How To Be Persuasive
Being Persuasive Is Both an Art and a Science
Throughout your life and career, you are going to face many situations in which you are dissatisfied. Often, these situations will arise because of legitimate grievances you have about a person, behavior, policy, or system. There are a few strategies that, used judiciously, can exponentially increase your effectiveness.
1. To Be Persuasive, Clearly List Your Grievances, Your Proposed Solution, and Define Winning from the Outset
One of my favorite Benjamin Graham quotes comes from one of his older books in which he writes something along the lines of “criteria based upon adjectives is necessarily ambiguous.” There is great wisdom in that seemingly obvious observation. You can only benefit from specificity. For example, when setting goals in your own life, leave no room for question about what it is you want to accomplish and the timeframe on which you want to accomplish it so you can measure your results. Don’t say, “I want to save money”. Instead, say, “I want to save $[x] by [insert date].” Don’t say, “I want to lose weight”, say, “I want to lose [x lbs] by [insert date]”.
The same goes for causes about which you care. To be persuasive:
- Detail exactly what happened that you consider unacceptable.
- Detail exactly how the person or group you are targeting for change is directly responsible using verifiable facts if possible.
- Explicitly spell out your proposed solution, making sure each suggestion is:
- Actionable
- Achievable
- Measurable, and
- Perceived as fair or reasonable relative to the circumstances.
Furthermore, it is imperative that from the outset, you identify what you consider “winning” so you don’t get dragged into a perpetual conflict that drains your resources and emotions, invites further counterattacks, or damages your cause in the long-run.
2. To Be Persuasive, Avoid Making Unnecessary Enemies and Focus on Drafting Allies To Your Cause
You want to recruit as many allies as you can, essentially creating a self-replicating army that goes on to gather more allies on your behalf. Changing a person’s heart by getting them to empathize with your situation and having them internalize how they benefit from the reforms you are suggesting is far more effective than achieving compliance through the threat of force (though there are situations in which the latter remains the only justifiable course of action, such as the rest of the country forcing Southern states to desegregate schools in the name of racial equality). If you use force or the threat of violence, you trigger reciprocity, among other mental models. The secret: You cannot think in terms of “us vs. them” but rather a “we vs. the problem”. Any time you draw battle lines based upon identity, and exclude people based upon their intrinsic characteristics, you’ve done enormous damage to your own desired outcome.
This is best achieved by taking advantage of existing bonds. Racism was ended in a not-insignificant number of families as interracial grandchildren were born to formerly bigoted grandparents who saw themselves in the child they loved. Homophobia was overcome when a person’s friend, brother, or son came out of the closet and opened up about how they didn’t want to be alone for the rest of their lives. Women’s rights were achieved as mothers, sisters, and wives chained themselves to fences and marched in the streets demanding the ability to vote.
3. To Be Persuasive, Create a Simple, Catchy, Easily Identifiable, and Emotionally Powerful Brand Image or Slogan
As objectionable as the idea may seem, any political movement is a product no different from laundry detergent or frozen pizza in the sense that getting “market acceptance” requires convincing folks to put it in their proverbial cart, often to the exclusion of the alternative. Your cause is a brand. It is going to be tied up with multiple associations and result in feelings that motivate behavior, often happening at a subconscious level. The imagery you use is powerful. It is entirely possible to select a method, use speech, employ body language, or some other means of communication that turns those who would have supported you, and fought by your side, into your enemies because you trigger a culture code, mental model, or click-whirr response that overwhelms their rational mind. Once you’ve done this, it can be extraordinarily difficult to reverse. You’ve cut off what could have been powerful sources of influence, money, and supplies.
American political history is chock-full of case studies two of the most famous being “No taxation without representation” and “Make love, not war”.
4. To Be Persuasive, Only Use Spokespeople or Illustrations That Are, Like Caesar’s Wife, “Beyond Reproach” (or, Alternatively, Frame the Discussion with Comparable Examples)
Signaling theory and mere association are real. Signaling theory and mere association are powerful. They can overwhelm logic and cause people to make emotional decisions based on fear, superstition, prejudice, stereotypes, and a host of other factors that work against your cause.
