of the trick is to turn the debate into an accusation and force the opponent to either justify himself or explain something that has nothing to do with the essence of the problem being discussed. An example of a trick is a statement like: “You say this because your position requires it, but in fact you think differently.”
2.5. Mind reading for suspicion
The point of the trick is to use the “mind reading” option to divert all sorts of suspicions from yourself. An example would be a judgment like: “Perhaps you think that I’m trying to persuade you? So you’re mistaken!”
2.6. Referring to “higher interests” without deciphering them
The essence of the trick is to express a thought containing a hint that if the opponent, for example, continues to be intractable in the dispute, then this may affect the interests of those whom it is extremely undesirable to upset or unbalance. An example of this trick, as a variant of the “stick argument,” could be an appeal like: “Do you understand what you are attempting when you do not agree with the arguments presented?”
2.7. Judgment like “This is banal!”
The main idea of the trick is to force the opponent to react to the unambiguous and unsubstantiated assessment, which really does not contain any arguments. Indeed, the opponent’s reaction to remarks like “This is all nonsense,” “This is nonsense,” “This is well known,” “This is banal” is quite predictable. Having heard such an assessment, few people can resist the temptation to emotionally prove that this is not so. To induce justification - this is the insidious intent of the ruse.
2.8. Carthage must be destroyed
This is the name given to the following psychological trick, the idea of which is to “accustom” the opponent to some thought. “Carthage must be destroyed” - this is exactly how the speech in the Roman Senate of Consul Cato the Elder ended every time. The trick is to gradually and purposefully accustom the interlocutor to some unsubstantiated statement. Then, after repeated repetition, this statement is declared obvious.
2.9. Understatement with a hint of special motives
The essence of this trick is to demonstrate some significant understatement, to hint that in in this case much more can be said, but this is not done for any special reasons.
2.10. Link to authority
Let us remember that this trick “works” only when the authority being referred to is truly an authority. Otherwise, the trick may have the opposite effect. Interesting data is provided by experts in assessing who the interlocutor trusts most. In the first place, of course, is trust in yourself. In second place is trust in a third party, and an authoritative one at that. Finally, the one he trusts least is his opponent.
2.11. Accusation of utopian ideas
The trick is designed to force the partner to justify himself, to look for arguments against the accusation that his idea is unrealistic. Thanks to reasoning in defense of the proclaimed arguments, the departure from main problem discussions. All this, as in many other cases, is extremely beneficial to the initiator of the trick.
2.12. Flattery or compliment
Flattering or complimentary turns of speech are not inferior to any other trick in terms of the power of their impact on the human psyche. This is primarily due to the fact that, by influencing a person’s subconscious, they are able to: sweeten the opponent’s ears, weaken criticism of themselves, and create the much-needed atmosphere of recognition of human merits. “We are all sensitive to compliments” - this is a completely fair thought expressed at one time by A. Lincoln. But if a compliment can evoke pleasant feelings in the interlocutor, then flattery by its nature can provoke a reverse reaction. What is the essential difference between these concepts - “flattery” and “compliment”? Let’s dwell on this in more detail. Let’s start with a simple everyday example: in the phrase “How sweet and charming you are!” a flexible and insightful mind will involuntarily hear flattery, i.e. would be a straightforward, simple emphasis on a person’s merits. However, in a complimentary statement like “It’s clear why your husband is always in a hurry to go home,” there is a guess, a reflection on the merits of a woman, perhaps, and not only her appearance. So, the main differences between flattery and a compliment are this. , What:
- flattery is straightforward, unambiguous, simple and understandable, while a compliment presupposes different readings, reflection, during which the person himself figures out the essence of what was said;
- the subject of flattery is people and their qualities, the subject of a compliment is things, deeds, ideas, i.e. everything that, as it were, indirectly relates to people;
- flattery implies excessive exaggeration positive qualities personality, attributing merits that do not exist, a compliment does not allow this, it only indirectly indicates the presence of a number of positive qualities in a person.
Be careful when you hear flattery
Her weapons are evil and revenge,
Never trust her.
No wonder people say:
Flattery has a very warm look,
Yes, a heart made of ice.
