11 ms·
To influence people don't try to persuade them, use ‘pre-suasion’ instead
- ph0rque 10y agoI'm about 2/3 of the way through "Pre-suasion". It's a bit of a chore; you can definitely tell the author is an academic. But the content is a treasure trove. I have a feeling I'll be referring to it again and again.
- hoodwink 10y agoHave you also read Cialdini's timeless business classic _Influence_? If so, which would you recommend I start with?
- hammock 10y agoDefinitely Influence.
- ph0rque 10y agoI have not, but it's on my list. In fact, I'd like to read all of the recommended books/articles/etc in chapters 3 and 4 of Scott Adams' Persuasion Reading List (http://blog.dilbert.com/post/129784168866/the-persuasion-reading-list http://blog.dilbert.com/post/129784168866/the-persuasion-rea...).
- davidivadavid 10y agoThe order isn't terribly important, especially since Cialdini revisits the contents of Influence in Pre-suasion. If you want the best bang for your buck, Influence has a higher idea/page ratio. It's still a pretty bad ratio — Cialdini isn't the best writer, and the accumulation of anecdotes gets boring quickly, and you can get most of the substance by looking at a couple blog articles about the 6 "weapons of persuasion." It's important to also note that all of his theories are built on shaky ground, but it's a useful inspiration source of A/B testing ideas if you're revamping a landing page or something similar.
- ph0rque 10y agoThanks for the suggestion to read blog articles about the six weapons of persuasion, davidivadavid. Any that you recommend as especially insightful? I do wish I could find a good summary of Pre-suasion... maybe I'll have to write one when I am done.
- davidivadavid 10y agoHere's an example of a fairly good/"actionable" summary: http://conversionxl.com/how-to-use-cialdinis-6-principles-of-persuasion-to-boost-conversions/ http://conversionxl.com/how-to-use-cialdinis-6-principles-of... NB: Might not be what you're looking for if you're more interested in the research behind it.
- ph0rque 10y agoNo, an actionable summary is exactly what I was looking for. Thanks! If you know of a similar summary for Pre-suasion, let me know.
- vorg 10y ago> you can get most of the substance by looking at a couple blog articles about the 6 "weapons of persuasion." > Here's an example of a fairly good/"actionable" summary davidivadavid just gave a demo here of "pre-suation" in action. First, suggesting looking at blog articles to find out more substance about the topic, and then later (ph0rque may or may not be colluding with him), he gave a reference to a specific article.
- JoeAltmaier 10y agoOdd thesis. Whatever comes before will influence how people perceive what comes after. Uses example of seeing clouds or coins; then buying a sofa. Those that saw soft things, bought softer sofas. Hm. I'm having trouble imagining how they measured that. Then the opposite example is used - a queen says "I have a weak body but" and then excites the troops to battle. How is that similar? Its the opposite. They 'explain' it by suggesting the truthfulness of the initial statement establishes the truthfulness of the following statements. Very meta. This sounds weak. Either 'pre-suasion' works one way or it doesn't? Which is it? I don't think the OP understood what they were saying. In fact, I think they made the whole thing up.
- csallen 10y agoThe "pre-suasion" in the Queen's case was to build trust (through disarming honesty) before attempting to convince the troops to believe in her strength. The basic idea is that you shouldn't just jump right into the message you're trying to deliver, but first prime your audience to hear it. There are many ways to do this, not just one.
- JoeAltmaier 10y agoYou said that better than the OP. In fact the OP opened with an example that didn't explain it at all. They oversold the gimmick - 'like begets like!' Then they contradicted that. For a person who's supposed to be convincing me about the right way to convince, they did an awful job.
- pjc50 10y agoSee also "push polling". http://researchmethodsdataanalysis.blogspot.co.uk/2014/01/leading-questions-yes-prime-minister.html http://researchmethodsdataanalysis.blogspot.co.uk/2014/01/le...
- csallen 10y agoIf you're at all interested in psychology and the human mind, I highly recommend Cialdini's earlier book, Influence. It has some absolutely amazing insights into how people persuade and influence each other, and is one of the few non-fiction books I've read several times.
- iainmerrick 10y agoThis article certainly seems to be pre-suading people to buy Cialdini's books...!
- ph0rque 10y agoI hacked the system... by checking it out at my local library instead of buying the book :)
- davemabe 10y agoThis is also referred to as "priming" which researchers have repeatedly failed to replicate. See: http://psych.stanford.edu/~michael/papers/Ramscar-Shaoul-Baayen_replication.pdf http://psych.stanford.edu/~michael/papers/Ramscar-Shaoul-Baa...
