Most people will at some point have been upset about not defending their own position well enough in a conversation or discussion. In retrospect we know what we should have said, what we should have explained further. Or what we ourselves overlooked or mixed up in the situation. Someone who can defend their point even against strong contradiction we call quick-witted. Everybody has likely wished to be more quick-witted at some point.
Quick-wittedness can be used to defend a truth, point out unexplained assumptions and beliefs, reveal logical errors, or simply indicate unclear concepts, ambiguous statements and meaningless empty words. As a next step, explanations can be given, beliefs can be agreed or disagreed on, logical conclusions can be drawn, concept definitions can be given and statements can be formulated in a clear way.
However, quick-wittedness can also name a collection of methods useful to defend any message or opinion, including bullshit. This includes emotionally upsetting statements and accusations that are intended to distract from arguments. This way a wrong statement can be protected by flagging contradiction as inappropriate and unsympathetic. To further strengthen the emotional effect, indignation can be displayed. An even more aggressive method is to leave the objective argumentative level behind and instead attack the person expressing the argument. Then we can accuse them of being poorly informed, insufficiently qualified, or simply unprofessional. In this context it is also popular to boast and dazzle with factual knowledge, for example naming some studies or experts that seem to support the preferred opinion. This kind of quick-wittedness is commonly found in publicly broadcasted shows and discussions and is well suited to defend and establish lies and contradictory measures. At least as long as the audience is dazzled by it and has no clear understanding of the topic and the involved concepts as well as no interest in obtaining a better understanding. This kind of quick-wittedness can also be learned. That is not what this article is about. However, it is about noticing this kind of quick-wittedness better and quicker, when we are confronted with it. Then we can avoid trying to defend us against distracting accusations and keep the discussion on an argumentative level. Or, if necessary, end the discussion. When we practice real quick-wittedness, we can use it to bring every conversation and every train of thought closer to the truth. And we can no longer be mislead into confusion by the methods described in this paragraph.
Often different opinions can be traced back to a different choice of confidants and organizations accepted as trustworthy. People who trust in public or private news reports more than they trust themselves will adopt the statements presented to them as a given and unquestionable truth. The possibility that reports deviate from reality, are significantly distorted, or present a special situation as normal, or go beyond being informational in their intentions, does not exist for people with that believe. And if it happens, then it must have been an unfortunate mistake, and not a systematic problem. If two statements are in conflict, and if they stretch beyond our daily surroundings and are difficult to verify, then our judgment depends on who we trust. If both statements come from the same confidant, then we have a problem. Healthy and developed human beings trust first of all themselves and their own ability to think. When contradicting statements appear, they question the statements. They check their thinking, look for ways to harmonize the conflict, but always trust their capability to understand and integrate new input. A broken man holds on to the contradicting statements, because he believes they come from sources who must know better and who always speak the truth. He explains the contradiction with his own inability to understand the consequences of the statements and to solve the conflict. This furthers weakens his confidence. Whether a human beliefs that he can integrate any experience and statement in a consistent personal Weltbild or not is usually already shaped in early childhood. It requires much effort to change this at a later time, but it is possible. To do so, we must develop, leave the protected shell that we grew up in as a child. We must accept that the world challenges us, deceives us and that others manipulate us for their own personal interests and goals, which are often the result of confusion and lack of orientation on their side. We only have the strength to accept this when we have sufficient trust in our capability to navigate this world based on our own orientation and judgment.
A good way to strengthen our trust in our thinking and to improve our quick-wittedness is conceptual work. With conceptual work we learn to disconnect from all the Vorstellung that we connected to the words during our life. We come closer to the concept behind the Vorstellung and are more open for new inputs and new points of view. When listening or reading a text, we no longer simply replace words with a specific Vorstellung which then must somehow be connected according to the order of words we get. Instead, we look for the abstract, general concepts behind the words, find the sub concepts that belong to them, and we consider what concept, or what aspect of the concept shall be communicated with the given word in the given context. Here we can once again make use of Vorstellung in our thinking. But it is important that we do not glue one or few specific Vorstellung to a word and then insist on them. A more general understanding of concepts enables us to personally develop, develop language as such, and to better understand others. The ability to understand others, and to handle concepts as abstract as they are, not limited to our Vorstellung, is the best foundation for successful and quick-witted communication.