Let’s use one example where there can be no doubt among reasonably mathematically literate people that systematic discrimination exists and results in serious, lifelong harm: Criminal sentencing based on race and gender. The numbers are so overwhelmingly indisputable that judges and juries convict and sentence not solely on the crime, but on the characteristics of the defendant as subconscious associations and biases come into play, there are even arguments it is a violation of the equal protection clause of the United States Constitution. The same crime, the same facts, and your punishment is going to depend in no small way on whether you are male or female (females routinely get significantly lighter sentences), white or black (whites routinely get significantly lighter sentences) entirely irrespective of the facts in your case. Put another way, if you are male, you are going to suffer discrimination. If you are black, you are going to suffer discrimination. Another major influence is the level of beauty capital a person possesses. If you “look right”, things are going to go a lot better for you to the point you might not even be convicted because of the horns and halo effect. This means if a person commits armed robbery – say, stealing money from convenience stores without hurting anyone – and broader trends apply, you can reasonably predict that a white woman is going to get the most lenient sentence and a black man is going to get the harshest sentence. The Bureau of Justice Statistics released a working paper on October 22, 2015 titled Federal Sentencing Disparity: 2005-2012 [PDF Source] that found this discrimination had increased since the Supreme Court decision in United States v. Booker.
Here is a case where nearly everyone on all sides of the political spectrum should agree: It isn’t fair, desirable, nor righteous that people are judged differently for the same crimes. It shouldn’t matter if you are male or female, young or old, black or white, rich or poor, if you rob a convenience store with a gun, you should be punished similarly to anyone else who robbed a convenience store with a gun. This goes to the very heart of decency in a civilized society. It also benefits everyone to correct this disparity because the last things any of us should want is a person who could otherwise be rehabilitated into a productive member of society sitting in a prison cell, on the taxpayers’ dime, doing nothing. It’s better for everyone if he or she becomes a doctor or attorney, entrepreneur or teacher. It grows the economy. It reduces future crime rates. It increases the human capital in society, which tends to drive up discretionary income (and subsequently dividends and other passive income for owners).
Over and over, I see people who don’t understand this principle violate it to their own detriment. I’ve witnessed well-meaning activists, who are in the moral, ethical, and legal right, constantly undermine their own goal – equality in sentencing outcomes regardless of gender or race – by using terrible examples framed in terrible ways. They fight against the mental models and you cannot win that way.
Real-world illustrations are often more useful than academic abstractions so here’s a situation I witnessed first-hand: An activist in a discussion about the University of Missouri – Columbia protests posted a high profile link on Facebook to a story about first-time offender, Quartavious Davis, receiving a 162 year prison sentence without the possibility of parole despite the fact that no one was harmed during the crimes he committed. He wrote eloquently and passionately about how it was an illustration of a black man suffering from institutional racism; how it was indicative of the injustice in America.
Again, we’ve already established that he is correct. There is institutional racism in sentencing outcomes. It’s right there in the numbers; indisputable, beyond question. Yet, the methodology he employed to try and persuade others will doom him and his cause to failure. Why? Anyone who bothers to look into the Davis case discovers that he committed a spree of seven armed robberies, during which, according to the New York Daily News, prosecutors claimed he became violent: “At an auto supply store, he fired two shots at a dog that chased him; at a beauty salon, he brandished a gun and threatened to kill a man; and at a fast-food restaurant, he exchanged gunfire with a customer who had a concealed weapon.”
Anyone familiar with cultural attitudes in the United States is going to know that, upon seeing that type of crime streak, most people are likely to say, “Good. He should rot in prison.” The activist confused the issue. The issue is not the length of the sentence as it pertains to his or her agenda. Rather, the issue is that the sentence was longer than he would have received if he were female or white. That is what should be hammered home each and every time it is brought up for discussion.
How would I have gone about trying to persuade someone?
- I would have found a comparable case of a white woman committing a similar crime with a conviction that resulted in a much lighter sentence.
- I would have put their pictures side-by-side so they could be instantaneously processed, with very little reading, in a matter of seconds.