2.13. False shame
This trick consists of using a false argument against an opponent, which he is able to “swallow” without much objection. The trick can be successfully used in various kinds of judgments, discussions and disputes, including pedagogical ones. Appeals like “You, of course, know that science has now established...” or “Of course, you know that a decision was recently made...” or “You, of course, read about...” lead the opponent into a state of “false shame”, when he seems ashamed to publicly say that he does not know the things that they are talking about. In these cases, most of the people against whom this trick is used nod or pretend to remember what is being said, thereby recognizing all these, sometimes false, arguments.
2.14. False shame followed by reproach
This trick, like many others, is aimed not at the essence of the problem being discussed, but at the personality of the interlocutor, with belittling the opponent, humiliating his dignity, etc. An example of a trick is the statement “What, you didn’t read this?” or “What, you are not familiar with this data,” followed by an added reproach like: “So what should I talk to you about then?” The subsequent actions of the initiator of the trick are obvious: he either ends the discussion (which, in fact, is part of his plans), or continues to skillfully divert the discussion of the problem.
2.15. Belittling by irony
This technique is effective when the dispute is unprofitable for some reason. You can disrupt the discussion of a problem and avoid the discussion by belittling your opponent with irony like “Sorry, but you are saying things that are beyond my understanding.” Usually in such cases, the one against whom this trick is directed begins to feel a feeling of dissatisfaction with what was said and, trying to soften his position, makes mistakes, but of a different nature.
2.16. Showing resentment
This trick is also aimed at disrupting the dispute, since a statement like “Who do you actually take us for?” clearly demonstrates to the partner that the opposite side cannot continue the discussion, as he experiences a feeling of obvious dissatisfaction, and most importantly, resentment for some ill-considered actions on the part of the opponent.
2.17. Authority of the statement
With the help of this trick, the psychological significance of your own arguments is significantly increased. This can be effectively done through testimony such as “I declare to you with authority.” Such a turn of phrase is usually perceived by the partner as a clear signal of increasing the significance of the arguments being expressed, and therefore as a determination to firmly defend one’s position in the dispute.
2.18. Frankness of the statement
In this trick, the emphasis is on a special trust of communication, which is demonstrated using phrases such as, for example, “I’ll tell you directly (frankly, honestly) now...”. It seems as if everything that was said before was not entirely direct, frank or clear. As will be said by the initiator of the trick, and subsequently encourage the partner to respond in the same vein, that is, also openly, honestly and directly.
2.19. Double-entry bookkeeping
This trick is most popular in almost all business communication situations. Its essence lies in the fact that the same reasons and arguments are considered convincing when they are expressed in defense of one’s position, and extremely unacceptable when expressed by an opponent. This technique corresponds to the well-known principle of the so-called Hottentot morality (Hottentots are ancient inhabitants South Africa), according to which everything that corresponds to one’s own desires and views is considered true (true), and everything that contradicts them is considered false and incorrect.
2.20. Imaginary inattention
The name of this trick actually already speaks about its essence: they “forget”, and sometimes deliberately do not notice the inconvenient and dangerous arguments of the opponent. Not noticing something that can harm you is the idea of the trick.
2.21. Imaginary misunderstanding and miscommunication
The “cunning” of this technique lies in misinterpreting the opponent’s arguments and arguments, that is, deliberately, for the sake of, of course, one’s own interests, presenting the partner’s argument in a distorted form. This is easy to do with the help of well-known listening techniques, such as “listening-paraphrase” and “listening-summarizing”. The essence of the first technique is to formulate your partner’s thoughts in your own words, but deliberately distorting the information, using phrases such as “So, you believe...”, “In other words, you think...”, “According to you opinion...", etc. The essence of the second technique is to give the interlocutor a signal that you have understood the entire message, and not just some part of it (what was beneficial or what you wanted to hear). In other words, with the help of summarizing, i.e. combining your partner’s thoughts into a single semantic field, using phrases like: “Summarizing what you said...”, “So, as far as I understand, your main idea boils down to this , that ... ", you can consciously change the meaning of the ideas expressed by your partner and thereby realize the main idea of the trick.
