I stumbled across another article on how to selectively choose one’s words, in order to achieve better reception of ones ideas. These `band-aids` (i.e. patterns which anyone can apply without actually altering one’s thinking) miss a point about why these techniques work (which can be both dangerous and irresponsible and lead to desensitization). When people employ these tactics with some degree of sincerity, it is because they are entertaining a specific type of mindset which reflects the nature of their rhetoric. Learning (arriving at the conclusions which give rise to) these underlying principles, and not just learning to emulate rhetoric patterns, is quintessential to reaping the benefits and earning trust and respect, and most importantly, defending against others.
I am often dismayed by articles which teach one to use approximating strategies to make others “receptive” to your ideas. i.e. instead of having genuine reactions which sometimes fail to convince others, using heuristics to convince others (one corollary being, never allowing yourself to be convinced — which actually does yourself a disservice and can lead, I believe, to a very polarized world like the one we have today where folks simultaneously celebrate muting their social media streams while celebrating “likes” on their posts).
Celeste Headlee similarly gets it. It’s not about the cheap tricks like, “saying and instead of but”, but understanding at a fundamental why people are predisposed to like or hate certain conversational tactics, and how we can get to the core of an individual to have a meaningful conversation — as opposed to attempt to fool them at a shallow level. I recommend her talk.
I’ve found six books relevant: Aristotle’s Rhetoric (and perhaps Nicomachean Ethics), the Autobiography of Ben Franklin, Dale Carnegie’s How to Win Friends and Influence People, The 22 Immutable Laws of Marketing, Sun Tzu’s The Art of War, and Influence by Robert B. Cialdini (which I don’t discuss here — brief notes here — which reveals how humans, like all life, are categorically susceptible to manipulation, and how we might resist).
Aristotle’s Rhetoric was perhaps the first treatise on having productive conversation, exploring intent of conversation and providing tools for addressing the true nature of the conversation (e.g. detecting fallacies in arguments).
Aristotle’s rhetoric triangle was a great first step at shedding light on people’s motivations, which is important for understanding why people believe the way they do and by what means their ideas might evolve:
Benjamin Franklin and Abraham Lincoln are two leaders who earned the admiration of the masses by being principled: not by being phony but by being introspective and building positive traits and habits. Their struggle was hard, their struggle was real. It required years of discipline. Dale Carnegie’s, How to Win Friends and Influence People takes one on an in depth journey into the lives of people, like Franklin and Lincoln, who faced these quandaries the hard way with remarkable results. Their trials and tribulations show where they either suffered first hand from their mistakes (and what changes these inspired) or were rewarded by their behaviors. For those who are cynical of the title (as I was), it may be more aptly named, “A Study of the Conduct of Respected People”.
We often forget that we (ourselves) are advertisements — we have ideas which we want adopted and these are often not the only ideas (there are other stakeholders and we fight public opinion and social norms). The success of our case will depend on several facets of marketing. On presentation. On ideas coming first to market (execution). Recognizing the dynamics of adoption are quintessential to fighting such a battle.
The 22 Immutable Laws of Marketing is a very short read by Al Ries which (if you’re creative and willing) may be able to provide you an alternate perspective on fighting rhetorical battles. And because it is a very real battle, I would be remiss if my list didn’t include…
Sun Tzu’s The Art of War. A treatise on military tactics which as withstood the test of time. If someone is dead-set on winning (and they know how to win), you’ll want to be able to plan contingency around these effective advice and experience of Sun Tzu.
Author note: This essay is incomplete — I have a lot more material on rhetoric at the ready, so if there’s interest in me expanding this essay, please let me know and give a 👏 for motivation.
Recommended References
- Aristotle’s Rhetoric + Nicomachean Ethics
- The 22 Immutable Laws of Marketing by Al Ries
- 10 Ways to have a better conversation by Celeste Headlee
- How to change someone’s mind, according to science
- Influence by Robert B. Cialdini
- Autobiography of Ben Franklin
- Sun Tzu’s The Art of War
- Dale Carnegie’s, How to Win Friends and Influence People
- Crucial Conversations
- Related book recommendations thread
When it comes to “having a meaningful conversation”, I’ve observed greater reception to my statements when presenting what I’ve “observed” rather than what “I believe”.
By offering empirical results, you’re more likely to help people arrive at meaningful conclusion themselves (which are consistent with their nuances views), without coercing them toward your own exact beliefs (which may not be well founded or may differ from others’ in small/nuanced but irreconcilable ways). By allowing your conversation partner to focus on an observation (its implications and its correctness), the outcome is more likely to provide the additional affect of benefiting you by raising different cases, outcomes, and consequences you yourself had not anticipated or considered.
A good conversation doesn’t convince someone of an outcome, it affords all parties a safe channel for exploration and achieving greater clarity on important issues.
Friends note this is also an approach detailed in Crucial Conversations.
