How to win friends & influence people
Jul. 5th, 2002 10:25 am![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
davywavyA while ago, I was thinking about people whose argument technique is to cry “you aren’t listening to me!” when someone doesn’t agree with them, and the difference between listening and disagreement.
The problem is that most opinions are formed on the basis of personal feeling and reaction, and justifications for those opinions are developed later – this is a process called cognitive dissonance. So, in most disagreements, it will prove nigh-impossible to change peoples opinions or beliefs, as you are in fact trying to change a part of them – the arguments that are presented in defence by that person are in fact largely a smoke screen of justifications of why they believe something, not actually reasons for that belief.
This is compounded by the fact that all ideas are just abstractions – there are no absolutes. The Pythagorean idea that it is possible to mathematically model ideas such as justice or love have been rejected (but not disproved – you can’t disprove anything), and the fact (although there are no facts) remains that there is no absolute reason why one form of government is ‘better’ than another, or why anchovies are worse pizza toppings than pineapple. Everything is a matter of personal choice, and more importantly, a matter of personal benefit. People make decisions on how they will benefit, and then add the justifications for those decisions on top later.
Now the question of ‘benefit’ is a tricky one, because people get different things out of the same events or circumstances. Some people benefit by wealth, others by the approbation of their peers. We have martyrs and saints, people who want to be rewarded or punished for their actions in different ways at different times.
Thus we see that reasoned argument, is, to a large extent, a waste of time. At a basic level people aren’t interested in reason, they’re interested in how they can fulfil their personal objectives, whether they are aware of that or not. Therefore the way to convince people is to make an attempt to understand their personal objectives and motivations, and demonstrate to them how changing their actions or beliefs will help them better achieve those objectives.
This is something that people tend to forget; before you can convince someone, you have to understand what they want and show them that doing things your way will get them that more efficiently than what they are doing now. Simply saying “but my idea is self-evidently obviously right” is not only doomed to failure (unless in the rare cases where the person you are talking to matches your personal needs closely enough), it will also lead to frustration on your part as people reject your ideas – and in doing so, reject a part of you. And if you are not a person who deals well with rejection, this will be personally damaging.
Of course, there is always the possibility that people who refuse to acknowledge the above are actually motivated by failure and rejection; the opportunity to complain about failing is more important to them than actually succeeding. Motivations are funny things, and when you analyse what people actually want you can get some damned odd answers.
The problem is that most opinions are formed on the basis of personal feeling and reaction, and justifications for those opinions are developed later – this is a process called cognitive dissonance. So, in most disagreements, it will prove nigh-impossible to change peoples opinions or beliefs, as you are in fact trying to change a part of them – the arguments that are presented in defence by that person are in fact largely a smoke screen of justifications of why they believe something, not actually reasons for that belief.
This is compounded by the fact that all ideas are just abstractions – there are no absolutes. The Pythagorean idea that it is possible to mathematically model ideas such as justice or love have been rejected (but not disproved – you can’t disprove anything), and the fact (although there are no facts) remains that there is no absolute reason why one form of government is ‘better’ than another, or why anchovies are worse pizza toppings than pineapple. Everything is a matter of personal choice, and more importantly, a matter of personal benefit. People make decisions on how they will benefit, and then add the justifications for those decisions on top later.
Now the question of ‘benefit’ is a tricky one, because people get different things out of the same events or circumstances. Some people benefit by wealth, others by the approbation of their peers. We have martyrs and saints, people who want to be rewarded or punished for their actions in different ways at different times.
Thus we see that reasoned argument, is, to a large extent, a waste of time. At a basic level people aren’t interested in reason, they’re interested in how they can fulfil their personal objectives, whether they are aware of that or not. Therefore the way to convince people is to make an attempt to understand their personal objectives and motivations, and demonstrate to them how changing their actions or beliefs will help them better achieve those objectives.
This is something that people tend to forget; before you can convince someone, you have to understand what they want and show them that doing things your way will get them that more efficiently than what they are doing now. Simply saying “but my idea is self-evidently obviously right” is not only doomed to failure (unless in the rare cases where the person you are talking to matches your personal needs closely enough), it will also lead to frustration on your part as people reject your ideas – and in doing so, reject a part of you. And if you are not a person who deals well with rejection, this will be personally damaging.
Of course, there is always the possibility that people who refuse to acknowledge the above are actually motivated by failure and rejection; the opportunity to complain about failing is more important to them than actually succeeding. Motivations are funny things, and when you analyse what people actually want you can get some damned odd answers.
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
no subject
Date: 2002-07-05 02:54 am (UTC)Most of the times that I've been persuaded to change my mind about something are not when I've formed my belief accurately. In general, if you convince me, it's because you've pointed out something I hadn't considered.
Most arguments are not perfectly formed. Either through lazy thinking (something I'm occasionally guilty of) or ignorance of either facts or of a viewpoint.
