What’s Doesn’t Hurt to Ask by Trey Gowdy about? Do you wish you could change anybody’s mind about something you’re passionate about?
In Doesn’t Hurt to Ask, Trey Gowdy outlines how to effectively persuade others by asking questions, using concrete evidence, and getting to know your conversation partner. Gowdy draws on his experiences in court and on investigative committees in Congress to teach you how to change someone’s way of thinking.
Read below for a brief overview of Doesn’t Hurt to Ask.
Overview of Doesn’t Hurt to Ask
In Doesn’t Hurt to Ask, former prosecutor and South Carolina politician Trey Gowdy draws on his professional experience to provide strategies for persuasion and argumentation. He advises focusing on facts and hard evidence, listening to and showing respect for your conversation partner, and above all, asking questions. While having persuasive skills can help you advance your goals, Gowdy also believes that it can make you better at connecting and collaborating with other people. He argues that this skill is sorely needed in the US right now: He left politics in part over his frustration with a deeply partisan Congress in which most people were already entrenched in their position and not open to debate.
Gowdy mainly draws on his experiences as a criminal prosecutor and the chair of several investigative committees in US Congress, including the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform and the Select Committee on Benghazi. He acknowledges that the Benghazi committee was flawed and that its findings disappointed many of his fellow Republicans, who’d hoped to see former President Barack Obama’s administration indicted for an alleged cover-up. However, he still cites it as a positive example of effective persuasive tactics, namely asking questions and focusing on facts. He argues that if the committee failed, it was only because people were less interested in uncovering the truth than in politicizing the issue across party lines.
In this guide, we’ll break up Gowdy’s advice about the art of persuasion into three sections: The Goal of Persuasion, which considers how persuasion can be a tool to connect people rather than have one person dominate another; Know Your Material, which advises relying on facts and having a good understanding of both your and your opponent’s evidence; and Ask Questions, which discusses the different ways you can use questions to further your persuasive goals. We’ll also look at how Gowdy’s advice compares to that of other experts, provide examples of his tactics, and consider the viability of those tactics in the US courtroom setting where he learned them.
The Goal of Persuasion
Gowdy argues that the goal of persuasion shouldn’t simply be to advance your own point of view, but to better understand others and reach a higher truth through debate. He repeatedly emphasizes that persuasion is not about winning for its own sake, but about convincingly presenting what you believe to be the truth to others. The truth is more important than the benefits of winning, and to that end, Gowdy believes that you should always enter a debate with an open mind and the willingness to be convinced of your opponent’s point of view.
Gowdy therefore sees honesty and open-mindedness as the two main values of debate, with honesty requiring you to be truthful about your goals and avoid emotionally manipulative tactics, and open-mindedness requiring you to listen to and fairly consider what your opponent has to say. He believes both values lead to better communication and outcomes that are more favorable to everyone involved.
Be Honest
Because Gowdy believes that the purpose of debate is to arrive at a truth everyone can accept, he dismisses persuasive tactics that he sees as dishonest, manipulative, or driven by emotion rather than by the facts. He states that you should never lie, insult, or attempt to deliberately anger your opponent, or use threats or shows of force in making your argument. You should strive to change minds by convincing people that your version of the truth is the most logical and best-supported version, rather than through coercion or by encouraging someone to ignore the evidence in favor of what “feels” right.
Gowdy bases much of his advice about persuasion on his experiences as a prosecutor. He believes that the US court system is built around the pursuit of truth and fairness for victims and the accused alike, and that the rules and procedures of courtrooms—such as the evaluation of evidence and the judge’s dismissal of any evidence that’s irrelevant or poorly supported—have been tested over the centuries as effective tools for illuminating truth. While he also pulls from his time on Congressional committees that investigated wrongdoing on the part of politicians, he expresses frustration that in Congress, the facts of a case often mattered less than a person’s popularity with the public or in the media.
Be Open-Minded
While Gowdy acknowledges that most people approach a debate with the goal of winning, he repeatedly stresses that remaining open to being persuaded yourself not only results in a better, more honest society, but also makes you a more effective persuader. If you seriously consider the counterarguments to your position, you’re better able to defend yourself against them. Additionally, if you treat your opponent with respect and strive to understand their position, you’re better able to foster a relationship with them, which makes cooperation possible even if you still ideologically disagree. Gowdy claims that being open-minded was central to his ability to collaborate across party lines in Congress.
Know Your Material
Moving from the goals of persuasion to tactics, Gowdy believes that you should enter a debate armed with as much knowledge as possible about both your topic and your opponent. Preparedness matters more to success in rhetoric than charisma or luck and can be more reliably honed through practice. While you should strive to appear confident and likable to your opponent and (if applicable) your audience, Gowdy argues that it’s more important to appear credible—if your knowledge can be trusted, then your interpretation of that knowledge and the conclusions you draw from it naturally appear more legitimate.
Specifically, Gowdy advises having a full understanding of the facts of the issue and the arguments your opponent plans to use so that you can emphasize your own knowledge and undermine theirs.
Know the Facts
Gowdy believes that facts provide a stronger basis for an argument than emotion because they’re fixed and can be universally understood, even by people with opposing worldviews. While facts can be attacked on the basis of their credibility (he advises that you always investigate who discovered a fact, how, and under what conditions) and alternative interpretations can be provided (he advises that you consider alternative interpretations, even if only to dismiss them as less logical than your own), they aren’t as easily twisted as appeals to emotion or to shared values.