- mattkrause 10y ago"Priming" covers a lot of ground. At one end of the spectrum, there are fairly straightforward lexical priming effects. You can recognize the (scrambled/faint/etc) word "Banana" faster if you've been previously primed to think about fruit. These effects are pretty robust (at least as far as I know) and are fairly consistent with some models of memory. At the other end of the spectrum are these embodied cognition experiments that fall back on "priming" as an explanation. For example, people allegedly walk more slowly after being primed with words related to old age, or view others as being more "warm" if the subject hands them a hot beverage. These typically do not replicate well and tend to fall back on vague, handwavey theories.
- crispyambulance 10y agoAny worthwhile scientific study is going to consist of highly controlled experiments that are designed to answer very specific questions. To apply research results to negotiation/persuasion scenarios "in the wild" would be intractably difficult because the situations are going to be utterly uncontrolled. By the same token, I don't think that it's reasonable to dismiss "priming" as a practical business communication tactic just because it isn't easy to perform a repeatable experiment about it.
- jonathanstrange 10y agoThe problem with all this nudging and using of biases to influence people is that it is hardly better than spicing their drinks with drugs to make them more complacent and willing to agree. In my personal experience, being honest and reasonable, sticking to the facts and presenting good arguments have worked better in the long run than any eristic tricks. It depends, though, there are some fields where arguments do not really count and people are fairly irrational anyway, so I don't want to condemn these methods in general. Just as a tendency, it seems better to take other people seriously rather than only as allies or antagonists and as mere means to an end.
- TruthSHIFT 10y agoWhy not both? Can you also pre-suade someone and then present an honest and reasonable argument?
- TeMPOraL 10y agoYou can, but you have to ask yourself, if you should. Aside of the moral issue of performing a hostile action to limit other side's agency, you should also consider how - if discovered - it will affect your relationship with the other side, as well as your reputation.
- user5994461 10y agoYou can't compare that. Drugs is easier to use, doesn't require training, and works all the time.
- a3n 10y agoDrugs in someone's drink doesn't scale. Except tap water, I guess, but large conspiracies are hard to hide.
- dsfyu404ed 10y agohttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Water_fluoridation_controversy#Communist_conspiracy_theory_.281940s.E2.80.931960s.29 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Water_fluoridation_controversy...
- iainmerrick 10y agoThis reminds me of Daniel Kahneman's "Thinking, Fast and Slow", which is terrific but probably oversells some of the research results. Anyone know how well this new psychology stuff is surviving the replication crisis in the humanities? Edit to add: less charitably, it also reminds me of Scott Adams' rambling blog posts about Donald Trump. Adams has persuaded himself that this persuasion stuff is like magic, and applies it to everything he sees. It's the new astrology.
- mmastrac 10y agoI'm pretty sure Scott Adams is mentally unraveling with all the mental gymnastics he's going through projecting an image that he's not a Trump supporter.
- DominikR 10y agoIn all fairness you have to say that the FBI contacted him because some of the death threats he received were credible. (he lives in California which is quite intolerant towards conservatives) I also wouldn't act in a consistent way if I had to fear for my life.
- mattkrause 10y ago> Anyone know how well this new psychology stuff is surviving the replication crisis in the humanities? As a snarky rule of thumb, I'd say the likelihood of a study replicating is inversely proportional to the likelihood of a study showing up in a a TED Talk. If someone claims that you can make people like you more by handing them hot drinks, or radically change their views on a topic with a brief conversation, I'd be skeptical. However, there still are a lot of people doing solid behavioral work that doesn't make a huge splash in the popular press.
- hammock 10y ago"Pre-suasion" is another word for priming.[1] Incidentally, priming is one of the most prominent areas of social science that was once considered solid, but has now become under increased scrutiny due to failed replications.[2][3] [1]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Priming_(psychology) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Priming_(psychology) [2]http://www.chronicle.com/article/Power-of-Suggestion/136907/ http://www.chronicle.com/article/Power-of-Suggestion/136907/ [3]http://psych.stanford.edu/~michael/papers/Ramscar-Shaoul-Baayen_replication.pdf http://psych.stanford.edu/~michael/papers/Ramscar-Shaoul-Baa...
