If You Have These Habits, You're Accidentally Making People Dislike You 

That “Conversation” sounded more like a Call of Duty lobby.

Jordan Peterson was actually sorry about literally saying "gotcha" because it put the other person on the defensive even more. I think he talked about it in Joe Rogan podcast

"I want to win" vs. "I want to learn if I'm wrong"

I mean that whole situation didn't seem like an argument. It looked like Ethan was trying to set up Crowder from the beginning.

I don't see the point of analyzing it as a debate, from the moment Ethan made his reveal it was clear the premise of the conversation was gone

Thank you for advice, I will now use this on my girlfriend

Let’s be honest, the conversasion ended when Sam showed up

"Often the things that aggravate us the most about other people are the things we don't like about ourselves that we pretend are not there."

Biggest thing this channel has taught me is Russel Brand is basically charisma personified

6:30 is so important. “You know I respect you” “ I admire you” “the problem i have with that argument” “ I’m not saying you’re wrong” “not in alignment with that perspective” the more you attack someone personally intentionally or unintentionally. Emotions will rise. Maybe causing you to move away from the main point at hand. Its such a good tip. A compliment following with a disagreement you have with somebody’s perspective on something. Opens up so much and diffuses a lot of disagreements. If not then you’re able to control how to approach the conversation and if you’d want to entertain it or not.

i want someone to look at me the same way that charisma on command looks at russel brand😩😫😖😌

I'm not trying to flame but Ethan upsets people a lot.

Jordan Peterson's gotcha moment in that interview was totally justified with the way she was going after him n trying to twist everything he said. It was beautifully clever in my opinion.

This does leave out some context with the DMs they exchanged before the debate as well. Crowder explicitly mentions that there will be no gotchas, and that it will be only the two of them. He confirmed it more than once with him that it would be only the two of them in a respectful debate with no "gotchas". Now, I think Crowder acted very childish in the situation, but personally I would also be pretty pissed that someone would so blatantly disregard the guidlines that they both explicitly agreed on and waste my time like that.

Wow, you managed to teach something useful from a dumpster fire of a conversation. Well done 👏

Well Kathy Newman did set herself up for that "gotcha" momment when she interrupted Jordan all through out the interview.

The thing is that ethan guy never intended to have a conversation.

3) Basically, argue like Thomas Aquinas. Whether or not you agree with his conclusions, Aquinas was really good at giving the best argument against what he believes.

If you’re constantly trying to cut someone off or speak over the other person, there isn’t going to be a good debate.

I loved this video, it's very well made! Thank you so much! I never thought I could learn something from such a chaotic scenario.

One of the things I've learned most from this channel is oddly Russel Brand is just wildly charismatic.

The editing of this video is so good! Displaying the advice textually helps out tremendously, especially to make it more memorable. Thank you.

Was this a gotcha moment? Ethan: "WE GOT EM"

Yeah I don't think Ethan was coming into this for a productive conversation to begin with.

9:00 this is genuinely the best advice I’ve ever received. I’ve known for the longest that when making argument, I could be wrong and that its ok to be wrong, but my attitude was always “I want to win” rather than “I want to learn if I’m wrong”. I’ve tried to let the other person know that when making an argument I could be wrong, but given the circumstances I believe what I say to be true, but given the “I want to win” mindset, I can only imagine I’ve missed opportunities to come to a better conclusion for both parties

The last point is spot on. We are often wrong about certain things.

Yeah the gotcha moment is definetely a bad call. H3 flopped on that one.

That level of charitability doesn't work with bad faith actors though.

Socratic Method ftw 🙌

I have no idea who these guys are, but that guy with the hat is the type that agrees to settle an issue after school and ends up bringing his brother to do the fighting for him while he runs off. That right there is lower than dirt.

lying to atempt to destroy the moral value of your oponents is silly and actually destroy your value in the debate. if you want to confront something you must show why your ideas deserve atention.

When people say you're right I do not take credit. The idea is right. Not me.

Your ability to make this video without being eaten alive is evidence of your reputability. You are qualified to make the content that you do.

I came away from that video thinking Ethan and Sam were just awful dishonest people.

I didn’t realize Ethan would do such a thing, to be honest.

You missed a crucial point on Steven’s part: He sent Dave Landau footage himself because Klein was only sending footage of Seder after he changed over to Seder. Klein covered that on his podcast by cutting back to himself, but Crowder’s footage showed that Klein never appeared on-camera again after hiding behind Seder. Steven had every right to call Klein a coward, Klein had no right to say the same of Steven.

i love how russell brand, the king of charisma, made an appearance in this video.

