The art of Pursuasion 2

[Pyrotex]

Sometimes, no reward that can be attached to "agreement" will ever be big enough, even if you are right. Rewards can be like face cards in the game of Bridge. Yes, a King takes a Jack, but the deuce of trumps trumps them both.

 

I had a head hunter try for three hours to let him find me a 6-digit executive position. He was obviously a persuasive person, in that his salary was also 6-digits. But I finally told him "no" because I didn't trust him. Did I want that new job? You bet!! Did I want that money? You bet!! Distrust trumps even the finest of arguments.

 

Many other examples are possible, using love, honor, integrity and others.

[sebbysteiny]

Which techniques are you talking about? It is hard to believe this when you don't give an example.

 

Okay. Here's an example. Hitting your head against a brick wall provides the reward of entertainment. So if you want to be persuasive, one technique would be to deliver your arguments whilst hitting your head against a wall as hard as you can preferably standing on one leg.

 

Because, if I have understood correctly, your ideas carry make no actual concrete claims and seem to be more like dressing up the obvious truth in a new language, bizaar claims like this are just as easily predicted by your theory as the more supported ones in my theory.

 

but niin - are there not some things that rewards, no matter how big, will not work?

 

The way I see it, niin has defined her way out of this problem to make the concept of reward so general that almost anything can be called a reward. But this has come at the cost of anything concrete and substantial. It's almost circular in my view. Technique x persuades. Therefore technique x provides a reward. Therefore rewards are why technique x works.

 

Everything people do is to gain a reward in some way, there is no self-less action. So, coming from that standpoint, is not saying that to persuade someone to do something requires providing a reward merely a tautology?

 

That's my view exactly and very well expressed. QP.

 

Sebbysteiny, you have contrasted your hypothesis of persuasion with niin's view of persuasion and reward. It seems to me that your hypothesis is predicated on the ultimate rational behaviour of humans. Niin's hypothesis will work for rational or emotional behaviour, or any combination. I know where I would place my money.

 

That's fine. Hope you win your money. But I don't understand where exactly you think my theory is predicted on rational behavior of humans.

 

There is nothing rational about the defence mechanism. Why should somebody be persuaded if somebody uses the word 'may' but not if they use the word 'will'? There is no rational justification why trivial words make all the difference.

 

My theory does however provide rational explanation for human irrationality by explaining that the our irrationality was an evolutionary necessity at some point in time.

 

Distrust trumps even the finest of arguments.

 

My ideas explain your observation almost perfectly. When the head hunter demonstrated his mistrust, it triggered a defence mechanism. Once there, it was game over.

 

But I say that anything that triggers a defence mechanism trumps even the finest of arguments. This includes sloppy use of logic, and various verbages that challenge deep beleifs / social status.

 

My example with the guy who wrote on the Jerusalem post is a perfect example of how adding in an assumption that challenges the audiences beliefs trumped even the finest of arguments.

 

I can see that I can't persuade you.

Maybe i didn't explain it right or maybe you just invested to much in your theory.

 

You can persuade me. I am very happy to listen to alternatives as I do not wish to have a monopoly on theories of persuasion any more than I wish to have a monopoly on scientific theories.

 

But you must present a concrete tangable theory. And just like I vermently reject intelligant design as a 'scientific theory' I am not happy with yours.

 

To satisfy me of your ideas, all you need to do is satisfy me that it is a workable theory. This requires meeting the following criteria.

 

1) You should ideally explain the origins of the 'rewards' that are important to persuasion from evolutionary necessity. You cannot work backwards by 'proving' the rewards exist instead. You must actually go back to the fields of Africa and explain why the body rewards itself the way it does. My theory passes this optional test.

 

2) You must give a concrete definition and explanation of the rewards important to persuasion. You cannot simply say that the rewards of one side get bigger and when the rewards of one side get bigger than the other, the person is persuaded. You must explain: i) what the rewards are (including an expanation of every reward the body has that possibly aids persuasion); ii) a complete explanation for how they grow and shrink; iii) and a description of all the possible ways a person can influence the strength of the rewards felt by a subject. This stage is absolutely essential.

