The Next Conversation

Fisher challenges one of the most deeply ingrained communication instincts: the desire to “win” an argument. He illustrates the lesson through a memorable deposition involving Bobby LaPray, a physically imposing and emotional witness. When LaPray exploded with distrust and contempt for lawyers, Fisher initially felt the urge to retaliate. Instead, he paused, pivoted, and responded not to the aggression but to the pain underneath. This shift led to a profound emotional breakthrough: LaPray revealed his private struggles with caring for his elderly mother, ultimately breaking down in tears. The two connected, and the rest of the conversation was completely transformed.

Fisher uses this story to introduce his central philosophy: Winning arguments is often a losing strategy. While victory may feed the ego, it erodes trust and connection. The true goal of communication, he argues, is not to triumph over others but to understand them. This message echoes long-standing tenets of nonviolent communication and emotional intelligence movements, but it may carry different weight depending on one’s social context. For individuals in marginalized positions, the pressure to “win” an argument may feel tied to self-preservation or credibility. In these cases, Fisher’s advice to understand the other’s “pain” may not always feel safe, equitable, or accessible.