Here is the main thing about this, generally i would aggree with most people who criticize crowder here, however remember that the debate was meant to be one on one, and snakelishly brought another person and put crowder in bad position from the start, it was disingenoous and crowder didn't have any obligation to ethan there. You don't get mad at people being mad at other people cheating when htye get caught.

Although crowder certainly didn't make himself appear good, he did preface before Ethan got on the call that he believed he would do anything to dodge the debate; I would believe this initial bias to influence his later actions because he's done a number of debates on his channel and acted far better then this.

These videos have literally changed my life.. Thanks so much

I LOVE the shoutout to your editors! That typa thing really means the world to us. People don't ever see the production process of videos!

"Wow, what a f*cking nightmare!" -Steven Crowder 😂😂😂

Awesome video guys. Love this level of dissection and really like how nonpartisan you guys are. Super clear and interesting!

There's so many people I need to send this to.

I love how they show you real world interactions and examples. Helps you see more clearly

Btw: Dale Carnegie's book is on spotify as audio book, too. I can really recommend it.

You state that this "somehow" devolved into a shitshow, there's no "somehow" about it. Imagine you ask someone out on a date, and you get to the restaurant and your date stands up and says that they don't really like dates so they brought another person to sit in on the date with you. Is that a date? Are you not supposed to call the person out on the stunt they pulled? Are you supposed to sit down and go through with the date even though the other party didn't hold up their end? Can you do a video on that awkward situation? That would be more relevant to this situation.

I mean Ethan lost any right to a fair civilised debate the moment he pulled a bait and switch. At that point it was not a debate and so just talking over the person who was switched is perfectly fine, Infact I would have just cut the stream. Listen if your not coming into a debate on fair terms then I am not going to treat you with fair terms.

"Tribalism" - I love that word. It accurately conveys group-think while simultaneously coming across as a mild insult.

As a video idea, I’d recommend doing a deep dive on why Kobe Bryant was so charismatic. Incredibly competitive athletes can often be unlikeable as people, and Kobe was hyper competitive even among athletes, but he always comes across as likeable and charismatic in interviews, but feels very different to people like RDJ who also have immense confidence. Just think it would be a good video for those people, myself included, who want to be more likable without seeming overconfident and arrogant .

Gorgeous analysis. Thank you for your editing and work you put here.

So, I basically learned from this that you're opinion on a subject is basically if you like who's involved.

This was just a huge meeting of huge egos. Very grimy on the part of Ethan and Sam though.

If you're going to strawman someone like that, you can't expect them to not get defensive about it. Honestly. Doing that immediately turns the conversation toxic. Literally trolling him with that Spartan comment wasn't toxic? That's what derailed the whole thing from the start. it was very "gotcha" like you said, and pretty unfair. I don't blame him for reacting that way. At that point it was just a shitshow.

Well said! I especially hate when people start shouting over someone talking and it becomes a battle of who has the strongest voice, rather than who has the strongest argument...

Thank you so much for the book recommendation at the end! Great video, I really like it when you focus your videos on behaviors we should avoid.

Damn the animations are on a whole new level looks really clean

Holy freak, this video packaged more valuable lessons than I expected and I watch this channel regularly

I need this ! On various interviews and livestreams where sometimes controversial topics come up and I don’t want to alienate anyone ever

Finally. Something to make people dislike me! Being too approachable can be a burnout at some point.

Another reason why I love this channel so much. Great breakdown!

3:17 I love how you encourage the use of upward inflection to make them persuade themselves. It's such a different contrast than what red pill gurus preach of having a low inflection every time and making statements instead of asking questions. I've never heard any red-pill guru support the use of an upward inflection tone

All these reasons are why I always avoided politics growing up and still do somewhat now. It always came off as 2 people trying to fight and win an argument rather then a genuine discussion where I the viewer could leave learning something new. Social media has just made it 10x worse.

Hey Ben ! Awesome video as always !

very well made thank you for this

I dont think #1 is correct at all. Ethan clearly didnt come to argue with Crowder about the CDC. He wasnt going for a “gotcha” moment with the Spartan comment, he was distracting Crowder to drop the surprise on him. Not defending Ethan here just stating that Ethan’s goal was to troll from the beginning.

Imagine trying to achieve anything productive with someone like Ethan. It's just not gonna happen.

Such an important video, going through topics I sensed should be during an argument, but could never pinpoint and define them. And beyond that, the last two points about self reflection and improvement, and even more important, about per-existing bias. Which I have seen on both sides of the spectrum. Well done on this vid, will take away all of what you presented.

