Mr Jay Heinrichs explains how to use rhetoric to get people to do what you want.

“Don’t be fooled by the rocks that I got/ I’m still, I'm still Jenny from the block.” Ms Jennifer Lopez’s lyrics might not seem as though they owe much to the wisdom of ancient Greece, but Aristotle would have recognised them as part of an ethos appeal. Fearing mainstream success was compromising her street credibility and to appeal to her core fan base, J-Lo used that line to remind us that she was still authentic and relatable, which is the essence of ethos, one of the key ideas in rhetoric.

You see, rhetoric, the 3,000-year-old art of persuasion, is everywhere. Whether it’s R&B singers and rappers proving how “real” they are, or a tricky question in a job interview, everything in life is a question of strategy, and the deft use of rhetoric is the secret sauce behind the success of every persuasive appeal. It is the difference between war and peace, victory and defeat, or whether your opening line on Tinder leads to a date and a lifetime of companionship, or is simply ignored. (A certain winning persuasiveness can also come in handy once you do get that boyfriend or girlfriend.) It is the emailed pitch that resulted in the commission of the article you’re reading. It is, in life, the difference between “yes” and “no” in situations big and small, and remains as relevant to technology workers in the ideas economy as it was to men in togas in ancient Greece.

Thankfully, Mr Jay Heinrichs, who uses rhetoric to advise organisations ranging from Walmart to Nasa, is here with his book, Thank You For Arguing, to explain how rhetoric can help you win more in life, and generally have a more harmonious relationship with people around you. We are all practising rhetoric whether we know it or not, so why not do it more deliberately and skilfully? Below, with the help of Mr Heinrichs, we offer up some advice on one of rhetoric’s key lessons: how to win an argument.

It is easy to confuse fighting with arguing. “The basic difference between an argument and a fight: an argument, done well, gets people to do what you want. You fight to win; you argue to achieve agreement,” says Mr Heinrichs. Point scoring in an argument rarely leads to the prize of getting people to do what you want. “My wife often says that I’m at my worst when I’m right,” he says. “Our first instinct is to try and win on points. Do you want to prove yourself right? Or do you want someone to do something for you?” Remember, there are no prizes for being right, only for being persuasive.

Just as important as knowing what you want is understanding your audience. “A boy who wants to use his parents’ car to take a girl out on a date has a number of options,” says Mr Heinrichs. “But the most important thing to parents is safety. So if he says, ‘But, Dad, if I don’t have the car I’m going to have go through couple of bad neighbourhoods on mass transit, and we’ll end up dead in a ditch somewhere,’ that’s going to increase his chances of getting the car for the night.”

According to Mr Heinrichs, an early tactical concession is often the quickest route to outfoxing the opponent and is a kind of rhetorical jiu-jitsu. A person pulled over by the police for speeding has roughly three options for a response. The first is to be sarcastic or belligerent to the officer. Another is to make up a spurious excuse for speeding – “I have an emergency,” etc. The third is to concede that you were speeding, followed by, “I must have been watching the road too closely. Can you suggest a way for me to follow my speedometer without getting distracted?” This third way appeals to his ego and takes the heat out of an argument, lets the officer feel superior and may even get you off with just a warning.

Recriminations belong in the past. Using the future tense takes the anger out of a situation. “My son had used all the toothpaste,” says Mr Heinrichs. “So I yelled, ‘George! Who used all the toothpaste?’ and he replied, ‘That’s not the point, is it, Dad? The point is how are we going to keep this from happening again?’” The most productive arguments use the future tense, the language of choices and decisions. Mr Heinrichs follows this up with a quick tactical concession – “Yes, George, you win. Now will you please get me some toothpaste?” – after which George, feeling triumphal and therefore benevolent, duly gets his dad some toothpaste. Domestic bliss ensues.

Every argument is a blend of ethos, pathos and logos. Ethos is an appeal to character and makes others feel as though you share their values. Strategic admission of vulnerability can be used to make the audience identify with you. Logos is an appeal to logic. This is where tactical concessions and use of the future tense come into play. Pathos is an appeal to emotions and involves the use of humour and being sympathetic to the needs of your audience. Dial up or down any of the three, depending on your audience. For instance, an audience of doctors may require more of a logos appeal, whereas RnB singers and rap artists often use ethos.