2.22. Flattering turns of phrase
The peculiarity of this trick is to “sprinkle the sugar of flattery” on the opponent, hinting to him how much he can win or, on the contrary, lose if he persists in his disagreement. An example of a flattering turn of phrase is the statement: “As an intelligent person, you cannot help but see that...”.
2.23. It was smooth on paper, but they forgot about the ravines
The name of this trick corresponds to a famous old aphorism. Let us recall its essence. In past centuries, when planning a very important offensive military operation the mediocre “parquet” military leaders, it would seem, took everything into account: the time of day, the nature of the maneuver, and the route of movement of the troops. However, the calculation was carried out exclusively on the map, without taking into account the location. In a real situation, the regiments had to move not on flat terrain and overcome all sorts of obstacles, in particular ravines. As a result of this, the army was unable to reach the attack lines in time and was itself attacked and subsequently defeated. And so it happened: “it was smooth on paper, but they forgot about the ravines.”
The use of this trick in a dispute, i.e., saying that everything that the partner is talking about is good only in theory, but unacceptable in practice, will force him to prove the opposite with impromptu arguments, which ultimately can heat up the atmosphere of discussion and bring discussion leads to mutual attacks and accusations.
2.24. Relying on a past statement
The main thing in this trick is to draw the opponent's attention to his past statement, which contradicts his reasoning in this dispute, and demand an explanation about this. Such clarifications can (if it is beneficial) lead the discussion to a dead end or provide information about the nature of the opponent’s changed views, which is also important for the initiator of the trick.
2.25. Labeling
The main purpose of the trick is to provoke a response to the reproaches, accusations or insults expressed. The natural human reaction to accusations like “You are a deceiver”, “You are a scoundrel”, “You are a scoundrel” is to respond in kind, that is, to respond with the remark: “I hear from the same person”, “You yourself are like that” and etc. After the exchange of such “courtesy”, naturally, there is no longer any need to talk about any kind of confidential and constructive discussion.
2.26. Replacing truth with utility
This trick is based on an important and quite obvious rule: when the benefit is clearly visible, it is difficult to discern the truth. Thus, the purpose of the trick is to convince the arguer that he owes his well-being to precisely the thesis that he is challenging. A statement like: “Haven’t you ever thought about how much it will cost to implement your idea?” will help force your opponent to think this way.
2.27. Linguistic cosmetics
The essence of the trick is that the same idea is expressed in different ways, giving it the desired shade. “Cosmetics” in this case can be different: from light, elegant, enveloping the object of thought like a thin veil, to excessive, when the “second house” where a given thought moves in no longer has anything in common with the “first house”. As with a number of other tricks, this technique cannot be used effectively without the listening techniques described below ("paraphrasing" and "summarizing").
2.28. Visible support
The uniqueness of this trick is to take the floor from your opponent and come to his aid, that is, begin to bring new arguments and evidence in defense of his thesis. This help is necessary only for the appearance (appearance) of support for the enemy, because the purpose of the trick is the imaginary support of the opponent, aimed at reassuring him with consent, diverting attention, and also weakening his psychological confrontation. After the enemy loses his vigilance and those around him appreciate the level of awareness of the problem on the part of his opponent, the initiator of the trick delivers a powerful counterattack, known among psychologists as the “Yes, but...” technique, which reveals the shortcomings of the thesis put forward by the opponent and demonstrates its inferiority . Thus, it seems that the opposite side is familiar with the thesis being proven by the opponent more thoroughly than he himself, and after carefully studying the problem, he was convinced of the inconsistency of this thesis and the entire system of argumentation brought by the opponent.
2.29. Reducing a fact (argument) to personal opinion
The purpose of this trick is to accuse the communication partner of the fact that the arguments he gives in defense of his thesis or in refutation of a disputed thought are nothing more than just a personal opinion, which, like the opinion of any other person, can be wrong. Addressing your interlocutor with the words “What you are saying now is just your personal opinion” will involuntarily tune him into the tone of objections and generate a desire to challenge the expressed opinion regarding the arguments he has given. If the interlocutor succumbs to this trick, the subject of the controversy, contrary to his wishes and to please the intention of the initiator of the trick, shifts towards a discussion of a completely different problem, where the opponent will prove that the arguments he has expressed are not only his personal opinion. Practice confirms that if this happens, the trick was a success.
