- Feast countdown = 41
- Blog posts skipped due to laziness = 2 (sorry)
- Cravings from the past 2 Sundays = Ice cream. Always.
- Craving distractions = Campaign work. Always.
What makes somebody change their mind?
What kind of electrical impulses have to trigger off in a person's brain for them to pause, mid-discussion, and say, "Oh, you may have a point there"?
Are there certain boxes that someone has to check off before they can acknowledge the merit of an opposing argument?
These are the questions that have recently dogged me on the campaign trail.
Given the raw nature of campaigning, where people tell you to your face exactly what they think of your arguments/ persuasive abilities, I find myself especially curious to understand the process of persuasion. How do you convince someone to genuinely listen to you, let alone consider your viewpoint? I want to get better at it, and I want to be more aware of my own tendencies toward stubbornness vs. openness.
This is much more than convincing someone to buy a Snickers over a Milky Way, though. Forget decision-making brought on by marketing or people's natural reflexes, where they aren't deliberately choosing to do things a different way. I'm talking about altering the way that someone looks at the world and their role in it, and the result is their mindful admission of a new perspective.
Full disclosure -- I don't claim to be any kind of expert on this subject, especially when it comes to points on psychology or biology, so all I really want to do is throw out some lessons on persuasion that have resonated with me recently. These mostly stem from real encounters I've had with folks in Missouri, coupled with reflections on my own ideology shift during college. Think of this as a late-night campfire discussion among friends, where the deep and puzzling thoughts seem to surface most, and everyone seeks to find answers based on their own experience. So here goes:
I'm curious to hear your reactions or other lessons learned on the art of persuasion. In the meantime, I'll continue testing these ideas with folks at the next town parade and local county fair...
What kind of electrical impulses have to trigger off in a person's brain for them to pause, mid-discussion, and say, "Oh, you may have a point there"?
Are there certain boxes that someone has to check off before they can acknowledge the merit of an opposing argument?
These are the questions that have recently dogged me on the campaign trail.
Given the raw nature of campaigning, where people tell you to your face exactly what they think of your arguments/ persuasive abilities, I find myself especially curious to understand the process of persuasion. How do you convince someone to genuinely listen to you, let alone consider your viewpoint? I want to get better at it, and I want to be more aware of my own tendencies toward stubbornness vs. openness.
This is much more than convincing someone to buy a Snickers over a Milky Way, though. Forget decision-making brought on by marketing or people's natural reflexes, where they aren't deliberately choosing to do things a different way. I'm talking about altering the way that someone looks at the world and their role in it, and the result is their mindful admission of a new perspective.
Full disclosure -- I don't claim to be any kind of expert on this subject, especially when it comes to points on psychology or biology, so all I really want to do is throw out some lessons on persuasion that have resonated with me recently. These mostly stem from real encounters I've had with folks in Missouri, coupled with reflections on my own ideology shift during college. Think of this as a late-night campfire discussion among friends, where the deep and puzzling thoughts seem to surface most, and everyone seeks to find answers based on their own experience. So here goes:
- Connect with the other person on an emotional level first, because it's one of the most powerful ways to influence. We see this all the time in politics -- people vote largely based on the social issues that strike closest to home and their way of life, like gay marriage and gun rights. If you can tie national-scale issues back to individual freedoms and things they hold dear, ears will perk up.
- Point out inconsistencies. Nobody likes to speak out of two sides of their mouth, and folks have a much harder time defending their position when they notice this of themselves. They'll never admit it upfront, but it's something they're likely to mull over later.
- Use humor strategically. Everyone likes to laugh; laughing disarms people, breaks down barriers of defensiveness, and it leaves them more willing to listen to you. It also puts everyone on the same page -- you all agree that an evangelical anti-gay leader with a rent-a-boy is funny -- which opens the door for you to point out the ridiculousness and utter hypocrisy there. (John Stewart = case in point)
- Find common ground whenever possible. Once you have a basis for agreement on something, such as a child's right to a good education, it's much easier to build up to the more controversial argument like redistribution of property taxes. Generally, I find that people like to find agreement early anyway.
- Be a history buff. Since history often repeats itself, it's good to brush up on the last 50 years in the US and have apt comparisons handy for today's issues. Then you'll know which policies succeeded or failed and which leaders were responsible. For example, if you can point to a commonly revered leader in semi-recent history (take Reagan for Republicans) who disagreed with the decisions being made today, it makes people think twice. What good Republican wants to disagree with Reagan?
- Show that you care. When people feel like you not only hear their problems but also act on them, they are much more willing to open up. I saw this all the time on church trips to Mexico in high school, where we built houses in some of the most impoverished areas. Less approachable individuals at the start would become so filled with gratitude that they eventually sought out time to talk with us. Find someone's need or passion, go out of your way to express interest, and they will often want to hear what you have to say.
I'm curious to hear your reactions or other lessons learned on the art of persuasion. In the meantime, I'll continue testing these ideas with folks at the next town parade and local county fair...
Margaret,
ReplyDeleteI like your discussion about elements of persuasion. Not that I'm an expert at it, but... It seems to me that much of what you say adds up to the magical word: "respect." Everyone wants it. No exceptions. We manifest vastly different ways of determining what constitutes "respect" -- intelligence, beauty, athletic ability, bling ... -- but I think part of what you're saying is: find a way to let the other person know that you respect her/him, then you can make some inroads.
I'm tempted to be snarky about "What good Republican wants to disagree with Reagan?" but I'll settle for this: I've found that rigid Republicans quickly go into self-protective denial if you offer evidence about Reagan actual behavior in office (e.g., average annual increases in discretionary domestic spending of 5%). There's a tendency to curl up in a mental fetal position. As you say, they may mull it over later, but there's an amazing amount of mythology about RR and his presidency. I'm not picking on GOP'ers: we all do it, in our own ways.
So I would amend your recommendation about history with the observation that it's a good tool to have, but don't expect that others will accede to your facts!
You're absolutely correct about humor!
And you might include something that truly open-minded and scientifically skeptical people don't handle easily: exuding a slight aroma of self-confidence. Most people have fuzzy and unstable ideas about the "facts" and even about their own values, so when they listen to someone who seems more certain, they're likely to respond. It's difficult to persuade someone when they see you as unsure. We've all heard politicians, pundits, and tv bloviators say things that are totally wrong, but if they say it with great self-assurance people actually will listen. And even if you know that they're wrong, at some level their confidence might chip away at your own.
Great blog!
Dr. Barke --
ReplyDeleteThanks for being patient since I'm just now replying to you! Here are my thoughts:
- On history/ the Reagan example, I think you make a really good point that most people have their own interpretation of history already, and my added fun facts likely aren't going to shift that. However, I must say that I'm probably an oddball on this one -- I won't admit it mid-argument, but if someone throws out some historical references that refute my point, I'm going to look it up afterward to see who's right. So let's just say that overly curious people may find this persuasive.
- On confidence, you hit the nail on the head and should add it as #7 (or #1, rather) to my list. I realize that all of these points are pretty moot if you don't execute them with a healthy level of confidence. Who knows how many times I've conceded a point just because the other person was so self-assured... Add the respect factor to that confidence, and you've got a master of persuasion.