Tag Archives: Persuasion

Burnt Out

Here I sit after an eight hour ordeal trying to get police to come deal with a thief, reflecting back on nearly seven years of regular events like this, being attacked for saying thieves do NOT have a right to steal anything they want, trying to adjust to the lack of sleep this causes, AND just reflecting on some of the blog posts I’ve seen lately.

At this point, all I can do with the situation at home is file formal complaints with oversight agencies.  The blog situation is a microcosm of the mess I see everywhere in the world; people so caught up in their pet cause that they’ll say anything and go to seemingly any lengths to rationalize what they say.  I’ve seen this for decades on the internet and elsewhere, but it’s shifted from the rare troll to a common debate tactic.

I had been toying with the idea of starting a separate blog for promoting open communication, getting people to try to listen to one another, and trying to offset some of the hate I see everywhere.  I’ve seen people  I thought were rational make posts saying that one person was evil and neglecting their kids because they travel on their job occasionally.  They wouldn’t spank if they weren’t an ignorant redneck and were actually home to bond with their kids.  Never mind the blogger had no personal knowledge of this person and the post was based strictly on their own biases and need to beat down somebody on the other side.

I’ve seen a nature blog post saying people effectively were a cancer on the universe and were going to cause the entire universe to collapse.  How do you even debate with anything that irrational?  Even if you accept the premise that as children of the divine that we have that much potential power, it also has to presume that that same divine is too short sighted to set up safeguards for the universe against such bad energy.  That would be a pretty damned stupid God to be so short sighted.

If you’re on the “correct” side of an issue, anything goes in the name of the cause.  That used to be called fanaticism and was considered dangerous.

Everything from spanking to politics, religion and environmentalism, people on both sides play loose with facts, launch personal attacks on the other side, resort to gross hyperbole, and completely misrepresent what other people say… all for the sake of making an imagined point.

Reality is, these people only hurt their causes.  That’s a shame since in many cases they have a valid cause.  Hate is only going to get responded to with more hate, unless the other person is an utter Saint.

To paraphrase Proverbs: The gentle word turns away wrath, but a harsh word stirs up anger.

Look at the alternative we see nowadays.  The standard “debate” tactic is something along the lines of “You’re a utterly vile human being because you don’t agree with me”.  Does anybody REALLY think THAT will change anyone’s mind?

The reason this tactic has become so common is that people have been stirred up to believe the worst in others.  The older wisdom that’s been lost in the inflated sense of ego is “Never attribute to malice what can be explained by ignorance”.  If people would realize they are NOT infallible, and that the other side might have a point and that there are multiple ways of doing anything, there might be some hope for humanity.

Duality of choice is false logic, designed to control and manipulate people, and / or just completely short sighted.  Let me give an example from classic politics:

Liberals are (stereotypically) big on social problems  or spending and conservatives are equally stereotypically big on defense spending.  Guns or butter as the debate used to be called.  Everybody is divided into two camps and fights away while those in power waste fortunes via graft.  If we looked past the distraction and paid attention to the waste and graft, we’d realize there’s enough money for all of it.  That requires the third option of just making sure the existing money is wisely spent though.

With gross twisting of words, telling half truths and using extreme hyperbole, there’s also the issue of the “speaker” losing credibility with their audience.  When your audience sees or sense a lack of integrity, there’s no way they’ll follow you.  Readers or listeners will often forgive honest mistakes, but a sensed lack of integrity will kill efforts faster than anything, including fanaticism.

If you want to convince others about something, be passionate, but warm.  Part of that being warm means debate the idea, NOT attack the person.  Know your facts, including those the other side believes, and be willing to admit if there are weaknesses for your cause.  Propose alternatives to the “party line”.  Listen to the other side and try to understand what their concerns are.  When you understand where they’re coming from, it’s much easier to come up with a win-win alternative.

And for what it’s worth…  These are the things I was taught in high school and college debate, where I actually went undefeated.  Communication IS the one thing I know, even if it often doesn’t show here thanks to frustration, sleep deprivation and physical pain.

And yes, I’ve disabled comments this time.  I’m sick of all the toxic BS anymore.

The Art of Persuasion Hasn’t Changed?!?

I’m writing this in response to an article I came across on the Harvard Business Review (HBR).  They sometimes have some good stuff, but I think this particular article was a little short sighted

The irony here is that the author is a Harvard professor in communications.  He had a point about the basics not changing since Aristotle.  His list of the five basics are:

  1. (Establishing) Character
  2. Reason
  3. Emotion
  4. Metaphor
  5. Brevity

The only one I could argue with is that I think establishing character is now often replaced with establishing some sort of (often imagined or exaggerated) expertise or credibility.  Morals don’t matter so long as you’re an expert, a victim or better yet both.

