我也有话要说（二十五）证明他人错误≠证明自己正确

一般来说，所拥有的专业级知识量越少的听众，越听得进去“一面之辞”；而所谓的全面分析，往往只能使他们更加迷惑而已。在几乎所有的场合，这种听众的数量都可能超过50%，甚至更多。

Source: https://web.archive.org/web/20111113102157/http://www.lixiaolai.com/archives/9815.html

I Have Something to Say Too (25): Proving Others Wrong ≠ Proving Yourself Right

> By Li Xiaolai · 2010-07-28 · [Original (web archive)](https://web.archive.org/web/20111113102157/http://www.lixiaolai.com/archives/9815.html) (Chinese)
> Our translation from the Chinese original.

Generally speaking, the less professional-level knowledge an audience member has, the more readily he takes in a "one-sided account"; and so-called comprehensive analysis often only confuses them more. On almost every occasion, the number of such audience members may exceed 50%, or even more. Only those with enough professional-level knowledge can, among numerous incompatible positions, still keep their own thinking, make their own judgment, and in the end choose their own position as uninfluenced by the outside world (including what the speaker says) as possible. How many such audience members are there? Even "one in a hundred" may well be an optimistic estimate.

Precisely because of this, when speaking on controversial topics, you must be clearly aware of this principle:

> **Proving others wrong ≠ proving yourself right**

—even in "either-or" situations, try not to violate this principle.

In textbooks we often see the author, before explaining a correct view, summarize several past wrong views and point out the fallacies of those past views one by one. And so many speakers involuntarily believe that "pointing out others' errors first" is "one of the perfectly natural ways of reasoning"...

However, there are some points to note. First, since it's a "textbook," it already occupies a position of authority (which makes it less easy to question); second, the so-called errors criticized in textbooks are often "necessarily wrong by present standards"; finally, readers in most cases have no way to "question the author face to face."

And as an ordinary person, on stage you're unlikely to have a "textbook"-like position of authority. Besides, so-called controversies are unlikely to already have a settled judgment of right and wrong—if they did, they would no longer be controversies.

As a speaker standing on stage, you must constantly remind yourself that you're speaking to a group of people. This group doesn't necessarily share common ground with you, and there may be very big disagreements at any level. Sometimes the things you consider "undoubtedly established facts" really aren't necessarily so in others' eyes. There are far, far too many examples like this.

I bet that if, at an occasion with more than a hundred people, you fiercely attacked blood types, star signs and other views you consider pure bullshit, someone would surely "storm out in anger." And these don't even count as big powder kegs. If you talk at great length about how "food therapy is silly," someone will surely stand up and argue with you. If you dare attack Chinese medicine... In fact, sometimes the destructive power of those controversies will especially surprise you. For example, [the topic of Wubi](http://www.lixiaolai.com/archives/8338.html): before I touched it, I never imagined there would be such strong "feedback."

I'm not saying "for the effect of a talk, sometimes you shouldn't tell the truth." "Proving others wrong ≠ proving yourself right" means that, to achieve the expected effect, you'd do better to put your time and energy into "proving yourself right" rather than into "proving others wrong."

I've done countless experiments myself. I think "[dictation is the stupidest way to practise listening](http://www.lixiaolai.com/archives/5242.html)," and I think "[you should improve listening through shadowing/reading aloud](http://www.lixiaolai.com/index.php/archives/category/everyone-can-use-english/toefl-listening-and-speaking)." There are at least the following three ways to express my view to an audience:

> - First prove "why dictation is the stupidest way to practise listening," then explain "why you should improve listening through shadowing/reading aloud";
> - First make clear "why you should improve listening through shadowing/reading aloud," and then prove "why dictation is the stupidest way to practise listening";
> - Talk only about "why you should improve listening through shadowing/reading aloud";
>
> (Of course, there's no need for me to prove only "why dictation is the stupidest way to practise listening.")

Although I can't design precise experimental conditions the way psychologists at American universities do, I can use a crude method that can indeed show something:

> After each talk, I ask the students present to send me emails for three consecutive weeks, reporting their study records during that period—of course, I can't issue a compulsory order. So in any case it's unlikely that more than half the students really send me email reports as I asked. And among the students who do send emails, many won't really send them for three consecutive weeks—but in any case, there are always people sending me emails.

I think you can guess the rough results:

> - When I use the first way, (on average) about 10% of the students send me email reports;
> - When I use the second way, roughly about 15% of the students send me email reports;
> - When I use the third way, as many as about 25% of the students send me email reports!

Although it can't be proven for now, I personally strongly suspect that after I "prove why dictation is the stupidest way to practise listening" (even if in fact I really prove it flawlessly), some people may, merely out of a "contrarian mentality" of baffling origin, go and "try whether dictation works after all." (This seemingly incredible mentality is actually very common. After the bad film Hero was released, many people's reason for paying to rush into the cinema was "I just want to see how bad it really is.")

So, when the speaker's time is limited and the audience's energy is limited, focusing on "proving yourself right" rather than "proving others wrong" is a rather practical rule.