2.30. Selecting Acceptable Arguments
This trick is based on the conscious selection of one-sided information to prove any idea and operating only with this information in the process of conducting a discussion or dispute.
2.31. Rabulistics
This technique means deliberately distorting the meaning of an opponent’s statements, presenting them as funny and strange. For example, a remark like “Your colleague has agreed to the point that...” forces the perceiver to react to this information in a special way. In other words, any exposure to rabulism puts the interlocutor into a state of far from constructive mood when discussing the problem, which, in turn, can cause an extremely negative defensive reaction in the form of indignation, accusations, or refusal to discuss.
2.32. Trojan horse
The essence of the trick is as follows:
- the arguer, using the already well-known method of “visible support”, goes over to the enemy’s side in the dispute and begins to give additional arguments in defense of his opponent’s thesis;
- being “accepted on the enemy’s side” (since it is flattering for the opposite side to listen to opponents’ speeches in defense of their own position), the person using the trick skillfully distorts the main thesis and arguments of the partner beyond recognition;
- then he begins to ardently defend this already distorted position, which has nothing in common with the original one. As a result, when the author of a compromised thesis comes to his senses, it is already too late, since the enemy has managed to deal a “death blow” to both the thesis and the authority of the author.
This method it is especially effective after using the “visible support” technique, but only half-implemented, i.e. when, having gone over to the opponent’s side, the initiator of the trick notes only the positive, positive aspects of the proposal (thesis) that his partner expresses. Then, introducing the rule “like begets like,” he invites the interlocutor to speak out about the positive aspects of his own judgment. The enemy usually does this without much difficulty, since he has just received praise for his proposal. Having skillfully achieved such retaliatory actions on the part of his opponent, the user of the trick begins to successfully manipulate the opponent’s just given arguments about the advantages and positive aspects of your project. The main thing at this final stage is, firstly, to keep the partner’s attention until the end of the discussion on the positive that he himself found in his opponent’s arguments; secondly, do not give the opposite side the opportunity to turn the discussion into the direction of discussing the positive aspects of their ideas and proposals.
2.34. Silence
The desire to deliberately hide information from the interlocutor is the most commonly used trick in any form of discussion. When competing with a business partner, it is much easier to simply hide information from him than to challenge it in controversy. The ability to competently hide something from your opponent is the most important component of the art of diplomacy. In this regard, we note that the professionalism of a polemicist consists precisely in skillfully evading the truth, without resorting to lies.
2.35. Half-truth
This may mean mixing lies and reliable information; one-sided reporting of facts; inaccurate and vague wording of the provisions under discussion; references to sources with a disclaimer like: “I don’t remember who said...”; distortion of a reliable statement with the help of: value judgments, etc. The technique of half-truths is most often used, as practice shows, when it is necessary to avoid an undesirable turn in the dispute, when there are no reliable arguments, but one must certainly challenge the opponent, when it is necessary in spite of common sense persuade someone to a certain conclusion.
2.36. Lie
This technique, as you know, aims to hide the real state of affairs and convey to your partner false information, which can be presented in the form of false documents, links to sources, experiments that no one has ever conducted, etc. real life There is probably not a person who has not lied at least once. Let's not forget that in everyday business communication, each person is only as truthful as he is smart.
2.37. Carrot and stick method
The idea of this trick is manifested in problematic rhetorical questions asked to the opponent, such as: “What would you rather have: your own opinion, or everything else?”, “What is more preferable for you - to object or not to get hurt?” In other words, the threatening nature of this trick forces the enemy to make a choice: remain principled, but suffer at the same time, or accept conditions, sometimes unacceptable, but at the same time be safe from threats, blackmail, and sometimes physical violence. The special meaning of this morally unacceptable trick can be demonstrated by an interesting example from the famous novel by M. Puzo “The Godfather”, where one of the heroes of the novel openly shares the idea that with a kind word and a gun you can do much more than just a kind word.
