Way of influencing on the hearts

Shall we be fact seeking or aggressive?
Why we do not succeed in our discussions:
We have frequently found following affairs when discussing with the others:
1- We have seen many times that after hours of talks, we have failed to achieve any success in the progress of negotiations, while we believe that the matter is completely clear and acceptable, but the other party refrains to accept it.
2- It is often seen that the other party has become more firm and bigoted in his belief after long discussions.
3- It is mostly seen that after a long discussion, we do not feel any more the previous sincerity and purity in our heart towards the other party and feel an unreasonable hatred and spite towards him!
4- The history of religious discussions, quarrels and political doctrines shows that abundant powers used for proving a belief or a doctrine as well as the numerous books prepared with a plenty of difficulties and costs have not been so useful.
5- It is often observed that scientific negotiations which are started in an earnest setting, have been led to quarrels and sometimes grappling and or mayhem of individuals, while apparently there is no relation between “mayhem” and “scientific discussion” and never one of them could be proved by the other.
6- We have repeatedly seen that the other party has no reply against our strong logic and has become silent. However, he has not accepted the matter and does not submit to it and or hate it!
These are the realities that most of those who are engaged in scientific, social, political and such like discussions, have more or less experienced in the experiments and events of life and are very noteworthy.
Why it is so? Since these discussions are not made with the purpose of seeking facts. Rather, they have been made for dominance and victory over the adversary, and there is a big difference between them, although they are apparently the same.
The purpose of investigation and fact seeking is granting to someone what he lacks, without excluding him from anything, that is to say teaching him, without ruining his personality. But, the purpose of seemingly logical disputes and quarrels is depriving the other party from honour, pride and personality and hurting his affections against training what in his view or actually may not be so important and interesting.
Therefore, it is not surprising if he resists against it and hates it. So the psychologists say:
1- It is possible to suppress someone through dispute and quarrel, but we will never acquire his sincere approval.
2- It is impossible to convince an ignorant with the power of logic and quarrel.
3- The best means for victory in discussion is avoiding it. Basically, the discussions, which are changed into struggle, offence or defence and in other words, “controversy”, less happen to leave a considerable effect in attracting inward approval of individuals, and resistance of the other party indicates that he assumes his dignity and status in danger. Otherwise, negative resistance for teaching a matter to someone is senseless.
The discussions which agitate the other party and cause him to resist, may have been performed in one of the following ways:
1- The discussions mixed with humiliation of the other party or his beliefs, for instance when it is said your opinion is not logical at all; it is not wisely; no one agrees with it; this utterance is not expected or is strange to be expressed by you!
2- The discussions which are made in presence of a third person, the other party does not like to be defeated in his presence (most people are so).
3- When the discussion is made in a teaching mode, while the other party is not considered as his student, and or at least he does not accept this status for himself.
4- The discussion in which victory is the sign of excellence and priority of the speaker and ruins the “excellence seeking” spirit of the other party.
5- The discussion, the purpose of which is proscription of some deeds of the other party or one of his relatives and friends and or his beloved persons in the past or present.
6- The discussion which has become the substructure of his thoughts as a result of suggestion of surroundings or parents and such like.
In all of above cases, ordinary controversial methods should not be used for influencing on the mind and spirit of the other party. Rather, the applied methods should be absolutely apart from dispute.
Notes:
1. The psychologists have assumed three stages for man’s mind: 1- Conscious stage: referring to a stage in mind which deals with logical and intellectual arguments and deductions as well as the result of observations and experiences, and the relations of matters therein are exactly clear for man, and in other words, consciousness is the dominion of intellect. 2- Semiconscious: it is the same area of ambiguous and irregular thoughts and information which originates from instincts, affections and complexes, and in other words, semiconscious is the scene of emotions, tendencies and thoughts appearing from the instincts like self love and such like, and ambiguity is one of the its properties. 3- Unconscious: This is the same dark and forgotten area of mind that in normal conditions man is unaware of its contents. All the tendencies, which are not fulfilled for any reason, and are rejected from conscious stage, are focused in this part. Moreover, the forgotten memories, which may sometimes be remembered and or never be remembered due to their negative relation with one of the tendencies, are all concentrated in this part.
2. Extracted from Ehyaol Oloum, 365/2 to 367