- Underneath each picture, I would have put the number of years they were convicted in large letters (e.g., “162 years”)
- At the bottom of the graphic, in large letters, I would have written “Equal Crime Should Mean Equal Punishment” or, alternatively, “Do You Think It is Fair They DIdn’t Receive the Same Punishment for the Same Crime?” (Both would be effective with slightly different audiences.)
That’s it. Framing the issue this way, you sidestep all of the cultural, racial, socioeconomic, and interpersonal baggage your audience might be carrying with them and get them to focus on what matters: The central question. That is what should be debated. Whether the reader thinks all criminals should be sentenced to 162 years or much shorter periods of time doesn’t matter. Like engineers seeking simplicity to avoid breakpoints, you want as few breakpoints between the audience and the decision as possible. Make them reflect internally and ask themselves, “Is that right? Shouldn’t she have been treated the same way he was since she did the same thing?”. The best part, it all happens in a fraction of a second because there isn’t a lot of cognitive load to digest what is happening; two pictures, an insignificant amount of text.
5. To Be Persuasive, Identify the Pressure Points of the Obstacles in Your Way and Determine Whether or Not You Will Exploit Them
Money, reputation, social approval … there are all sorts of ways to exert reward and punishment on people or institutions to get them to modify egregious behavior. Sometimes, you may consider exploiting these weaknesses too damaging to a cause you support so you opt not to do so – e.g., you don’t want to suppress the freedom of speech or press because you, yourself, may someday need their protections if you find yourself on the wrong side of the culture or law. Other times, you strike. While not always possible, the most effective way is to remove the so-called “barriers to yes”, making it effortless for the person to support whatever it is you want supported, come out looking like a hero, and improve their own standing by doing what it is you wanted done in the first place.
Whenever you rely on disutility to influence someone into an action you want, you need to recognize, at least in the United States, freedom of speech does not protect you from the social, economic, or political ramifications of that speech. You can make any demand, reasonable or unreasonable, justified or ridiculous, and others are free to change how they interact with you. You are not entitled to be heard. You are not entitled to support. You are not entitled to have your opinion considered valid. No one is obligated to acknowledge or respect your feelings.
Being a fully autonomous, responsible adult means accepting the consequences of your decision to pursue change. Choose carefully. You can’t always get what you want and choices have consequences (from a purely strategic point of view, it’s best to have your affairs arranged in a way that you can effectively isolate yourself from those ramifications). In some cases, winning is itself losing as the best you can hope for is a pyrrhic victory.
Related: Never make a threat unless you are willing to back up that threat and can live with the consequences. An excellent example is the University of Missouri – Columbia football team, which went on strike recently. The members of that team had every right to do so despite the criticism they’ve received. They exist in a free market system in which they are exchanging their skill set for financial consideration in the form of scholarships that provide free or reduced-cost education. No member of the team has an unconditional obligation to continue supporting an institution they believe doesn’t have their best interest at heart. However, had the Missouri University system decided that it was going to disband the football team, revoke their scholarships, and expel them from the university, that would have been perfectly permissible, too. That’s life. That’s how the real world works. You make choices and you live with those choices. It was a risk they were willing to take, betting that the school wouldn’t want to surrender a $1 million penalty to another university for missing an upcoming game, and they turned out to be correct.
6. To Be Persuasive, Reconcile After Victory, Bring Former Foes Back Into the Fold if Possible, and Heal Wounds
Even if you are tempted to “spike the ball” after winning, so to speak, remember the goal was not to harm people, it was to effect positive change. You want the people who opposed you to eventually come around to your way of thinking, which will be all but impossible if you erect barriers in their mind that make them hate and resent your movement to the point of irrationality. Choose your own long-term best interest over short-term emotional satisfaction.
Reader Comments (17)
Comments are presented chronologically, with replies indented beneath the comments to which they respond.
Kapitalust
November 14, 2015
I've been diving a lot into veganism lately, lurking around vegan forums and blogs. It's an issue that... fascinates me because I can't seem to reconcile the seemingly airtight argument for veganism with my unwillingness to embrace it. I don't think it's necessarily the food aspect that is holding me back, as I would find little problem with eating that particular way as I largely eat a fairly vegetarianish diet anyways (don't get me wrong, I love the occasional hamburger, but I could give it up).
