deep's quick guide to Persuasion

I read an article on Persuasion the other day and a very good article it was too. One of the main tenets of the article was that one is more persuasive by being similar to the 'persuadee'. While I largely agree, this differs from the approach which I am more familiar with which considers how attractive the persuader is. This is useful to test if someone is attracted to you - because 'persuadability' is associated with how attractive the persuadee finds the persuader, then acceptance of implausible scenarios suggests attraction (and perhaps acceptance of high implausibility suggests high attraction?). Now if these two factors are combined, i.e. that similarity and attractiveness increase persuasiv(ity?), then it suggests an element of Narcissism - or is that too deep?.

Difficulties arise in attempting to increase similarity to the persuadee. O.K. on a superficial level, one can take conscious control over the mirroring and speech accommodation that occurs intuitively, but beyond that problems arise because one needs to know the persuadee's 'model of the world' in order to appear similar. Much of this will become apparent in conversation, and cultures have many shared assumptions and perspectives, but there's more that is the individual's uniqueness. As an example, people are going to experience difficulties attempting to persuade me using simple single causality because my perspective is far more complex. And what about those firmly-held beliefs that I have? - class conflict and exploitation, the police as repressive agents of state control, existential-phenomenology. These beliefs seem so entrenched that they are beyond persuasion. It seems that a prior consideration of matters provides an immunity from persuasion. I know that salesmen have very little chance of selling me garbage that I do not want or need because I realise that if I wanted or needed something I would actively seek it out and I have the opinion that salesmen are involved in selling garbage that I neither want nor need.

The 'sleeper effect' works when the persuader is of low-credibility. If a persuader has high credibility to a persuadee then the persuadee is often persuaded immediately, but if the persuader has low credibility then about a week to two weeks later, the persuadee is persuaded and the effect is stronger than that of a high-cred source. It seems that sometimes a low-cred approach might be useful (speaking as a totally inexperienced novice of course;). This seems to emphasize the fact that persuasion and judgement in general is largely emotional rather than rational and logical as we like to believe. It seems that a defence against the sleeper effect is to associate a source with the message and this seems to be one of the main things taught at college (at least it was when I was at college. It seems that colleges and universities today are far more concerned with social control at the expense of learning - keeping people off the streets and contained. The colleges' kangaroo-courts where they have assumed legal powers and try serious offences e.g.rape supports this position, but that's another story).

What else about persuasion? I suppose I have to at least mention Cognitive Dissonance Theory. This theory states that should behaviour and thinking (cognition) differ, then an uncumfortable condition known as 'dissonance' will arise. Either behaviour or cognition will be altered to reduce the dissonance and bring behaviour and thinking back into line with each other. This one's on all the salesmen's reading list - pre-decisional dissonance, post-decisional dissonance, etc, etc. The point is that you can manipulate someone's behaviour by changing their thinking, or change their thinking by changing their behaviour. This is the sort of very simple theory that I would expect to be used in 'brainwashing'.

Then there's hypnosis. Eriksonian non-directive hypnosis is fantastically strong and effective largely because the victim is unaware and unprepared. Routinely practiced by doctors and dentists, this is the origin of Neuro Linguistic Programming (NLP) although NLP is a popularised, diluted form. This is persusion only in as much as you have to induce (or persuade) a trance. This can be done during the act of shaking hands. Then you're in charge. Absolutely. Totally. Goodbye personality, goodbye volition. Hello Post-hypnotic suggestion. Stage hypnotists are well worth watching although the style and method is totally different. "What's your favourite fruit? Apple? Here eat this beautiful apple (onion) then". Stage hypnotism works like this. Test the audience to select the most responsive ones. Once on stage, the audience demands the expected response from those selected, and it works.

There are a few other things about persuasion that perhaps I should mention.
- By stating the obvious, one defines the problem and primes the recipient regarding the problem. It is a very powerful technique to steer the conversation - powerful because it cannot be refuted.
- There is no logical reason to assume that people are being truthful (just as there's no logical reason to assume that someone is any good at their job simply because they're doing that job).
- Group influence (also known as 'peer pressure' and 'bad company') is extremely powerful - it's difficult to refuse demands by a number of people.
- A related concept is 'risky shift'. This is where group members compete against each other by being adventurous and proposing dangerous courses of action. The group encourages dangerous actions and some very dangerous actions result.
- On a more personal level, there is what I call 'yes mode'. This is a method employed in NLP. Basically, after asking a series of questions that demand an affirmative response, an affirmative response is far more likely to a request for a decision.

If you're interested in this stuff, it's social psychology.