- tpeo 10y agoAnd it has the potential to fail catastrophically for the guy doing this, too. Can anyone still take the other side in a negotiation (or any other situation, really) seriously if it becomes know that they're trying to pull this parlor trick? Whoever is found out doing this would seem both ridiculous and repellent. Like a pickup artist.
- unoti 10y ago> Can anyone still take the other side in a negotiation (or any other situation, really) seriously if it becomes know that they're trying to pull this parlor trick? That's why it's so important to know about these things. Once armed with knowledge, it becomes a parlor trick. If you don't know about the techniques, then you're playing at a disadvantage. I read the author's previous book on influence[1] and it was rigorously researched with confirmable studies. Well worth reading, since it surveys a wide variety of mind hacks people play on us across 8 or so broad categories. It changed the way I thought about all kinds of situations I routinely encounter. https://www.amazon.com/Influence-Practice-Robert-B-Cialdini/dp/0205609996/ https://www.amazon.com/Influence-Practice-Robert-B-Cialdini/...
- apathy 10y ago> confirmable But were they indeed confirmed? This is the problem that keeps cropping up. Sometimes I wonder if believing in findings from the psychological literature isn't a disadvantage. Knowing about them is good -- you can pick up on the chumps who actually believe them. But believing them? It's not at all clear to me that uncritical acceptance of these studies is ever a good idea. The response of senior investigators shrilly decrying "methodological terrorism" when their small-sample findings fail to replicate does little to increase confidence in said findings (or, indeed, the field as a whole). nb. In no way is this confined to psychology. It's just more rampant there, to judge by the foundational manner in which the field has been shaken up. Nobody doubts that PCR works or that iPSCs can be induced, because the experiments to replicate the results are relatively trivial. But the nature of psychological research seems to make such exercises very difficult, to the point that individuals "take it on faith" that an effect is real (as opposed to assuming it's wrong and running a quick experiment to show that the next year or two of their life won't be wasted). Maybe we're just more cynical in bench-based disciplines?
- vsloo 10y agoThe practice of influencing people can easily be misinterpreted with negativity. Pre-suasion or priming are both about understanding and reading people better, anticipating what they need/want before they want so you can plant a seed. We work with tons of customers and our customer service team is trained to influence them just so they can have a more positive experience. We wrote about it here too: http://bit.ly/2eykG3f http://bit.ly/2eykG3f
- klodolph 10y agoUsing a link shortener on HN is not necessary, and it makes the people here less likely to click. We're a tough crowd. Do you have a direct link?
- hathawsh 10y agoHere you go: https://betterthansure.com/training-customer-service-to-be-master-influencers-8449ef40a52d https://betterthansure.com/training-customer-service-to-be-m...
- marcosdumay 10y agoThanks. I'm one of those people that wouldn't click on your previous link. Your site seems overall interesting.
- hathawsh 10y agoTo clarify, it's not my site. I'm just a passerby who clicked the tiny URL so others wouldn't have to. :-)
- ihaveahadron 10y agoonce again this a thing (priming or pre-suation that is) that EVERYONE does. all animals even do it. and, again, P or P is neither a good nor a bad thing in itself. for those who "haven't learned to wipe their asses yet", another way of explaining the idea here is that, the psychological phenomena at play here is that when people are dumber than someone else, but yet they both are unaware of this and also little bitches who can't accept how pathetic they are and so they take ideas that have no relation to anything negative/positive, and moronically mash words together randomly in order to make other dumb people think that something is negative
- gdulli 10y agoThe thing is, you never know when someone is going to see through it and lose respect for you for using a tactic that's more transparent than you think.
- paulpauper 10y agoagree. people hate being 'sold'
- burgreblast 10y agoPeople LOVE being sold things/ideas they agree with. e.g. How many people tune into to Apple's product announcements? People don't like rasping attempts to change their mind. The key to selling is that it should never feel like "sales", as the listener understands it. Many here will argue that Apple's announcements aren't really selling, they're informative, exciting, useful, keep one abreast of the latest, useful to know in the space. etc. That's perfectly executed selling: I'm _not_ being pitched. I'm deciding on my own that this fits my wants and needs.
- MarkMc 10y ago> Those who saw the soft clouds were more likely to prefer soft, comfortable sofas for purchase Oh yeah? How much more likely? And with what confidence interval?