I feel like while you are making decent points, there is a major assumption here. You allude to it in your first point. You assume the H3 crew went in intending to have any productive conversation and debate. One side intended to have a debate and the other only wanted to insult and attack. The conversation wasn't going to be productive from the start because only one side wanted to talk. It was obvious when H3 broke the debate rules that both sides had agreed to. You can't have a discussion with a party that has no intention of following their own rules and therefore you can't convince anyone when you aren't having a discussion.

So I'm not American, my understanding is the channels mentioned here are very much engrossed in US politics, but I still enjoyed this video (and this channel generally). Given that the Socratic Method was mentioned here, I thought it might be worth mentioning, for the people who are willing to read, what Aristotle had to say on the subject of rhetorics (that is, how to engage in debate or discussion with somebody when you hope to be persuasive to either them or some other audience). I would split it into two: firstly you have what Aristotle wrote in his book Rhetoric (so much of which I see reflected in this video that I do wonder if COC read it), and then you also have Aristotle's dismantling of Zeno's paradoxes (or at least three of them). In Rhetoric, Aristotle lays out four basic principles on which your rhetorics should be founded upon: ethos, logos, pathos and kairos. Ethos: the demonstration of wisdom and virtue when it comes to a particular subject, or in general towards your audience. Logos: the use of relevant knowledge. Do not appeal to irrelevant knowledge or feelings on other matters, or attempt to stir up irrelevant feelings on the matter of the person's character. Pathos: an appeal to how somebody may feel about the matter in hand (so if ethos and logos together are about appealing to knowledge, pathos is about appealing to emotion). An appeal to emotion is valid as long as it is the emotions relevant to the subject, rather than stirring up feelings on a different matter (so again, attacks on character, on unrelated topics, or strawman arguments). Kairos: the timing. It's not enough to have a good hand to play, one must also know the most appropriate time to play it. As I said, it's clear to see how these principles plug in to much of what was said in this video. Then we move onto Aristotle's refutation of Zeno's paradoxes. So I'm sure some people have heard of Zeno's paradoxes, and Aristotle originally deconstructed them more in the name of physics and mathematics, however the approach he took in some cases is a good case study for how to deal with the arguments other people may make. Zeno's most famous paradox is the thought experiment of a sprinter trying to make it to the end of a track. If the sprinter has to run 100m, before they can do that they must run 50m, and before that 25m and so on and so on, ad infinitum. You could infinitely keep dividing the task, and the nature of infinity is such that not only could the sprinter never finish the 100m task, but they could never even start it, therefore all motion is an illusion. The second paradox I would cover is the grain of flour paradox. If one grain of flour drops on the floor, it doesn't make a sound, but if a million grains of flour drop onto the floor at once, it makes a large noise. Since no amount of zeroes can add up to something, no amount of no sound can add up to sound, therefore the sound is an illusion. The final paradox that I think is worth covering (there were actually 11 paradoxes Zeno put forward) is the arrow paradox. If we imagine an arrow moving towards a target in an amount of time, and time can be broken up into instances or single moments, if we were to look at the arrow in each single instant, it would always look still (a modern take might be looking at the frames on camera footage), and since no amount of no movement can add up to movement, and time is just a summation of all instants where the arrow is not moving, the movement of the arrow towards the target is an illusion. Now, each of these paradoxes seems absurd, yet it's actually a little tricky to dismantle them without simply dismissing them for their "stupidity". This is why I think Aristotle's handling of them is a great case study for rhetorics. Let's work backwards from the arrow paradox: Aristotle starts by simply refusing the starting premise of the arrow paradox. The idea that time has to be broken up into instances where everything is still in each instance is an arbitrary starting premise. The definition of the movement of something through time could just as easily be the relative position of something compared to its previous position. With the flour paradox, Aristotle uses scientific knowledge to explain that sound is reverberations through the air, and a single grain of flour does not cause enough reverberation to reach our ears, but if you drop a million at once, the reverberations from each bounce off of one another and magnify, becoming large enough to reach our ears. For the sprinter's paradox, Aristotle explains that there is a difference between the infinity of expansion versus the infinity of division, and the latter requires consideration for what other variable must also divide. Yes, the distance the sprinter must cover is halving each time, but so is the amount of time it takes to cover it, meaning you have an infinite division of distance covered in an infinite division of time, therefore it is quite doable, since the equation would simplify to an amount of distance covered in an amount of time. So the point of all these is that it's interesting to note the three different strategies Aristotle used to debunk these arguments. He rejected the starting premise of one so as not to be led down a faulty path, he debunked another using knowledge and fact, and for the sprinter's paradox he was willing to follow Zeno down the proverbial rabbit hole (even though he could also have used the aforementioned strategies once again) and ended up using the thought experiment's own logic against it to arrive at the actual conclusion it was working towards. I just thought I would share some of Aristotle works on rhetorics with people who are interested. Congratulations to anybody who bothered to read it and expand your knowledge, which you can now share with all your friends at the bar and the library.