Gowdy advises that armed with the facts about your topic, you should find ways to make those facts stick in your opponent’s and audience’s minds—namely through constant repetition, organizing your argument in such a way that you begin and end with your strongest pieces of evidence, and delivering them with emotion and sincerity. While he insists that emotion shouldn’t be the basis of an argument, establishing an emotional connection between your listeners and your facts can make a stronger impression than just a dry recitation of facts. For example, emphasizing the tragedy implied by a high drunk driving mortality rate is more memorable than simply providing the statistics without context.
Know Your Opponents
For Gowdy, knowing your opponents means not just being able to empathize with them, but also fully understanding what their arguments are, what facts they’re relying on, and what it would take to convince them to abandon their position. While much of your argument will be dedicated to articulating and defending your position, you can use your understanding of your opponent’s perspective and facts to gradually undermine them. This manifests in attacks on their credibility, their conclusions, and even their language.
Attacking your opponent’s credibility means questioning the viability of their facts or their ability to interpret them. In the same way that you should question where your own facts came from and how they were discovered, Gowdy suggests questioning where your opponent got their facts, how reliable those sources are, and whether the conclusions drawn come from those sources (for example, from the expert author of a scientific paper) or from the opponent themselves (who may be invested in the topic, but not an expert). Facts that come from a single source whose process can’t be reproduced, such as from a personal experience or eyewitness account, are particularly vulnerable to attack.
If the facts aren’t easily undermined, or if you or your opponent are working from the same facts, Gowdy suggests targeting the conclusions they draw instead. Wherever your opponent makes a logical leap—for example, by suggesting that high crime rates are caused by a weak police response—you can introduce doubt by providing alternative explanations for the same evidence; for example, that high crime rates are actually caused by a surge in unemployment. Gowdy also advises targeting hyperbolic language, such as “never,” “always,” “everybody,” and so on.
Finally, says Gowdy, you can cast doubt on your opponent’s conclusions by suggesting bias on their part—for example, questioning a coal mining CEO’s ability to objectively evaluate the industry’s environmental impact. However, Gowdy warns that this kind of direct attack on your opponent may come off as overly personal and thus backfire, undermining your own claims to objectivity.
Ask Questions
According to Gowdy, the most effective tool of persuasion isn’t any particular way of making an argument, but asking questions. Asking questions serves three main functions: It endears you to your opponent or audience by showing that you’re an active and engaged listener; it allows you to learn about your opponent’s beliefs, evidence, and reasoning; and it allows you to guide the flow of the conversation without appearing to do so—by asking leading questions rather than making declarative statements. Gowdy claims that as a prosecutor and chair of Congressional committees, he spent more time asking questions than constructing a narrative from those answers.
According to Gowdy, there are three types of questions: leading, non-leading, and “why” questions. Leading questions can be used to direct the conversation, while non-leading and “why” questions can be used for information gathering. All three types can be used to demonstrate the speaker’s willingness to listen and consider alternative points of view. Gowdy argues that most people prefer to talk rather than to listen, and so listening to your opponent’s perspective—even if you ultimately disagree with it—makes them feel respected and treated fairly. Eliciting such positive feelings brings you and your opponent closer together and makes cooperation between you more viable.
Gowdy discusses the advantages and disadvantages of leading versus information-gathering questions, and ultimately advises using both at different points in a debate.
Lead With Questions
Leading questions suggest their own answer in the way the question is asked. For example, beginning a question with “Wouldn’t you agree that…” or “Isn’t it true that…” invites the person to adopt your reasoning on an issue rather than to express their own. Even less directly leading questions can subtly push the person toward agreeing with you, with phrasing like “Is there any way you’d consider…” or at least toward subjects that better serve your position, such as “Why don’t we think about…” Gowdy argues that these types of questions, in inviting the other person to speak and suggesting collaboration in their phrasing, are more convincing and less inflammatory than simple “I believe” or “I disagree” statements.
Gowdy says that leading questions also allow you to direct the flow of the conversation and keep things on topic. Even if your opponent introduces subjects or facts you don’t want discussed, you can ignore or steer the conversation away from them with your next question. Gowdy also suggests reframing things they say in a way that’s more favorable to you, for example, with phrases like “Surely you aren’t arguing that…” or “Couldn’t that also mean…” However, he stresses that you should genuinely listen to your opponent’s answers rather than simply waiting for your turn to speak. If your questions appear sincere, your opponent will be more engaged, and you’re more likely to end the conversation positively, if not in agreement.
Information Gathering
While Gowdy encourages gathering as much information as possible about the topic and your opponent before attempting to persuade them, asking questions can be a useful tool of information gathering in the moment. Non-leading questions seek basic facts and information—what happened, where it happened, who was involved, and so on. Unlike leading questions, they don’t suggest a possible answer in the asking of the question, but Gowdy argues that they can still be used strategically. For example, asking a coroner to provide graphic details of a body’s condition in a murder case can elicit sympathy from the jury, even if the witness doesn’t themselves call for the accused person to be prosecuted.
(Shortform note: Outside of a courtroom setting, seeking facts about the subject of disagreement can still give you ammunition or elicit sympathy from bystanders. For example, if you and a roommate are arguing over kitchen cleanup duties, asking them to name each time they’ve cleaned up after themselves—with specific examples—may reveal the disparity in how often the job has fallen to you instead, as well as the fact that it’s an ongoing problem rather than a one-time issue.)
“Why” questions, on the other hand, give your opponent a chance to articulate what they believe and the reasoning they followed to reach their conclusions. While Gowdy warns that the questioner can lose control of the conversation if they allow their opponent to speak for too long, generally asking questions breaks up the flow of your opponent’s argument and allows you to deconstruct it one claim at a time. You can put them at a disadvantage by asking about holes or weak points in their argument that they would likely have otherwise ignored, and even manipulate their emotional state by asking “soft,” easily answered questions or “hard,” more challenging questions at different times.