I'm working through all sides of the argument, stress testing this concept. I don't know what it is. I feel like the Peter Singer utilitarian argument for veganism makes complete logical sense. Yet, I just can't get there personally. I'm re-reading through your 6 points and perhaps I have yet to come across something or someone that is nailing all six. I wonder if some of the more vocal pro-vegans - who also tend to be, ironically, more... irrational - are inadvertently causing a sort of spotlight fallacy where their irrationality is overshadowing the more rational ones. I certainly roll my eyes when someone repeatedly tries to claim homo sapiens are herbivores against all scientific evidence, and leads me to have a lesser opinion of the person and the argument they are presenting.
I have a friend, who right away, after seeing the logic in the Singer utilitarian case for veganism, converted right away and is fairly zealous in his activism now. While I, when presented with the same case, can't get there, even though I see the argument as logically airtight. It's a fascinating puzzle that I want to solve: why? I'll ponder on these six points to see if it gives me any additional clues.
*edit added on further reflection: point #2 where you state "Any time you draw battle lines based upon identity, and exclude people based upon their intrinsic characteristics, you’ve done enormous damage to your own desired outcome" is something that is clearly a problem with veganism.
Matt
November 14, 2015
As a perfect example of what not to do:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xRlRAyulN4o
The protesters at Missouri seem to have done a good job at creating a distraction from their message by harassing the media and trying to prevent them from entering a public space. Is any of this really necessary? Had the protesters not blocked the media from reporting, this would be a non-event and the conversation would never have been derailed. The protesters would have benefited from the media coverage and attention. Instead, they decide to shoot themselves in the foot using flawed tactics that make them both unlikable and unpersuasive. The protesters just unwittingly changed the topic from racial tensions to free speech. And all because they want to be isolated from words and ideas they don't like...
difff23
November 14, 2015
Joshua, I like when you give specific examples of how you would proceed, like in number 4.
I sent you a message about your books, intrinsic value, and the article about living with a $ 40k income. I hope you get to it soon. Thanks again for sharing your beautiful mind with us
peterpatch79
November 14, 2015
Per point 6, I know I have seen Buffet and Munger say something like "Praise by name, criticize by sin" a dozen different times. When you openly criticize somebody by name, even if you are dead right, I think the likelihood of ever bringing them back into the fold goes down an order of magnitude then if you just criticized in an anonymous way. I think it's a great policy to have and obviously seems to work well at Berkshire as you almost never hear them criticizing a person directly but they always ring off a list of people that are doing well for the business.
joe pierson
November 14, 2015
To adopt a new lifestyle so quickly after reading a single paper sounds like your friend "snapped" into a cult. Were as you probably turn over every rock before committing. You can be vegan without being militant or cultish about it, maybe that is what is holding you back? You think your joining a cult on some level and that is too disturbing?
Kapitalust
November 14, 2015
Replying to joe pierson
Just like David Hughes stated, I don't want to derail Joshua's post too far, so I will try to be as succinct as possible: I think where my friend and I fundamentally differ is that he seems to have an inherent need for consistency (in thought, in action, etc) whereas I embrace inconsistency as when I look into the world, I see contradiction and inconsistency everywhere and I'm relatively ok with that. And I can understand how difficult it can be to stand on ever shifting grounds and the seductive appeal for stability and consistency.
David Hughes
November 14, 2015
At the risk of derailing Joshua's point, I don't think there's an "airtight argument for veganism" at all. I'm a little rusty on my Peter Singer, so this may not address his argument directly, but here's where my research and experience has led me.
There's no long-term sustainable way to feed the world with annual crops. Many, many books about this but the most cohesive would be Mark Shepard's "Restoration Agriculture". Permaculture (high biodiversity perennial polyculture systems) is the future, with annual crops being a small, carefully planned adjunct to that, since you can plow pasture for a year or two before reseeding it without long-term damage as long as you let it heal over for a few years. All permaculture designs depend on domesticated animals, for a host of reasons, but most principally in 1) rendering human inedible solar energy (pasture) into human food and 2) acting to build soil fertility. Technically, you could have a pseudo-vegan permaculture system, where the animals are never eaten, just used for their other benefits, but domestic animal husbandry demands culling of the herds (humans acting as the trophic/apex predator) to maintain overall health and vigor of the gene pool. Why not eat the cull? Pastured animals are incredibly nutritious and flavorful.
