7 ms·

And 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, r

by tpeo 10y ago

And 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?
  - artifaxx 10y ago
    Psychology definitely needs a higher level of rigor in their studies. It is frustrating but you just have to pick apart the methodology more rigorously to be reasonably certain. Understanding how our brains work even at a rudimentary level is too useful to pass up.
  - unoti 10y ago
    > But were they indeed confirmed? This is the problem that keeps cropping up. The book is carefully researched and exquisitely footnoted. Can you cite something specific that you have a problem with in the book? I'm curious if you have even read this book or if you just stating a more general concern about people who do me publish research.
    - apathy 10y ago
      I can't quite understand your last sentence -- I publish, as do most academics, so that can't be it. But Cialdini is the "pre-suasion" guy, and that one has certainly failed to replicate. So I guess I have a prior skepticism about anything from a standard textbook publisher covering similar topic. I've found too many errors in exercises, etc. to believe that their editors are doing much of a job; it's a drag when you're teaching a stats methods class and the book questions have major numeric errors so you can't use it for homework. What's the purpose of the book at that point? Next time I teach (actually the past few as well) I'm not going to bother with a textbook. Go pull these primary research articles, pull the data, and see if the methods were used correctly. The end. As previously, I've had some surprised looks when students did this with biological data sets. It's not like psychology is some rogue's gallery; it's a widespread problem. Only solution is to verify results before building upon them.
- LoSboccacc 10y ago
  Welll they play on your brain so even when aware you sometimes get caught in it. Like upselling tricks: overdone they indeed turn me away for sure, but subtle things like phone capacity or bundled items or cpu megahertz? It's the magic of nonlinear pricing and 'it's just 5% more!'
- RangerScience 10y ago
  In this http://suffadv.wikidot.com/ http://suffadv.wikidot.com/ RPG, one of your stats represents the level of "applied psychology" in use in your home culture. The more advanced / pervasive the use of the applied psychology, the stronger your character's inherent ability to defend against it.
- BeetleB 10y ago
  Influence is a great book (and a fun read). Although the author himself marketed it that way, it's a lot deeper than just "parlor tricks" to get you to buy stuff. It explains fundamentally why some people may listen to you and others may not (and vice versa). As someone who was always a poor influencer, I always wondered why if I explained something to someone, they would reject it. But if someone else explained it in the same way, they would accept it. The book explains why really well. Overall, if you do not conform well to societal norms (that includes being a geek), it will explain why your life will be miserable. It explains why people can be persuaded to do crazy things like committing suicide for a cult (and why others won't do such things). It also explains the power of reciprocity (as well as its down side). It starts with a simple story: The author was walking down the street when a kid tried to sell him a chocolate bar for $2 for some good cause. The author doesn't like chocolate, and it's too expensive. The kid then says "OK, I'll give it to you for a dollar!" The author, kind of automatically paid him a dollar and took the chocolate. A few minutes later, he wondered why he bought it: He doesn't like chocolate and doesn't care about the cause! The reason was reciprocity: The kid made a concession, and he automatically felt a need to reciprocate. This is a common tactic in negotiations (and one negotiation training often warns you about), so you could view it as a parlor trick. But it does go deeper. Many people in my life have gotten upset with me because: 1. They would have a request of me that I do not want to grant. 2. They offer me something for it - something I do not care for. 3. They make concessions on things or offer me more - again for things I do not care for. 4. They then get upset at me that I'm selfish, look how much others are willing to do for me and I don't reciprocate, etc. But, umm, why should I reciprocate for something that is of no value to me? These people are not trying to manipulate me - this is their true feeling. Humans are hard wired for reciprocity, and when you don't play along, people can get upset. I once asked a friend to do some exercise with me. He agreed, but when the time came he really didn't want to do it (bad weather). He said "Hey, tell you what: I'll do this for you if you learn skill X" (skill X is something I've been avoiding for years. To me, learning skill X is a huge investment I did not want to make, and certainly not worth doing just to get him to exercise with me that day. So I decided to release him from his obligation. I declined his offer and said it's OK if he doesn't want to work out with me today. Over a year later, I discovered that had upset him. From his perspective, he was willing to make a big sacrifice for me (work out with me that day with poor weather), but I was not willing to reciprocate. I had to explain to him: It was a big sacrifice for him, but only a small gain to me (it wasn't too big a deal if he didn't work out with me). Fundamentally, I do not need to reward him for making a big sacrifice, if I do not value it. I released him precisely because I sensed it was a big sacrifice, and did not want him to waste it. Negotiation training teaches you this: If you want to make concessions, ensure they are meaningful to the other party. And on the flip side, be wary of concessions others make for you - if you do not value them, signal this strongly to the other side. I may understand this, but most of the world doesn't. They will make concessions that have no value to you, and much of society will expect you to reciprocate. It'll take a lot of zen-fu not to get yourself in these situations. tldr; Sorry for the lengthy comment. Book worth reading. And oh, I have only read a third of it...