- paulpauper 10y agoI'm skeptical this persuasion stuff works http://greyenlightenment.com/behavioral-psychology-and-influence http://greyenlightenment.com/behavioral-psychology-and-influ... people are always looking for shortcuts and life hacks to get what they want, and I wish it were that easy
- munificent 10y agoI like to know about these kinds of tricks so that it is harder for people to use them against me. But I would hate to find myself using them against another person. It's dishonest and disrespectful. My guideline is pretty simple: Would I be upset if someone used this tactic on me? If so, I shouldn't use it either.
- Xeiliex 10y agoThus I have practiced learning if our inaction is genuine and how to spin you off if it isn't.
- jwtadvice 10y agoI am reminded of the DoD funded paper out of UCLA on using MRIs to aide in the production of Middle Eastern focused, Pentagon directed social media propaganda using "pre-suasion" [1]. The paper states that three general categories of tactic are used to "pre-suade" civilians that may be otherwise on the lookout because they think someone may be trying to influence them (in which case cognitive defense mechanisms come into play). The paper summarizes that a few techniques can be used in an attempt to circumvent active and alert defenses: 1. "affirmation" - attaching your message to something that the target wants to affirm or reaffirm and including your new information along with old information. 2. "resource depletion" - providing so much information or stimulation or messaging that the target is 'exhausted' of trying to resist the message and relaxes into coping with it. 3. "narrative persuasion" - masking the message or information in a story with which the target self-identifies, therein allowing the message to seem like legitimate material to the target. [1] http://minerva.dtic.mil/doc/samplewp-Lieberman.pdf http://minerva.dtic.mil/doc/samplewp-Lieberman.pdf
- rossdavidh 10y agoAll interesting, and perhaps accurate, except the very case mentioned, U.S. ability to influence opinion in the Middle East, is a good example of the limitations. I would not call our situation with regard to popular opinion in the Middle East in the last few years an unqualified success. Sometimes other things matter a lot more then your "pre-suasion". I think in a lot of cases these sorts of techniques get called in too late, and asked to do too much, to rescue a PR disaster.
- kbenson 10y agoI think an important offshoot of this is to use specific language and ideas prior to your argument not to necessarily influence someone to the coming argument against their better judgement, but to actually free them to use accurate judgement. I have no idea if it works, but I often try to lead gently into my arguments here. I try not to make too many assumptions about what the reader will think about the prerequisites for my argument, and so go through my assumptions about them and why I believe them, and then present my actual argument. It's my hope this somewhat softens the natural tendency to ignore evidence and claims counter to their own beliefs by presenting supporting evidence they might agree with first. This is a simple concept and one I'm sure many people use, whether they are specifically working around what they see as a deficit of human rationality like me, or just because they think it's effective (if it is!). What I think is important about this is that it's an example of how we can use our cognitive biases for good. We can pit them against each other to open ourselves up to the more rational sides of our minds. It's important we don't associate all forms of manipulating our minds through presentation negatively through labeling. It's easy to say it's manipulation, and manipulation is bad, but that's just falling prey to another one of our cognitive biases, where we group similar things, and transfer attributes between them, whether they apply or not. It's very important we as a specifies learn from our weaknesses, and try to mitigate them, not just paper over them like they aren't there. I think the future is bleak if we don't.
- pointernil 10y agoI don't know if you used the technique on your own post but I find my self strongly agreeing with it ;) Every technique, every tool, every idea can used for "good" and "bad". A problem I see is the massively overpowered tendency of the personal gains seekers and market winners and profit hunters to engross and harmfully misuse _everything_ for their gains. It makes me seek to discover how helpful and constructive ideas/techniques are violated (bcos they are only very shallowly understood) and used _against_ people. Quite often I find this has to do we the ethics an area is entertaining. So therapists, social workers f.e. will use those tools differently and in a more constructive way than ppl. in the Biz-World bound only to "Biz-Ethics".
- elitro 10y agoI haven't read his book, but if anyone is curious on these experiments, you can read more on the following books (In fact, the article seems a mash of both of them): Blink: The Power of Thinking Without Thinking - The author mentions experiments where people exposed to more agressive or relaxed interactions can react differently and many other situations (similar to the money/cloud backgrounds examples). How to Win Friends and Influence People - Describes interaction strategies to avoid conflicts and create trust (such as the letter example).