 

3) You must then use your system in 2 to create practical persuasion techniques that work. These persuasion techniques must have an uncanny resembulance to techniques that we have all observed to work. And it must also predict a type of argument that will be extremely poor at persuasion.

 

In particular, you must distinguish between arguments that 'rally the troops' and arguments that actually persuade. Again, this stage is absolutely essential.

 

These are the hurdles you must pass if you wish to convince me that your ideas are not the social scientific equivilent of intelligent design.

[sebbysteiny]

Post 3, Summary

 

This thread seems to have drawn to a close. This suggests we have most of the tips and techniques for persuasion down in this thread. So I'll now bring it all together in this summary. I may not do it all in one sitting, but I'll continue to add and edit it if I do not finish it first time.

 

For more details and examples, one should refer to the original threads.

 

For those wishing to improve their persuasion, I advise you to make sure you understand and work on one technique, then then keep on going down through the checklist.

 

Also, many people have asked why I have ignored working persuasion techinques that I have described as 'brainwashing'. My reply was that another thread has dealt with them. So in this summary, I will also draw together all the persuasion techniques from the previous 'brainwashing / thought reform' thread.

 

The result should be a single post with everything you ever wanted to know about persuasion.

 

Persuasion through the conscious mind

 

Advantages: intellectually honest; always effective when backed up by 'the truth'; usable in all situations including oral and written persuasion for use in selling, accademic writing and hypography posts; effective against all people.

 

Disadvantages: less effective when not backed up by 'the truth'; less effective when under time limits eg, debating.

 

Gameplan

 

The gameplan is simply what you are aiming to do to persuade.

 

The gameplan that I suggested was to try and put forward the arguments that you wish to be accepted in such a way as to avoid triggering any defence mechanisms. This requires 1) the intelligence for good arguments, and most importantly 2) the social skills necessary to avoid triggering defence mechanisms when delivering your arguments.

 

Niin suggested trying to increase 'the rewards' of the arguments that you use but Niin was unable to actually say anything concrete about how to do this and how this works. So, unless Niin wishes to elaberate on the 3 questions I posed her which are as yet unanswered, I think this gameplan is not helpful.

 

No other gameplans were suggested.

 

Techniques for delivering arguments

 

...

 

Techniques for avoiding the 'reality' defence mechanism

 

...

 

Techniques for avoiding the 'social status / deep beliefs' defence mechanism

 

...

 

Persuasion around the conscious mind: the dark side of persuasion

 

Brainwashing / through reform. Small discussion.

 

Advantages:

Disadvantages:

 

Gameplan

 

Brainwashing / thought reform techniques

 

Time out.

[Pyrotex]

...You can persuade me. I am very happy to listen to alternatives as I do not wish to have a monopoly on theories of persuasion...But you must present a concrete tangable theory.....

It seems to me that Niccolò Machiavelli, 1469-1527, provided the first published treatise (The Prince) on a theory of persuasion. However, he did not limit this theory to mere persuasion, but also to manipulation, which he appeared to think was related. You might say, his POV was, what's the point in persuading someone, if it doesn't result in them altering their behavior in a desired manner?

 

Setting that aside, I would suggest we look again at this thread title, "The Art of Persuasion 2". Persuasion is indeed an art. The 'rules' of persuasion cannot be used to 'predict' whether someone WILL be persuaded -- though they may reliably 'predict' when an argument will bomb.

 

Persuasion takes different forms. If you are a knowledge-hungry student in an interesting class, persuasion only requires a high degree of plausability and some supporting facts. If the class is Physics, then not only well-derived equations are required, but also the ability of the student to follow the derivation.

 

In historical, ethical, political and moral arguments, persuasion requires art more than anything else. A measure of eloquence, an easy rhythm of speaking, clear enunciation all help to a great degree. Above all, authenticity carries the day. [joke]If you can fake that, you've got it made! [/joke]

 

As the Apostle Paul demonstrated in the Book of Acts, it helps greatly to begin with that which the audience already knows and believes. This is often called, "the common denominator" approach. You don't start with confrontation, but with common agreement.