pmarreck 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? These are not tricks, they are human elements of communication that have been likely honed over millennia. A good example is the influential properties of touch: https://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/the-attraction-doctor/201202/how-influence-and-persuade-touch https://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/the-attraction-doctor/2... Tell me something, if a naturally-persuasive person uses these techniques (without realizing it) and a naturally-receptive person is influenced by them (without realizing it), is it still a "ridiculous, repellent parlor trick"? If not, then why does simply knowing about it make it manipulative?
- nitrogen 10y ago
  I wonder, have any studies been done on identifying why some people find physical contact repellent? For example, I strongly dislike being touched in any way by bosses, salespeople, etc. It immediately makes me distrust them. What leads to this difference, and have any studies or persuasion artists tried to detect and account for them?
  - pmarreck 10y ago
    Without trying to stereotype whatsoever, it's my impression that one group of people who loathe touch are autistics, http://healthland.time.com/2012/03/19/understanding-why-autistic-people-may-reject-social-touch/ http://healthland.time.com/2012/03/19/understanding-why-auti... but I don't know of a general term for the phenomenon
- lucasmullens 10y ago
  Isn't priming usually done intentionally? At least in the context of the article they're referring to intentional priming, which can seem pretty manipulative.
- ConfuciusSay02 10y ago
  Can you please pass me the salt? What??? You manipulative bastard!!!
bpyne 10y ago
Masters at this "game" may prime you long before they need you. It's like a game of Go only more complex.
logicallee 10y ago
Well, look, did you read the article? I did. I read to the end. I thought, okay, I'll start using this. But before I did I did one last thing. I asked myself, "Wait a minute - if this technique is so good, did the author use it?" I scrolled to the top of the page. This is the throwaway text that I thought I had completely ignored and was totally irrelevant: >Today and every day we are the targets of salespeople, marketers, advertisers, fundraisers and (heaven knows) politicians trying to persuade us to buy something, do something or think a certain way. And they’re good at it. When I was reading it I thought it was just throwaway stuff, like obviously you're telling me what I know! But looking back - don't you think it pre-suaded me that certain people are really, really good at being persuasive? Which then "pre-suaded" me to agree with whatever the article would state about this, without knowing it? I wonder if you did an A/B study on this article with the above lead sentence, versus an article that cuts out all of the first couple of sentences and just starts with "Research done in the last fifteen years shows that optimal persuasion is achieved through optimal pre-suasion: the practice of arranging for people to agree with a message before they know what’s in it...." Do you think as many people would agree with the article under those conditions? I don't! I think the pre-suasion technique of mentioning just how great experts are at persuasion, might have had a lot to do with why I - and likely others in this thread - agree with the article. This stuff works.
- tpeo 10y ago
  I did read the article. But I didn't consider the first bit as a throwaway, and this might be the key issue here. If there's a situation where priming might work, it's when the person being primed has either no particular opinion on that issue or when they're in agreement with it. I personally have strong priors against the effectiveness of advertisement and propaganda. I don't think the effects of these things are robust to different behavioural patterns and to increases in public awareness. So I didn't think of the first paragraph as a 'throwaway' bit.
  - logicallee 10y ago
    you strike me as someone who's reasonable and willing to change their mind if they see a new angle. So you seemed to be saying that the author wrote a whole article on how one can be much more persuasive by getting someone to agree to some general statement without actually expressing something particular about it -- without the author actually then doing so. :) I mean, it would be like reading an article about how "short titles are better" so you agree with all of the points, then as a final check you scroll up to the top of the page and see that the article is titled "How shorter titles increase clickthrough rates, sharing rates, impact score, reading of the full article, and are basically better in every way -- according to research by Facebook." A long article about how short titles are better, but where the article itself doesn't have one. That would be an example of an article not practicing what it preaches. How about our article? Do you think it does or doesn't "practice what it preaches"? Does it try to "pre-suade" some measure of agreement? Does it start by talking about general statements, before it gets into its thesis? What do you think?
deleted 10y ago
[deleted]
sametmax 10y ago
Yes but this is missing the point: people successfully pulling it out actually mean what they say. They are emotionally connected to this reaction, and this is why it works most of the time for them. When Buffet wrote that, he probably felt it. When the Queen said that speech, she probably expressed something that really was on her mind for a long time. Just like the best pickup artist I met were honest and direct people loving woman, sex and themself. They were artists because they practiced of course, but they practice because they genuinely liked it. The palor tricks are just what you get when you try to emulate it. And it works if you are very good at faking it or if people are oblivious. But even if it works, it is very taxing. Faking well something that has a deep emotional root means a big mind dissonance, and people doing that regularly usually become miserable on the long run.