A second and equally important part is that many humans do not thrive on vegan or even vegetarian diets. The strongest example would be First Peoples like the Inuit who are genetically incapable of digesting a predominately plant-based diet. They evolved to eat something like a 90% animal-based diet. Less of an edge case would be people like myself who have tried veganism only to have health'wellness (both objective and subjective) suffer. No one quite understands why, but one clue I've read is that some folks are incapable of converting essential nutrients like long-chain omega-3 fats (used by animals) from the short-chain omega-3 fats in plants. There's also animal-specific nutrients like B12 that, while we can now synthesize, makes one wonder about veganism from a health perspective.
Kapitalust
November 14, 2015
Replying to David Hughes
I should rephrase what I meant by airtight - I think the logical chain that Singer-utilitarian-vegans use is airtight in the sense that they lead you down a chain of thought that is logically consistent. For example, if you start off by answering a Singer-utilitarian-vegan that you believe less suffering in the world is a good thing, it leads you down a path where eventually you have to cede that veganism is the best way to "cause less suffering" less you sound logically inconsistent.
I don't disagree with anything that you've stated. I think it's incredibly naive to think that veganism is "the answer" to a plethora of concerns, such as environmental degradation, climate change, global food and water security, etc. These are complex, complex problems that require so much more than "just go vegan".
I think the vegan movement as a whole has a robust solution - albeit one solution of many other solutions - to these complex problems. I am intrigued though as to why their message isn't as effective as I think it should be. Joshua's 6 points on how to be persuasive got me thinking on what it may be that is lacking. I think they are messing up on a few of the points in their message.
It's an interesting case study for me personally. I don't think I'll ever become vegan, but I do find it very interesting because I think in general they do have good intentions and a good solution towards a complex problem. The execution though seems to be lacking and I think there is a great deal to learn from it as a case study on persuasiveness.
Ang
November 15, 2015
Replying to Kapitalust
In my opinion, their message isn't effective because they are focused on justification only - they begin with the premise that veganism is a desired result, then find reason to support the pros and disclaim the cons. When you begin with a predetermined answer, then layer in confirmation bias, that's not rationality, even if the answers given are logically consistent from step to step. Veganism ignores basic human biology (we're omnivores), it's also irrational from the standpoint that it assumes individuals are willing to put the abstract "greater good" ahead of their own well being (this is garbage, reminds me of "the rational investor" in efficient market theory), and I believe the "holier than thou" attitude is also offputting to people - nobody wants to be coerced into doing because of guilt.
I do think that eating mostly vegetables in your diet is good for your long term health, but taking that bit of reality and twisting it into an all or nothing state seems to me like a classic case of the man with only a hammer syndrome
Blair
November 16, 2015
Replying to Kapitalust
It could be that you don't want to be associated in the minds of others with the typical vegan or animal rights activist.
Here are some of my thoughts on veganism:
I have had a pretty good run so far exploring veganism, both personally and in business. When I went vegan it was not a popular decision but I stuck to what I thought was right "because my facts and analysis were right." I try to reconsider it honestly and often and I still think it's right because it has worked well for me.
The continued ambivalence about vegan food has left a huge gap in the market. The businessman in me hopes that the lack of understanding continues because it makes entering the business seem like a bad idea to would-be competitors. It can make exceeding customers' expectations relatively easy because the bar has been set very low.
Appealing to a person's senses of smell, taste, and sight has worked far, far better than persuasion through logical arguments. Whether it is right or not is so far off the mark. Drugs, porn, gambling and cheating are all wrong and people partake in all of those things. "Is it enjoyable?" is the question I think it's important to ask. I want to make it as accessible as possible.
Even the skepticism that people feel about eating vegan food can be beneficial, when that tension is released upon discovering that this way of eating can be something they like. That surprise has turned skeptics into vocal supporters very quickly--it sets off the click-whirr response of commitment and consistency. People like pleasant surprises and it gives them a story to tell their friends, which becomes a powerful and positive networking force.