2.38. Compulsion to a strictly unambiguous answer
The main thing in this trick is to firmly and decisively demand from the opponent to give an unambiguous answer: “Say directly: “yes” or “no,” that is, consciously force him not to a dialectical answer (“and ... and”), but to alternative (“either... or”). Experience confirms that this trick is usually resorted to when the opponent’s detailed answer is extremely undesirable. It should be noted that the trick is most effective in communicating with a poorly educated opponent. as in most cases will be perceived as a manifestation of integrity on the part of the partner.
2.39. What do you have against it?
The essence of the technique is not to prove your stated thesis, that is, not to give reasons and arguments in its defense, but to offer (even demand) to refute it: “What, exactly, do you have against it?” In the case when the opponent falls for the trick, he begins to criticize the position put forward, and the dispute (as planned by the initiator of the trick) begins to be conducted regarding the opponent’s counter-arguments given. Thus, the one using the trick deliberately avoids proving his own thesis and concentrates general attention on the opponent’s counter-arguments.
2.40. Many questions
This trick consists of asking your opponent not one, but several questions in one question, different and not very compatible with each other. What happens next depends on the answers: either they are accused of not understanding the essence of the problem, or they are accused of the fact that the opponent did not fully answer the questions, was misleading, or evaded answering.
3. Logical tricks
This group of tricks is based on deliberate violations of the laws and rules of formal logic or, conversely, on their skillful use for the purpose of manipulating an insufficiently informed opponent. Those who use these tricks, as A. Herzen aptly noted at one time, “do not like to enter the open field of logic, realizing that they will be defeated there.” The main tricks of this group boil down to the following.3.1. Thesis uncertainty
The essence of the trick is to vaguely and vaguely formulate your main thesis, this will allow the initiator of the trick to interpret the idea expressed in different ways. This technique is based on a violation of the most important law of formal logic - the law of identity. The wording and comments to it will be given in the next section of the manual.
3.2. Failure to comply with the law of sufficient cause
This is the case when arguments, judgments, arguments are correct, but not sufficient. The formal-logical law of sufficient reason can be formulated as follows: every true thought must be sufficiently substantiated by arguments, and not only correctly constructed according to the laws of identity, excluded middle and non-contradiction. The essence of the trick is to violate such rules of argument as credibility, sufficiency and consistency. Their characteristics will be described in more detail in the next section of the manual.
3.3. Vicious circle in proof
This trick is intended to prove an idea using its own idea, only said in different words; this is the “vicious circle” in the proof system.
3.4. Cause-and-effect syllogism
The peculiarity of this trick is that the reasoning is deliberately based on a logical error: “after this, it means as a result of this.” This sophism was known in ancient times. Its essence is to consciously replace the temporary connection between phenomena with a cause-and-effect one.
3.5. Incomplete refutation
The purpose of the trick is to:
- from the opponent’s stated system of arguments, choose the most vulnerable one;
- break it in a sharp manner;
- pretend that all other arguments do not even deserve attention.
3.6. Illegal analogies
A characteristic feature of this trick is to use analogies in the proof that are completely disproportionate to those under consideration. Let's demonstrate this with a few examples. The first example is the famous story of Plutarch about how one day a famous Roman, divorcing his wife, after listening to the reproaches of friends who repeated to him: “Why are you doing this? Isn’t she chaste? Or isn’t she pretty? Or is she barren?” , put his shoe-shod foot forward and asked: “Isn’t he good? Or is he worn out? But which of you knows where he is pressing my foot?” The second example can be taken from modern Russian politics, when democracy in Russia is compared to a girl, and then asked: “Is it possible to demand too much from a girl when she is still so young?” The third example of the inappropriateness of analogies is the comparison of the activities of our domestic parliament with a boat: “As soon as the deputies begin to row with the “left” oar, the entire parliament begins to turn “to the right” and vice versa.” It is obvious that in the last two examples there is an inappropriateness of analogies, since in one case the process of democratization is compared with the process of development of the female body, in the other the activities of parliament are compared to the actions physical laws nature.
Our expert - business coach, teacher High school Business State University of Management, General Director of the company "Effective Management Technologies", Ph.D. Vladislav Utenin.