 

As I stated previously, refraining from an attachment to winning is very useful.

 

Of course, having your facts in order and using them appropriately, is important, but mostly in the negative. If you DON'T have the facts correct, you are very likely to bomb with your audience.

 

A major ticket is "Logic" itself, the appropriate use of reasoning, induction, deduction, analysis. This alone requires a BOOK of 'rules' way too long to expound on here. The degree of logic is very dependent upon the knowledge, intelligence and experiences of the audience.

 

A subset of Logic is the understanding and use of Fallacy. You might think that fallacy should be avoided, but from the Machiavellian POV, fallacy is just another powerful weapon in the arsenal of persuasion. If you are arguing with integrity, as you would in a peer reviewed journal, then it is to be avoided at all cost.

 

Emotional appeals are a subset of Fallacy, and extremely useful. It is here that you tempt the listener to belief, by offering an emotional reward. Very useful in theological and moral arguments, and quite frankly, is used to excess.

 

Establishing trust is another way to "leverage" an uninspired arguement into one that persuades. People are often persuaded by good friends, co-workers, ministers, spouses, that they trust implicitly. Unfortunately, this takes a lot of time. Not much good for the impatient poster.

 

But at the end of the day, whether or not the audience is persuaded is determined by factors too many to count; and by factors too hidden to even identify objectively. Everything we experience is related to previous experiences.

 

You use a famous line from Shakespeare to nudge my persuasion -- but I subconsciously relate it to Mz. Crabapple, my hated English Lit teacher -- and the house of "persuasion cards" you have crafted, comes tumbling to the ground.

 

My synopsis above appears to indicate there is no real "theory" of persuasion, but a collection of tried-and-true techniques that form an ART. Any given technique may work wonders for you but fail for me. I could argue from a written script and get a standing ovation; you might use the same script and have your audience walk out on you. Prediction of (positive) persuasion becomes unattainable as a general rule. For some audiences, the snake-oil salesman knows he will persuade only 10%, but that is enough to keep him in fine cigars.

[sebbysteiny]

Nice post,

 

I think you got a lot of techniques in there which are all valid. In my attempt to create a complete theory, I will try and slot in your techniques where I believe they go.

 

I liked what you said about persuasion being an art. It is certainly true that what works for one person will not work for another.

 

The real question that I have attempted to answer is why is that? Does everybody work so wierdly that there is no way to predict a person's behavior scientifically; or is there a clear and common mechanism common to all people that causes persuasion even if those mechanisms are triggered by different things for different people?

 

I wasn't aware of any concrete theories for persuasion though, but I don't think that was the purpose of your post.

 

And nice joke. Shame it was said by Stalin.

[Pyrotex]

Nice post,

Thank you! :)

...The real question that I have attempted to answer is why is that? Does everybody work so wierdly that there is no way to predict a person's behavior scientifically; or is there a clear and common mechanism common to all people that causes persuasion even if those mechanisms are triggered by different things for different people?

Nice post, yourself. And a pair of excellent questions. I agree somewhat with the first. Even identical twins have so many different experiences by the time they are 21, that subtleties of inflection, eye contact, authenticity, anxiety, etc., could make one a polished speaker and the other "good" but unconvincing.

...And nice joke. Shame it was said by Stalin.

:lol: Hey! I said it, too!

[sebbysteiny]

Focusing entirely on the tiny bit on which we disagree, I wish to say that you are right about the different experiences. But that does not mean the PURSUASION MECHANISMS differ. To use an analogy, just because some people can throw a ball with different powers and spins does not mean that the mechanisms behind their throw (ie the arm and muscles) are different

 

According to my theory, both the 'reality' and the 'social status / deep beliefs' may be triggered by different things for different people depending on their experiences and, arguably, genetics. It is also impossible to determine exactly how a person's experiences have shaped him in a way that might be meaningful to a persuader. Thus, although my theory does describe persuasion as a science, using the theory is still an art.

 

Have you ever found yourself unwilling to hear a word somebody has to say because of what they said or did on something completely unrelated, or because of an example you did not like for somereason even though you know that example was not really that important?