Responding to Disingenuous Arguments
What's going on, how to see it and what to do well to navigate it expertly
Disingenuous arguments are prickly and maybe confounding experiences.
The are strange, frustrating and maybe anger-inducing because, according to one explanation, they are “deceptive or misleading” and “often used by people to best serve their own interests rather than to objectively debate an issue.”
That same description adds that the tools used “will often contain manipulative tactics and distractions, as well as false claims, non-sequiturs and inflammatory language."
You regularly can sense something being off in these arguments yet not always able to define what is going on immediately. It’s valuable to be able to come to identify this type of communication exchange, how to respond at the highest level and proceed in skillfully navigating these interactions.
“The first — and best way to know that someone is presenting a disingenuous argument is a gut check. You can feel a visceral disconnect between the words being said and the larger context,” says Richard Birke, vice president and executive director of the JAMS Institute (Judicial Arbitration and Mediation Services, Inc.) and the chief architect behind JAMS Pathways, helping clients navigate conflict.
“Scientists have found that our amygdala, our ‘mirror neurons’ and our response to facial expressions and tone of voice are highly evolved to alert us to danger, including a lack of synchrony between words, tone, expression, body language and environment.”
It’s not just emotions, instinct and feelings however.
“On a more intellectual level,” Birke begins, “you might want to look out for hyperbolic language: ‘everyone knows, experts say; attacks on irrelevant premises underlying counterarguments asking, ‘Was that really true blue or actually deep blue?’ when color is irrelevant, internally contradictory positions; emotional statements, ‘you just can’t admit you’re wrong,’ especially when the same statement could made about the person presenting the disingenuous argument — and the frequent switching of arguments in support of the speaker’s desired outcome.”
That’s a lot going on, as you can see. It can perplex and knock another person or group of people off balance, leaving them to wonder what to do outside of basic instinct. Birke offers a recommendation.
“Your highest-level response,” he says, “is to keep your cool, ask questions, become curious and hold up a mirror (to what they are communicating and doing).”
There are signs to be wary of that can assist in diagnosing something amiss.
“Individuals can identify power struggles through observable behavior patterns such as aggressive communication, belittling remarks aimed at discrediting opposing information or opinions, dismissing others' perspectives as irrelevant and withholding or denying relevant information that contradicts their viewpoints,” say Jan Yuhas and Jillian Yuhas, relationship specialists and boundary and conflict resolution consultants at Jan and Jillian.
These types of behavior, they add, affect our mental health.
“They can evoke feelings of inadequacy, discomfort, anger or lead to physiological responses indicating a sense of being undervalued or undermined.”
To the Yuhas’, the best way forward through the problematic communication strategy of others is changing the approach being used.
“The most effective response is to utilize effective communication and encourage collaboration by stepping outside the power dynamic and addressing the disconnect through discovery questions, which are open-ended inquiries,” they say.
The purpose is to “aim to gain deeper insight and clarity on the other person's standpoint to find common ground,” they teach.
An example can be, "It seems we may have differing views on this issue. Could you elaborate on how you arrived at your conclusion,” the Yuhas’ recommend.
If this is not working or the other person or people are not instilling confidence in you that it would lead to progress, it is wise not to proceed with this process.
“If the individual is emotionally heightened and unable to engage in an open discussion, it may be advisable to postpone the conversation until both parties can communicate respectfully,” the Yuhas’ suggest.
“A response in this scenario could be: ‘It appears we have conflicting perspectives and it might not be productive to discuss this further at the moment. How about we revisit this conversation tomorrow when we have had time to process possible solutions?"
These kinds of disputes can take place in professional and personal communication.
“The most common situations in which people make disingenuous arguments are when resources are scarce,” Birke says. “For example, at budget time, someone may ask for additional money and personnel for their department, not because they actually need it but because they want to increase their perceived power within the company.
“They may couch the argument as ‘it’s for the good of the company’ when it’s really about their desire to move up the corporate ladder.
“Similarly, when there are threats of cutbacks or layoffs, people may make arguments about the indispensability of their role, their team or their resources, not because they believe their arguments, but out of fear.”
There are, he adds, exceptions to the norm.
“There are people who suffer from personality disorders,” Birke says. “Narcissists may make disingenuous arguments based on their internal fear that they are ordinary, or worse, inferior.”