by tpeo 10y ago

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?
- artifaxx 10y ago
  Psychology definitely needs a higher level of rigor in their studies. It is frustrating but you just have to pick apart the methodology more rigorously to be reasonably certain. Understanding how our brains work even at a rudimentary level is too useful to pass up.
- unoti 10y ago
  > But were they indeed confirmed? This is the problem that keeps cropping up. The book is carefully researched and exquisitely footnoted. Can you cite something specific that you have a problem with in the book? I'm curious if you have even read this book or if you just stating a more general concern about people who do me publish research.
  - apathy 10y ago
    I can't quite understand your last sentence -- I publish, as do most academics, so that can't be it. But Cialdini is the "pre-suasion" guy, and that one has certainly failed to replicate. So I guess I have a prior skepticism about anything from a standard textbook publisher covering similar topic. I've found too many errors in exercises, etc. to believe that their editors are doing much of a job; it's a drag when you're teaching a stats methods class and the book questions have major numeric errors so you can't use it for homework. What's the purpose of the book at that point? Next time I teach (actually the past few as well) I'm not going to bother with a textbook. Go pull these primary research articles, pull the data, and see if the methods were used correctly. The end. As previously, I've had some surprised looks when students did this with biological data sets. It's not like psychology is some rogue's gallery; it's a widespread problem. Only solution is to verify results before building upon them.
LoSboccacc 10y ago
Welll they play on your brain so even when aware you sometimes get caught in it. Like upselling tricks: overdone they indeed turn me away for sure, but subtle things like phone capacity or bundled items or cpu megahertz? It's the magic of nonlinear pricing and 'it's just 5% more!'
RangerScience 10y ago
In this http://suffadv.wikidot.com/ http://suffadv.wikidot.com/ RPG, one of your stats represents the level of "applied psychology" in use in your home culture. The more advanced / pervasive the use of the applied psychology, the stronger your character's inherent ability to defend against it.
BeetleB 10y ago
Influence is a great book (and a fun read). Although the author himself marketed it that way, it's a lot deeper than just "parlor tricks" to get you to buy stuff. It explains fundamentally why some people may listen to you and others may not (and vice versa). As someone who was always a poor influencer, I always wondered why if I explained something to someone, they would reject it. But if someone else explained it in the same way, they would accept it. The book explains why really well. Overall, if you do not conform well to societal norms (that includes being a geek), it will explain why your life will be miserable. It explains why people can be persuaded to do crazy things like committing suicide for a cult (and why others won't do such things). It also explains the power of reciprocity (as well as its down side). It starts with a simple story: The author was walking down the street when a kid tried to sell him a chocolate bar for $2 for some good cause. The author doesn't like chocolate, and it's too expensive. The kid then says "OK, I'll give it to you for a dollar!" The author, kind of automatically paid him a dollar and took the chocolate. A few minutes later, he wondered why he bought it: He doesn't like chocolate and doesn't care about the cause! The reason was reciprocity: The kid made a concession, and he automatically felt a need to reciprocate. This is a common tactic in negotiations (and one negotiation training often warns you about), so you could view it as a parlor trick. But it does go deeper. Many people in my life have gotten upset with me because: 1. They would have a request of me that I do not want to grant. 2. They offer me something for it - something I do not care for. 3. They make concessions on things or offer me more - again for things I do not care for. 4. They then get upset at me that I'm selfish, look how much others are willing to do for me and I don't reciprocate, etc. But, umm, why should I reciprocate for something that is of no value to me? These people are not trying to manipulate me - this is their true feeling. Humans are hard wired for reciprocity, and when you don't play along, people can get upset. I once asked a friend to do some exercise with me. He agreed, but when the time came he really didn't want to do it (bad weather). He said "Hey, tell you what: I'll do this for you if you learn skill X" (skill X is something I've been avoiding for years. To me, learning skill X is a huge investment I did not want to make, and certainly not worth doing just to get him to exercise with me that day. So I decided to release him from his obligation. I declined his offer and said it's OK if he doesn't want to work out with me today. Over a year later, I discovered that had upset him. From his perspective, he was willing to make a big sacrifice for me (work out with me that day with poor weather), but I was not willing to reciprocate. I had to explain to him: It was a big sacrifice for him, but only a small gain to me (it wasn't too big a deal if he didn't work out with me). Fundamentally, I do not need to reward him for making a big sacrifice, if I do not value it. I released him precisely because I sensed it was a big sacrifice, and did not want him to waste it. Negotiation training teaches you this: If you want to make concessions, ensure they are meaningful to the other party. And on the flip side, be wary of concessions others make for you - if you do not value them, signal this strongly to the other side. I may understand this, but most of the world doesn't. They will make concessions that have no value to you, and much of society will expect you to reciprocate. It'll take a lot of zen-fu not to get yourself in these situations. tldr; Sorry for the lengthy comment. Book worth reading. And oh, I have only read a third of it...