Each technique can be mastered quickly - in 5-7 days. For a better understanding of the work of the techniques listed below, let’s take the same objection: “The doctor recommends this particular drug to me. Why are you suggesting something different? - and apply all the listed methods to it (an example of an objection is given for over-the-counter drugs from the category of dietary supplements).
Some techniques can be combined well, complement each other and create a synergy effect when “1+1=3”.
Reception "Game" in time"
Reception mechanism. It consists in the fact that in your argument you shift the buyer’s attention to certain consequences (time shift) that he may have by adhering to his position. Predicted consequences can be of two types - negative and positive.
Practice.
Option “prediction of dire consequences”:"The data is already 5 scientific research, as well as medical literature (indicate sources) indicate that the effect of treatment with this drug exceeds the period specified in the instructions for use, and also causes side effects. Think for yourself, what will this mean for you if recovery occurs not in 4 weeks, as you expect, but in 6?”
Option “predicting positive consequences”:“Indeed, doctors now widely recommend this drug. We don’t know what this is connected with. But drug Y, which is similar in active ingredient, shows effectiveness in recovery 2 times faster. Think for yourself what it will mean for you if you return to your normal life not after 4 weeks, as written in the recipe, but after 3. Without side effects.”
Reception “Reference group”
A reference group is the people, norms, rules, or beliefs that are important to this person.
Reception mechanism. The point is to determine who (or what) is the reference group for your buyer. Examples of reference groups: family members (mother/father/grandmother/child, etc.), business environment (work colleagues), opinion leaders, people from advertising, neighbors... In Russia, the population has a high percentage of trust in pharmacy employees. This means that for many customers, the front desk employee will be the default reference group. This will be confirmed by the phrase: “What do you recommend to me?”
Practice. Possible options for applying this technique to the objection: “The doctor recommends this particular drug to me. Why are you suggesting something different?
Please note that the objection itself contains a reference group - “doctor”.
Option 1:“My mother has similar indications, and the doctor made the same recommendation for her. However, my pharmaceutical education helped convince her to take another drug. She and I are very pleased."
Option 2:“Of course, we have this drug. But Professor N, a recognized expert who specializes in the treatment of this disease, recommends drug Y.”
Exercise. Identify the reference groups in the given statements of options 1 and 2.
Technique “Iron Logic”
Reception mechanism. Using the right questions, we clarify and find out why a person thinks this way; how he came to this opinion; why is what he says so important to him? The argumentation provides an evidence base, many facts, research results and figures.
Practice. Possible options for applying this technique to the objection: “The doctor recommends this particular drug to me. Why are you suggesting something different?
Option:“All our specialists have specialized education and constantly undergo advanced training. Documents confirming this are posted on the wall (point to the wall with diplomas and certificates). And we have the most up-to-date information on the drug recommended to you. Data from studies both in the Russian Federation and in Europe, which involved more than 10 thousand people with the same indications as yours, prove that drugs Y and Z show greater effectiveness: Y - by 18%, Z - by almost 32 %. You can show this data to your doctor and clarify why he does not recommend drugs Y or Z for you.
N.B. Of course, if you or your employees use this technique, and it is often used by representatives of manufacturing companies, then you must be an expert in this matter and have a good knowledge of the information. Everything you say must have an evidence base with facts and links to sources of information. These questions can be addressed to representatives of companies that train staff on the features of their product. Demand from them arguments for using the “iron logic” technique!
Technique “Another argument”
Reception mechanism. It consists of switching a person’s attention to another need by formulating an argument adequate to it. To focus attention on such a need, you need to ask yourself the question: what other need or what other criterion could be more significant for this person than contained in his objection?
The “Another criterion” technique is built on the basis of the phrase “Yes..., but...” or “yes..., and...” or “yes.., and that’s why...”
Another way to implement this technique is to discredit the message given by the client - “yes, but it’s not important, because...”
At the same time, there is another meaning hidden in the word “yes” - this is the classic “agree and deny” method. Express your understanding of the client’s point of view with the phrase “I agree, there is such a point of view.” This phrase respects the client's point of view without necessarily agreeing with him. The expression “I agree...” reduces the level of tension.