"Often the things that aggravate us about others are the things that we don't like about ourselves that we pretend are not there." Concentrated truth!

This was an excellent video, thank you! I took so many notes I practically transcribed the video.

It’s genuinely unfortunate what H3H3 has devolved into.

i mean ethan’s goal wasn’t to have a debate with crowder over CDC guidelines, this stemmed from a podcast episode a few weeks prior when producer dan said crowder should just debate sam seeder, and then crowder invited ethan to debate. h3 agreed with the sole intent to have a ‘gotcha’ and prove that crowder is scared of debated with sam.

Great information. Thank you. I was unaware of many points.

Awesome breakdown! I can't wait til Friday to listen to the Charlie and Ben podcast!

I don't think that the Spartan trivia is factual.

3:36 You expect crowder to finish the debate? It was clear that Ethan and Sam were not there for a debate, they were there to mess around. Crowder could have attempted to continue the conversation, but it was very obvious that Sam and Ethan wouldn't have complied. He would have just been talking to himself. If you watch Crowder's Change my Mind segments, it is clear that he is very capable of rational, calm and productive debate. The problem was Ethan acting like a clown. The reason why Crowder won't debate Sam is that Sam is an irrelevant figure in the community. Crowder can't afford to debate every personality that comes his way, he is a big name and has to choose other big names worthy of his time.

I love you guys man. Need to take that course,

Dont know what people see in Ethan, dude argues like a man child and is insufferable to listen to

Steven had no obligation to talk with Sam Seder. Ethan intentionally misled him just to get drama and clicks. At that point it's not about the conversation anymore so Steven can insult both of them to his hearts content.

One of Steve’s lower moments but he was understandably upset because he was supposed to talk to Ethan and Sam showed up but it was an especially bad look for Ethan

8:49 this leads into the topic of soldier mindset vs scout mindset - a very significant lesson and value many people forget More things this video touched on, taught, suggested, and just makes me rlly respect this channel for its values🙏🏻: - emotional bias - logical fallacies - self-improvement by reflection - peace making

10:09 "Projection reflection," this is such fantastic advice for self-growth

In principle the example is valid for what’s presented on the vid; however in reality the ethan, sam and crowder issue would have never gotten into a sam and crowder debate without a surprise gotcha moment

The Steven and Ethan issue, there was a lot of conflict beforehand, and I don't blame Stephen for acting the way he did Ethan was incriminating himself all the time

This was a great analysis. Thank you!

I like how u were showing jordan peterson when talking about unlikeable traits when he is insanely likeable😂

Ethan is still a coward though

“Respectfully, the issue I have with that perspective is that it’s held by someone with fake-looking Pig-Pen eyes.”

Pretty balanced analysis tbh. Thank you for keeping factual and impartial.

Great quality content ! I ve learnt a lot and took a lot of notes, thank you for this !

To be fair, Ethan lied, and changed the predetermined rules of the debate.

Just because someone hates you, doesn’t mean you’re wrong. I was just talking about this.

I and my dad have arguments very often which lead nowhere as I make all these mistakes. Making notes so that I keep them in mind....Thank you

Thank you for continuing to analyze human behaviors in communication. I found your channel a couple of weeks ago through random luck, and in skipping around (significantly beyond the surface recommendations), I have seen your studies to be very insightful. I work as a corporate facilitator and have been brought onto a new brand to teach a curriculum on modifying simple sales practices to emphasize humanity when introducing a new guest to a luxury product. With this focus for the next several months, I will be ducking into your channel more in my relaxing hours at the hotel gym. Could you keep it coming? 💡 Do you run a podcast? I have long-run drives between hotels and would love to saturate my mind with this type of straightforward analysis. Many of the new hires on my team could benefit from binging content like this in simple sound bites. I'm open to book or source content recommendations. Thank you for reading this entire comment. I may not be following RU-vid communication etiquette.

I learn a lot from these videos, thank you

For one, if you agree to debate someone one-on-one, don't go back on your word and try to ambush them with a 3rd party who has ZERO relevance to the interaction.

This was so well done. Very helpful

The only mistake here is that Crowder agreed to a discussion with someone whose brand and audience are about drama and low-brow entertainment; Ethan wasn't looking to 'achieve' anything of moral value here, views and YT revenue were his aims from the outset. Crowder could have responded with more class which may have embarrassed Ethan, e.g. I personally might have cut Ethan's incoming audio, and said 'I'll give you 5 minutes to decided if you want to debate on our agreed terms or not', without showing any or much emotional reaction, because, again, I think that would have confused Ethan and made him stop and think.... perhaps...