pmarreck 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? These are not tricks, they are human elements of communication that have been likely honed over millennia. A good example is the influential properties of touch: https://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/the-attraction-doctor/201202/how-influence-and-persuade-touch https://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/the-attraction-doctor/2... Tell me something, if a naturally-persuasive person uses these techniques (without realizing it) and a naturally-receptive person is influenced by them (without realizing it), is it still a "ridiculous, repellent parlor trick"? If not, then why does simply knowing about it make it manipulative?

nitrogen 10y ago
I wonder, have any studies been done on identifying why some people find physical contact repellent? For example, I strongly dislike being touched in any way by bosses, salespeople, etc. It immediately makes me distrust them. What leads to this difference, and have any studies or persuasion artists tried to detect and account for them?
- pmarreck 10y ago
  Without trying to stereotype whatsoever, it's my impression that one group of people who loathe touch are autistics, http://healthland.time.com/2012/03/19/understanding-why-autistic-people-may-reject-social-touch/ http://healthland.time.com/2012/03/19/understanding-why-auti... but I don't know of a general term for the phenomenon
lucasmullens 10y ago
Isn't priming usually done intentionally? At least in the context of the article they're referring to intentional priming, which can seem pretty manipulative.
ConfuciusSay02 10y ago
Can you please pass me the salt? What??? You manipulative bastard!!!

bpyne 10y ago

Masters at this "game" may prime you long before they need you. It's like a game of Go only more complex.

logicallee 10y ago

Well, look, did you read the article? I did. I read to the end. I thought, okay, I'll start using this. But before I did I did one last thing. I asked myself, "Wait a minute - if this technique is so good, did the author use it?" I scrolled to the top of the page. This is the throwaway text that I thought I had completely ignored and was totally irrelevant: >Today and every day we are the targets of salespeople, marketers, advertisers, fundraisers and (heaven knows) politicians trying to persuade us to buy something, do something or think a certain way. And they’re good at it. When I was reading it I thought it was just throwaway stuff, like obviously you're telling me what I know! But looking back - don't you think it pre-suaded me that certain people are really, really good at being persuasive? Which then "pre-suaded" me to agree with whatever the article would state about this, without knowing it? I wonder if you did an A/B study on this article with the above lead sentence, versus an article that cuts out all of the first couple of sentences and just starts with "Research done in the last fifteen years shows that optimal persuasion is achieved through optimal pre-suasion: the practice of arranging for people to agree with a message before they know what’s in it...." Do you think as many people would agree with the article under those conditions? I don't! I think the pre-suasion technique of mentioning just how great experts are at persuasion, might have had a lot to do with why I - and likely others in this thread - agree with the article. This stuff works.

tpeo 10y ago
I did read the article. But I didn't consider the first bit as a throwaway, and this might be the key issue here. If there's a situation where priming might work, it's when the person being primed has either no particular opinion on that issue or when they're in agreement with it. I personally have strong priors against the effectiveness of advertisement and propaganda. I don't think the effects of these things are robust to different behavioural patterns and to increases in public awareness. So I didn't think of the first paragraph as a 'throwaway' bit.
- logicallee 10y ago
  you strike me as someone who's reasonable and willing to change their mind if they see a new angle. So you seemed to be saying that the author wrote a whole article on how one can be much more persuasive by getting someone to agree to some general statement without actually expressing something particular about it -- without the author actually then doing so. :) I mean, it would be like reading an article about how "short titles are better" so you agree with all of the points, then as a final check you scroll up to the top of the page and see that the article is titled "How shorter titles increase clickthrough rates, sharing rates, impact score, reading of the full article, and are basically better in every way -- according to research by Facebook." A long article about how short titles are better, but where the article itself doesn't have one. That would be an example of an article not practicing what it preaches. How about our article? Do you think it does or doesn't "practice what it preaches"? Does it try to "pre-suade" some measure of agreement? Does it start by talking about general statements, before it gets into its thesis? What do you think?

deleted 10y ago

[deleted]

sametmax 10y ago

Yes but this is missing the point: people successfully pulling it out actually mean what they say. They are emotionally connected to this reaction, and this is why it works most of the time for them. When Buffet wrote that, he probably felt it. When the Queen said that speech, she probably expressed something that really was on her mind for a long time. Just like the best pickup artist I met were honest and direct people loving woman, sex and themself. They were artists because they practiced of course, but they practice because they genuinely liked it. The palor tricks are just what you get when you try to emulate it. And it works if you are very good at faking it or if people are oblivious. But even if it works, it is very taxing. Faking well something that has a deep emotional root means a big mind dissonance, and people doing that regularly usually become miserable on the long run.