- wppick 10y agoWhat I'm about to say is pretty hand-wavy (pre-suasion), but this concept of pre-suasion is important for when you are interviewing, or being interviewed for a job. Let's say you are interviewing someone for a position in your company, and you don't have an exact job description and set of requirements for that role; you are just looking to hire someone "good". That person can actually pre-suade you into overvaluing some skill, or aspect of their skill set that they want you to focus on. They can frame the argument in your mind as to whether you want to hire them on not based on an argument of their choosing. For example, they can make the argument in your mind that they are a fast developer, then the internal argument in your mind becomes whether they are truly fast or not, and if you are convinced that they are fast, then they become much more likely to be hired by you. This is not the best example, but it's a common sales tactic called "framing" the argument.
- wrsh07 10y agoThis is an area where being decent at deflecting into a personal area of expertise can be really effective. And sometimes it doesn't require a deflection - if someone asks me about my favorite data structure, it's easy to go on for fifteen minutes about the beauty and utility of either union-find or Voronoi diagrams.
- DominikR 10y agoThe author of the article is according to Scott Adams (author of the Dilbert comic strips) currently consulting for Hillary Clintons campaign. It will be interesting to see on 9th of November if his strategy worked or not.
- tgb 10y agoYou might notice that this is, in fact, an promotion for the author's book. If it manages to persuade you to buy it, then we can say that he's a reliable source of information on persuasion, since he successfully persuaded you. If he didn't, then good job avoiding this snake-oil meta-salesman, how could you trust him if he couldn't even sell a book? Either way, well done, you have made the correct choice!
- dingbat 10y agoCialdini is a salesman with credentials who's spent most of his time studying good salesmen and selling other salesmen on the idea of learning how to sell better. At the end of his big bestseller Influence, he goes into a long-winded moralization about how he hopes his work helps people resist the terrible influence of immoral salesmanship... for example by being mindful of the "secret weapons" of Social Proof and Authority and Scarcity. of course, he writes this in a book (a NATIONAL BESTSELLER as it says on the cover) that is literally covered in testimonials and promotional blurbs from "thought leaders" with credentials, mainstream publications like HBR and Fortune, praising Cialdini, PHD for revealing "little known secrets of Master Influencers" yada yada yada.
- paulryanrogers 10y agoReminds me of the proverb about letting others praise you and not praising yourself. Though seems quite mixed when you echo the praise of others.
- BeetleB 10y ago>If it manages to persuade you to buy it, then we can say that he's a reliable source of information on persuasion, since he successfully persuaded you. Good catch. I did not notice he had written the article. Well sure, buying the book may show he's a reliable source of information on persuasion. But, you know, being a very widely cited researcher may show it better. :-) I've encountered references to his work in many places.
- albertTJames 10y agoI have never thought of reading Cialdini's blog.. ! I am not surprised he lives in LA ! ;)
- deleted 10y ago[deleted]
- 415Kathleem 10y agoI think the keys to winning people over are pretty simple, right? Kindness, authenticity, and making a good case for yourself (or whatever you're trying to persuade them on). People really don't respond well to any kind of manipulation tactic- you may find yourself winning the battle, but losing the war. I think if people can tell that you're owning a weakness in an authentic way, and then presenting a strength in an equally authentic way, that can be a good persuasion technique. However, if you're just bs'ing people to win them over, they will sense it, and you will fail.
- known 10y agoMachiavellianism (willingness to manipulate and deceive others), Narcissism (egotism and self-obsession), Psychopathy (the lack of remorse and empathy), Sadism (pleasure in the suffering of others)
- MrPatan 10y agoA quote from the book (Pre-suasion) "Taylor reports that she knew then, without a single piece of data yet collected, that her experiment would be a success because the rehearsal had already produced the predicted effect—in her." This is why psychologists are being laughed out of science.
- philipodonnell 10y ago> ... before the description of strengths, he declared with characteristic sincerity that what he was about to assert was “what I would say to my family today if they asked me about Berkshire’s future.”. The result was a flood of favorable reaction to the letter ... as well as a per-share increase for the year of nearly five times that of the S&P. I like Buffet but this kind of mythologizing doesn't help anyone. The report in question was the 2014 report (http://www.berkshirehathaway.com/letters/2014ltr.pdf http://www.berkshirehathaway.com/letters/2014ltr.pdf) which is typically released in Feb of the following year (so early 2015). BRK.A underperfomed the S&P500 in the following year. BRK.A did outperform the S&P500 in 2014, but unless I'm missing something, the author is attributing the performance in 2014 to the reaction to a letter released in early 2015.