This sentence instantly disarms debates where the objective is just to “win” rather than to understand and find a common solution.
Stubborn people are everywhere: at work, in our circle of friends or even in our own family. They are the ones who cling tooth and nail to their point of view, regardless of the arguments of their interlocutor. When faced with an obstinate person, we often feel like we’re hitting a wall, or finding ourselves trapped in a debate that will never have a winner. The temptation is strong to want at all costs to “shut down” the other, to prove their infallibility and to put an end to the discussion. However, if the first reflex is often annoyance or confrontation, psychologists and communication experts are clear: frontal attack is never the solution and guarantees defeat for both people. To break through the other person’s shell, you have to change your strategy and say a simple sentence, in a calm and composed tone while trying to maintain eye contact with the person.
This is what psychologist Marshall B. Rosenberg calls Non-Violent Communication: a very effective communication technique for managing a stubborn person or someone who monopolizes the floor. According to him, a very simple sentence changes the dynamic of the exchange. This is because a stubborn person often focuses on repeating their point of view or winning the debate, not on advancing a common goal. By saying this phrase, you are not challenging the person’s opinion, but you are challenging the relevance of their speech. You’re forcing her to step away from her argument to think about the point of this whole discussion. If there is no point, the argument collapses.
When faced with a narrow-minded person, communication experts suggest using the phrase: “What exactly are you getting at?” If the stubborn person doesn’t have a clear end point (for example, if they are just arguing to be right), this question puts them in a difficult situation. She is forced to pause to articulate her goal. This moment of reflection breaks the flow of her monologue and if she cannot respond, she is left speechless. Importantly, this sentence is assertive (it takes a stand to end the cycle of discussion), but it is neutral and does not use emotional or insulting language. If the stubborn person was looking to provoke an emotional reaction to justify their position, you take away that opportunity. She can’t accuse you of being aggressive because you’re asking a simple factual question about how the conversation was going.
After asking the question, pause and wait for the answer. Don’t immediately jump into a new argument. Let the pressure of justification fall on the stubborn person. In short, this sentence is a clear boundary: it indicates that you are only willing to continue listening if the conversation has a constructive direction.