In those cases, it's often easy to get people to reverse their opinion. Only a fool sticks to something they know to be untrue through their sheer emotional investment in their own opinion.
no subject
Date: 2002-07-05 03:29 am (UTC)Example - magpies. I used to be a real hippy, animal loving, kill nothing, let nature go as it will type. Arguing that magpies kill songbirds didn't matter to me - the magpie was killing because of instinct, not for fun. But I've since seent the difference that controlling their numbers can make - there are still magpies around, they're all healthy because of less competition for food, and there are a *lot* more small birds around as well. I still don't like the idea of killing for anything other than food, and still get the "but that's horrible" reaction, but I can appreciate the necessity. I'm the same with fox hunting & deer culling - my emotional impulse hasn't changed - I'll always be an animal lover who hates the idea of killing for pleasure - but I can understand the reasons behind them both.
no subject
Date: 2002-07-05 03:45 am (UTC)As society grows and things get more complex we place more rules, rights, morals and ideals for us to live to, which are based on a combination of popularity, media hype, bribery and more.
The world is too complex for us simple humans to assign values to when we can barely even understand what goes on in our own minds let alone when we start interacting with each other.
Right, wrong, just words and opinions.
Back into the oceans I say.
no subject
Date: 2002-07-05 04:27 am (UTC)I picked the animal example because I've *always* loved them. I remember having a tantrum & forcing Dad to bring home a clay pigeon because I thought they were real, and he was being cruel - I was under 5 at the time. I seriously doubt any rational thought went into that.
no subject
Date: 2002-07-05 05:19 am (UTC)Emotions and intelligence... hmmm, toughy, especially since I've just had two drinks down the pub at lunch... maybe a development in different directions of the same base instincts from animals; which is actually an interesting idea, I think... we certainly separate them now - but for animals its very much a grey area to define instincts (emotion?) and intelligence... hmmm.
Maybe intelligence is better quantified as knowledge and the logical (non emotional, hmmm mutual exlusion through use of the other idea) implementation of it and emotion is the 'feeling'. Nope... not up to in depth anylisis at the moment - or indeed even spelling it, food for thought for later though. Mmmm food. Cheese sandwich time.
no subject
Date: 2002-07-05 03:43 am (UTC)People will often stay believing something in the face of all logic or evidence presented. There was a famous study of racism carried out a few years ago, where people who justified racist attitudes (“they take our jobs”…”They scrounge of welfare”…etc) were given hard facts about each of their justification statements to disprove their points. At the end, one of the subjects was reduced to shouting “I just don’t fucking like them!” Then, how often have we heard of people refusing, in the face of all evidence, that their spouses are cheating/bastards/murderers/etc…just watch Jerry Springer for an object lesson in just how much people will cling to their core beliefs in the face of hard evidence (“Well, Jerry, I know she done gone shot me and is preganant by my brutha, but I know she still loves me”).
I see you as being motivated in a way like me; the desire for knowledge and your core beliefs are reinforced by taking as much of objective view of information as possible. You’d be surprised by how unusual this is.
My wench also has a point; ignorance is one thing, but making decisions on subjective matters depends entirely upon subjective opinion (Parliamentary Democracy over republicanism - discuss? They both have arguments in favour and against, and peoples opinions are often formed on little more than a personal gut feeling.).
no subject
Date: 2002-07-05 03:55 am (UTC)One of the most important things is not just understand what drives the person but being able to look at it from their situation and in the way that they think as these are two different things.
Free Spirits be damned
Date: 2002-07-05 04:00 am (UTC)Re: Free Spirits be damned
Date: 2002-07-05 04:07 am (UTC)Re: Free Spirits be damned
Date: 2002-07-05 04:17 am (UTC)Of course, I am open to other opinions ;o)
Re: Free Spirits be damned
Date: 2002-07-05 05:12 am (UTC)abi
Re: Free Spirits be damned
Date: 2002-07-05 06:06 am (UTC)Just my cheese sandwich.
Re: Free Spirits be damned
Date: 2002-07-05 06:16 am (UTC)CHEESE
Re: Free Spirits be damned
Date: 2002-07-05 06:19 am (UTC)Then the eyes of the blind shall be opened, and the ears of the deaf shall be unstopped.
Isaiah 35:4-5
no subject
Date: 2002-07-05 07:42 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2002-07-05 08:22 am (UTC)For example: you have a better chance of getting a martyr to relate to your points if you treat them appropriately, and a better chance of getting an arrogant sod to relate to you if you treat them completely differently.
By challenging someone’s actions or opinions, you are essentially challenging their person or their self-image to a greater or lesser degree. Thus it makes sense to couch any argument in terms that the person will relate to and understand.
no subject
Date: 2002-07-05 07:59 am (UTC)Actually, you can. If your thinking of Humes problem od induction it mean's that you can't prove anything.
Which of course is a paradow itself but most philosophical agrument's are.
And, just because it's a paradox, dosen't make it true. ;)