Arguments can be selected based on the following principles:
Search for an argument "horizontally". Another argument is selected based on criteria of similar importance. An example for the argument “price” in the objection “expensive” - close in value would be “quality” or, for example, “efficiency”.
Search for an argument "vertically". Another argument is selected on the basis of a superior criterion. Example for the argument “price” in the objection “expensive”: price - health; price - no side effects.
Finding an illogical argument. Another argument is selected on the basis of an abstract criterion. As in the joke - two crocodiles are flying, one green, and the other to Africa. The use of such an argument in practice creates cognitive dissonance in the client. An example for the argument “price” in the objection “expensive”: price - such a wide range that you don’t know how to choose; price - our pharmacy is already 20 years old.
Practice. Possible options for applying this technique to the objection: “The doctor recommends this particular drug to me. Why are you suggesting something different?
Horizontal option:“The doctor’s opinion is very important. But from the point of view of the INN, the drug from your prescription and the analogue that I offer you contain the same substance. But the efficiency of the analogue is 15% higher due to...”
Vertical option:“The specialists in our pharmacy know and are able to read and understand recommendations. We have the recommended drug. But by choosing drug Y, you can afford more and get an additional effect that will maintain your quality of life, and this is important both for you and for your loved ones.”
Option “illogical argument”:“Now I will bring you what is written in the recommendation. But this drug is prescribed to everyone. Honestly, it’s a strange choice - today there are more than 20 analogues in this group. Take Y. It has very good reviews. Although it’s up to you to decide what you say..."
Technique “Contrast”
Reception mechanism. Option 1 - contrast the particular with the general using the phrase: “In general, yes, but in particular...” Or option 2 - contrast the general with the particular using the phrase: “Now yes, but in general...”
Practice. Possible options for applying this technique to the objection: “The doctor recommends this particular drug to me. Why are you suggesting something different?
Option 1:“The recommended drug is only one part of the treatment. It is equally important to select other means that support and enhance its effect. At the same time, replacing this drug with Y makes this combination 20% more effective.”
Option 2:“Treatment with any drug must be considered in the context of your usual lifestyle. After the course of treatment, a course of prophylaxis will be required. And the effect of the prescribed drug should be obtained in 4-6 weeks. By choosing Y, you will get the effect in 3-4 weeks, while the safety parameters of the drug are the same.”
Summary
As you can see, by applying only the five techniques described above to the same objection, we received 10 (!) options for formulating arguments. Some of them may seem unacceptable to some; others will adopt them. The main thing is business training and practicing these techniques in practice!
When agreeing on positions, a continuation of the tactical technique of “searching for a common solution zone” takes place, when the parties come to an agreement on what can be reflected in the agreement, in other words, a zone of possible solutions is determined. The party that has indicated what, in its opinion, could be included in the final documents of the negotiations, thereby reveals its position.
Another technique related to opening positions at the third stage is a technique aimed at summing up the discussion. This tactic is close to the one mentioned above. However, in this case we are not talking about developing an agreement. This is only a statement of what, in the speaker's opinion, was or was not achieved during the discussion.
When coordinating positions, a technique called “surprise” can be used. The name of this tactical technique speaks for itself; the main thing in it is surprise. It can rather be attributed to closing a position. The essence of the technique is that the party accepts the partner’s proposal, which, according to all calculations, should not be accepted. This is done, as a rule, in order to cause confusion and confusion, and therefore take the initiative in the negotiations into one’s own hands. It is clear that such a technique can be found when the parties are focused on bargaining.
The stage of coordinating positions includes tactical techniques consisting in accepting proposals from negotiating partners, as well as solving problems through compromises (“making compromise proposals” and “accepting compromise proposals”). These techniques relate to emphasizing commonality. It is possible that one of the parties will offer a “fundamentally new solution” that will solve the problem without concessions, but by “removing” contradictions.
Another tactic related to emphasizing commonality at the third stage is to express agreement with the partner’s proposal, but not as a whole, but with part of this proposal.
And yet, not every technique at the stage of agreeing on positions implies agreement. A technique such as “rejecting a partner’s proposals” can also be used here. It has to do with emphasizing differences.