Re-reading the article, maybe it’s fairer to say that while I agree those key foundations haven’t changed much, I’ve seen a great deal of change in the nature of persuasion.

Misrepresentation and half truths have always been a tool of the unscrupulous.  Nothing new there.  I’m seeing them used FAR more often nowadays though.  The media and politicians on both sides do this constantly anymore, to the point I don’t believe anything they say without extensive fact checking.  There’s a HUGE difference between “unarmed man shot by police” and “unarmed man high on drugs shot by police while trying to wrestle gun away from officer”.  The former gets far more ratings than the latter though.

Combine that with sarcasm and you’ve got the play book for all the late night talk shows.  A far cry from the days of Carson.

As I mentioned in a reply to another blog, I also see deliberately vague communication being used much more frequently.  Typically with the goal of creating some sort of deniability on the speaker’s part if they’re called out on anything.  I miss the days when  “establishing Character” and speaking plainly yet in a civil manner was considered a virtue.

The biggest change in persuasion specifically that I’ve seen is the use of manipulative language.  Without getting into politics, let’s take another look at the news.  We’ve all heard the term “collusion” tossed about in excess the last few years.  It sounds horrible and it’s used to provoke a strong negative emotional reaction.  Yet, there’s no LEGAL basis for the term.  It was used in place of the proper criminal term of “conspiracy” because then the media and various other people can’t be sued or prosecuted for making false criminal charges.  The Left did it with Trump and the Right did it with Hillary.  That was just an easy and blatant example.  I’m not taking sides at all here either.  I think we all would have been better served by honest discussions about what may have been illegal and what may have been legal but was certainly bad form or outright immoral.  The lesson here remains to be aware of the manipulative use of language.

Persuasion has become far more of a science today also.  People know that if they can get a peer in a group to say something is good or bad, the rest of the group is much more likely to follow suit.  That’s the whole trick to selling Tupperware or Mary Kay.  I could go on for quite a while here, but there are dozens of websites devoted to revealing sales tricks like that, push-pull techniques, take aways and imagined scarcity, etc…

Probably the most insidious form of persuasion is Neuro-Linguistic Programming or NLP.  I’ve mentioned this a few times in previous posts.  NLP was first created in the late 70s with the goal of figuring out how the best in any given field do what they do and making it repeatable.  NLP quickly became focused on communication and persuasion, and borrows heavily from Ericksonian Hypnosis.  It’s used in everything from selling to seduction too.

To over simplify it, NLP persuasion (at it’s most basic levels) relies on subtle “hypnotic” commands and catch phrases to trick people into thinking they want to do or not do something.

For example; “what was it like when you…” will get a person to recall a specific experience.  Anything from sex to the first time they saw and fell in love with their dream car.  Don’t believe me?  Ask yourself about something that way and see if your mind doesn’t begin recalling that experience.

There are dozens of phrases like that also.  “What would it be like if…” for example.  The whole idea being to capture and lead the target’s imagination toward a desired result.  There are other tricks used along with those phrases, such as the human mind’s inability to process a negative.  Phrase anything as a “don’t want to” and the other person’s subconscious will process it as a “want to”.  Which sounds more sincere?  “I don’t want to have sex.” or “I just want to cuddle and relax.”

It’s not necessary for you to immediately realize just how twisted this can get.  If you think about it though, you might find yourself aware of just how great the potential for abuse here is.  😉

Presuppositions are another NLP trick used by nearly everyone today.  A presupposition is something stated as fact and used as a premise for an argument / persuasion attempt.  Let’s avoid politics and the media for this example.  If I said “It’s going to rain today, so you should take your umbrella.”, the presupposition there is that it is indeed going to rain.  That may or may not be true, but by stating it as fact, the debate on if the umbrella is needed is derailed unless the likelihood of rain is challenged.  That challenge is less likely since the rain was stated as a matter of fact.

Again, if you pay attention (an NLP embedded command to do so), you’ll see presuppositions used everywhere.  Anything from you need something being sold, and that it can be a benefit to you, so something that “other” group over did was evil and clearly motivated by malice.

So yes, the very basics of communication may not have changed much, but I think it’s easy to see that the science and morals of how one goes about persuading have changed a great deal.