The Yuhas’ share their insights from the professional observations in their work.
“Power struggles can manifest in various situations in business or the workplace, such as employees competing for influence, recognition or control within a specific group or team,” they say. “They may also occur during interdepartmental negotiations for organizational resources or within hierarchical structures where competition for status is prevalent.”
Such arguments can develop in additional areas, the Yuhas’ say, such as “during performance evaluations or salary negotiations, in team project assignments where accountability is lacking or in decision-making processes where authority is asserted, instead of embracing a leadership approach that values input from all employees, regardless of their role.”
Ethically and successfully navigating such challenging and stressful exchanges takes skills of the mind and better communication.
“Remember that all actions are purposeful attempts to advance an interest,” Birke illuminates. “The interest may or may not be legitimate, but the person making the argument is likely uncomfortable with the vulnerability associated with identifying that interest publicly.
“For example, if someone is looking to accrete resources because it’s good for their ego and they are arguing that it’s good for the company, they may not want to say that they are mostly focused on career advancement because they want to be able to pay for their children’s education.
“But if they did, then at least the supervisor could have a more direct discussion about career paths and compensation instead of a nonsensical and aggravating argument about budget allocation.
“As in so many situations that are difficult at work, the leader’s No. 1 tool is curiosity.”
Building off that fact and core belief, Birke offers professional advisory for how to exhibit that curiosity.
“Ask questions like the following: ‘What’s your goal in this conversation?’ ‘What does success look like for you?’ ‘What are the best- and worst-case outcomes for you in this discussion?’”
He offers a reminder and warning.
“Stay above the fray,” Birke stresses. “Fight fire with water, not more fire.”
If the dispute is public, there is a smarter way to communicate than in front of other people.
“Be discreet. Ask to have a private conversation with the person making the disingenuous argument,” Birke says. “Don’t publicly shame or humiliate them. That rarely makes the situation better and often makes it much worse.”
Diagnosing, as objectively as possible in the emotion of the moment, is important.
“Finally, the leader needs to make a determination whether they are dealing with someone who is merely insecure — in which case questions and help are the proper response — or someone suffering from a more significant psychological issue, in which case HR needs to be involved,” Birke has learned.
“While it’s appropriate to accommodate a wide variety of personalities in the workplace and to promote diversity and neurodiversity in the workplace, there is a limit,” he says.
That can be the catalyst for different response.
“Sometimes an action plan or even the termination of a bad actor is the appropriate course of action,” Birke says, admitting that, “These decisions are delicate and fraught with complication. A good leader consults with their teammates — HR, as mentioned — and possibly the general counsel. If the issue is mental health, be mindful of legal considerations, including HIPAA.”
Birke says that what he expresses in this conversation is for general informational purposes and is not to be taken as legal advice.
Regardless of the frustration, the onus is more on the skilled person or party to lead ethically and responsibly.
“It's crucial to uphold professionalism and maintain integrity without succumbing to the manipulative tactics of others,'“ the Yuhas’ assert.
“Effective communication and adherence to professional values such as transparency, trust and integrity are paramount. It's essential to propose solutions that aim for common ground or resolution whenever possible.”
The road to accomplishing this is one where you are the one providing the respectful guidance and “Maintaining a calm and confident demeanor” that “can facilitate open dialogue, active listening and a deeper understanding of various perspectives,” the Yuhas’ say.
There is always risk involved. They don’t deny that reality. The Yuhas’ say it’s important to simultaneously realize what also remains positively possible.
“Despite the potential negative impacts of conflictual conversations, parties can collaborate toward shared goals by employing conflict resolution skills,” the Yuhas’ state.
“Establishing clear communication channels, setting boundaries and cultivating a culture of mutual respect can mitigate power struggles and cultivate positive relationships within the organization.”
Communication Intelligence, the Newsletter, is a sister product and publication of Communication Intelligence magazine.
To become a subscriber of Communication Intelligence, the Newsletter — free or paid, whatever works best for you — you can click on box below.
Advertising: Contact me at comm.intel.newsletter@gmail.com and communicate your value and offering — $400 for an attractive color ad in one issue, $600 for two issues (I can put two ads of yours in one post) or $2,000 for a month (you get an attractive color ad placement in every new article during that time).