“Making proposals that are clearly unacceptable” to the partner and insisting on their acceptance also refers to emphasizing differences. The meaning of this technique can be completely different. For example, in the practice of negotiations, there were often cases when a party that made proposals that were clearly unacceptable to the partner and was refused, subsequently accused the partner that it was his fault that the negotiations were disrupted precisely because of his refusal to accept the proposals.
"Giving up your own demands." This technique can be considered as some continuation of the use of the previous technique. It consists in the fact that one of the parties puts forward a proposal that it considers unacceptable for its partner, in order to then accuse the partner of unwillingness to reach agreement. However, the partner accepts the offer (the reasons here can be completely different: incorrect assessment opposite side degree of its acceptability, tactical play, etc.). As a result, the person who put forward the proposal is forced to withdraw it under various pretexts.
There are, however, other motives for “withdrawing one’s own proposal.” For example, a partner has found a solution that involves a better, more beneficial solution to conflicts for both parties. It may happen that the offer has become irrelevant. However, it is hardly advisable, or even possible, to list all the possible reasons for “withdrawing one’s own proposal.”
Another technique that is used at the stage of agreeing on positions within the framework of the bargaining concept is “extortion.” It consists in the fact that one of the parties puts forward a demand that is undesirable for the opposite party and indifferent to itself. The goal is to obtain a concession in exchange for the removal of this demand.
Putting forward unacceptable proposals is also possible if the party putting them forward is interested in disrupting the negotiations. Sometimes this technique is used as part of a "package" transaction.
"An ultimatum or the last word" This tactic can be expressed in the words: “Accept our offer, or we will leave the negotiations.” There is a high risk of negotiations breaking down, but sometimes this technique works and the opponent makes concessions. This happens when he is extremely interested in reaching an agreement. However, even in this case, such behavior can hardly be considered justified. The partner considers himself humiliated, which cannot but affect the relationship between the negotiators. Therefore, it is better to provide your partner with several alternatives to choose from.
Among the tactical techniques related to the method of closing a position are techniques performed from “leaving”. Their specificity at this stage is to “get away” from an unwanted offer. This is achieved in various ways, in particular:
- the proposal is returned for revision to the author or experts;
- decision-making is postponed, for example, until other issues are resolved.
Sometimes, as part of bargaining, negotiators resort to such a technique as “putting forward demands in increasing order.” Seeing that the partner agrees with the proposals being made, more and more new ones are put forward.
The tactical technique is “double interpretation.” He assumes the following. As a result of negotiations, the parties developed a certain document. At the same time, one of the parties “put” a double meaning into the wording, which was not noticed by its partner, in order to then interpret the agreement in its own interests, supposedly without violating it. It is clear that such behavior can be very dangerous.
Reception ""return to discussion"". It can also be considered as closing a position if it is used to avoid signing agreements. But another meaning of this technique is also possible. So, if some questions remain unclear to one of the participants, he again suggests returning to their discussion. In this case, the “return to discussion” technique can be used as part of an approach focused on joint analysis of the problem with a partner to find its solution. The above example well illustrates the fact that an outwardly equally expressed action has a completely different meaning for the negotiators, and therefore is a different tactical technique, being included in a different context.
Within the framework of the partnership approach, the technique used is ""development and submission of proposals that would contribute to the realization of mutual interests." These are also proposals to which the partner could answer in the affirmative. Sometimes, while agreeing in principle with the essence of a proposal, a partner may reject it only because it was formulated in a form unacceptable to him.
Can we say that the use of one technique presupposes a response from the partner? To some extent, yes. But only in the very general view. Thus, the use of the most important objection options in a row will most likely entail similar behavior on the part of the partner. A peculiar phenomenon of quarrel arises, characterized by an intensification of possible accusations and heightened emotional passions. It is often not so easy to interrupt it. For example, having started negotiations without using such techniques as “emphasizing the commonality in positions”, “directly opening a position”, one can hope for the same response from the partner.
Tactical techniques are not set once and for all. They develop and become more complex during the historical process.
As negotiation practice develops, more and more tactical techniques appear. This process has begun to develop especially intensively in our time.