The name "vegan" itself is awful and doesn't do vegans any favors. It's not even easy to figure out how to pronounce. Think of the apprehension you feel ordering a dish whose name you don't know how to say.
I care a hell of a lot more about the net number of vegan meals that people are eating rather than the total number of avowed vegans out there.
You may want to read Every Twelve Seconds by Timothy Pachirat. The actual process of turning an animal into a meal is not very well understood. The daily reality of the slaugtherhouse workers is even less understood. The whole vegan vs. not-vegan argument suffers from a lack of information. The information asymmetry can be nearly total when it comes to slaughterhouses.
Good luck with your research!
Connelly Barnes
November 14, 2015
I'm curious whether "barriers to yes" refer to the ideas of the negotiation book "Getting to Yes?" I have not read that book although did consider it.
Also, usually your proofing is usually quite good, but I noticed some issues slip through on this article:
obviously => obvious
whirl => whirr
literal => literate
your feelings => your feelings.
Joshua Kennon
November 15, 2015
Replying to Connelly Barnes
I'll bet the autocorrect feature was turned back on the Mac update I installed. I'll check when I get to my desk; on iPhone now. I ran into this a couple of years ago when they first release it (check the post in the archives). Give me about half an hour to look into it then I'll fix this and delete the comment so you know it's been done. Thanks, I appreciate you pointing it out.
Joshua Kennon
November 15, 2015
Replying to Connelly Barnes
That book is fantastic. I recommend you buy and read it!
Re: Your question. It's a hybridization of it and another concept that, for the life of me, I can't remember where I came across it but that has stuck with me for years (it very well could be in that book, though I don't think so ... at the time, it wasn't important enough to make note of but it's profoundly influenced the way I do certain things and I wish I could track it back down so I have a source on it). It was a successful car salesman talking about the secret that allowed him to outperform, by a wide margin, all other car dealers. He said it came down to the fact that he knew, deep down in human nature, most people want to buy something new; something that excites them. They don't have to be talked into it with words or logic. It's an emotion that is unleashed because they're feeling it. His job was to get out of the way and let them arrive at the decision on their own. Part of that was only making recommendations, or steering people, in directions that were best for them. He knew their style, their preferences, their personality, and he tracked down the best match, knowing the customer would reach for the wallet without any prompting. He called it something like - again, it's been more than a decade so I can't remember exactly - but "I get them to unleash the buying urge".
It obviously doesn't work if you don't truly want both sides to win and you are entering a zero-sum negotiation but I tend to avoid those situations in the first place as I want to make my living on things that make both parties happy they entered into the agreement.
If you're interested in negotiation, Gene Bedell also wrote a book called "3 Steps to Yes: The Gentle Art of Getting Your Way". He's an exceptional thinker who possesses clarity about situations few other people do. I've mentioned in the past but it bears repeating at every turn: Though I hate gimmicky titles, he wrote a little-known book called The Millionaire in the Mirror that I consider the greatest career strategy guide ever penned. It would be required reading if I were teaching a course and passing on what I know about financial independence and outsized success. It is extraordinary; hands down in my top ten life changing books of all time.
Blair
November 16, 2015
Replying to Joshua Kennon
I really, really loved The Millionaire in the Mirror. I'll have to check out his other titles.
Connelly Barnes
November 23, 2015
Replying to Joshua Kennon
Cool. I'll have to check out the books you mentioned. Thanks!
[email protected]
February 3, 2017
I profited $104k previous year by freelancing on-line and I did that by working part-time for 3 or sometimes more h daily. I followed a business model I came across from company that i found online and I am so excited that i made so much money. It's really newbie-friendly and I'm so grateful that i discovered this. Check out what I do... SECURE37.COM
[email protected]
February 4, 2017
I have made $104k previous year by doing an online job from home and I manage that by working part time for 3 or sometimes more hours on daily basis. I followed a business opportunity I found online and I am excited that I was able to earn so much money. It's so newbie-friendly and I'm so happy that i found this. Check out what I do... STATICTAB.COM/msxjhtx