How we change what others think, feel, believe and do
When other people make statements, these may be challenged in various ways, in particular as to the truth of information and assertions used, as well as the validity of arguments.
Ways of challenging include:
Note that challenging is not the same as disagreeing. Disagreeing is indicating that you do not agree with the overall argument. When a person challenges, they have probably not yet have reached the point of overall agreement or disagreement, but are not yet convinced by the argument being presented. It is in practice an opportunity for the originating person to change what they are saying or suggesting.
A person who is challenging is effectively saying 'I want to be convinced, but am not convinced by what you are saying. I am, however, giving you another chance to convince me'.
So who has asked you to do this?
How do you conclude that? What is the logic?
Is your sample size sufficient to draw those conclusions?
When people present arguments or make assertions they often do so with many fallacies in their logic or basing their conclusions on poor quality data. If they are not challenged, they will usually assume that listeners agree.
While challenging is not really disagreeing, it may be used as a substitute. Rather than saying 'you are wrong' a challenge may be used as a more polite way of putting off agreement. If this is not understood, then it can lead to confusion as the other person keeps trying to persuade when they have no real chance of succeeding.
Challenging can also be used as a way of asserting one's identity. It says 'I exist. I am here. I can think. Please acknowledge me.' For such people saying 'That's a good point' and then revising the argument slightly or giving them a little more information is enough to gain their agreement.