Rhetoric
The Greeks invented the science of persuasion – they called it rhetoric. The posts in this category give a brief overview.
Strategy. Innovation. Brand.
Did Mitt Romney Read My Blog?
Mitt Romney’s acceptance speech was notable for one thing that it lacked: he didn’t launch an all-out attack on Barack Obama. Perhaps he’s been reading my blog.
Remember the difference between a debate and a battle? A battle has two sides; a debate has three sides. In a battle, you’re trying to defeat the enemy. In a debate, you’re trying to win over the audience. In a debate, you shouldn’t attack your opponent if you believe that the audience admires him. This is the situation that Romney faced. A lot of Americans (a majority according to polls) like Obama even if they disagree with him. We admire the president or, at least, feel sympathetic to him. If Romney attacked or belittled Obama, many people would think, “Wait… that’s not fair…” Instead of winning them over, Romney would be pushing them away. This was why I wrote a few months ago that it was dumb for Democrats to criticize Ann Romney, who is a very sympathetic figure.
So Mitt Romney took a different tack last night — one that Greek rhetoricians would have admired. Rather than attacking his opponent, he expressed sympathy for him. With messages like “we all rallied around him”, “I wanted him to succeed because I want America to succeed”, Romney expressed his solidarity with Obama supporters. Then he tried to peel them away, saying that Obama’s administration didn’t work out the way we expected. He didn’t fulfill our hopes. Romney used a tone of regret and disappointment rather than anger and attack. His message boiled down to this: “I’m like you… I like the man and I respect him … but it didn’t work out … it’s very sad but it’s OK to change direction”. It may or may not work but it’s a much smarter rhetorical strategy than a head-on attack against a popular opponent. Just ask Sarah Palin.
How to Be a Team Player While Saying “No”
You’re a team player. You like to help your teammates. You like to say “yes”. But you also like to deliver results. You hold yourself accountable for fulfilling your commitments. You like to under-promise and over-delvier.
Let’s say that you have a mountain of work to attend to. You’ve made lots of commitments and now you’re trying to fulfill them. You’re working hard and making progress. Then somebody (who outranks you) asks you to take on another major project. Saying “yes” to the new project means that you won’t be able to fulfill your commitments on existing projects. So how do you say “no” without letting the team down? Just watch the video.
Persuasion and Self-Interest
Persuasive speakers often appeal to your self-interest. But which is more persuasive: appealing to your short-term or your long-term self-interest?
I’ve always guessed that the most persuasive arguments appeal to your short-term interests. I want results now … and I assume that most other people do, too. It just seems like common sense. But I haven’t had much empirical evidence to back up my position until I noticed an article on fitness and exercise by Jane Brody in today’s New York Times. (You can find it here).
The article purports to be about exercise but it’s really about persuasion. How do you persuade people to take up exercise and stick with it? Traditionally we have “pitched” exercise either as a long-term benefit (“you’ll live longer”) or as a punishment (“you’re overweight; you have to work out”). As Brody points out, such messages are often sufficient to get people off the couch but rarely sufficient to keep them exercising long term.
Brody sums up the the need to focus on short-term benefits with a quote from Michelle Segar of the Univeristy of Michigan: “Immediate rewards are more motivating than distant ones. Feeling happy and less stressed is more motivating than not getting heart disease or cancer, maybe, some day in the future.”
So how does this affect your persuasive techniques? We’ve all experienced the difficulty of persuading people based on long-term interests. Perhaps you’ve tried to convince your children to study or save for the future. Or argued the politics of long-term environmental dangers. Or debated the future of programs like Social Security or Medicare. You’ll be more persuasive if you can focus your arguments on short-term benefits (and emotions) rather than long-term abstractions.
This may mean that you’ll leaven your argument with feelings and emotions more than facts and data. For instance, if you’re trying to persuade your children to save for the future, you might argue that, “If you save a little each day, your future will be secure.” That’s factual, future-oriented, and long-term. It’s also very abstract and fuzzy, especially to a young person. So you might try a different tack: “You’ll worry less and feel better if you know that your future is secure.” It’s more emotional and more immediate. It’s also more persuasive.
The Economist Agrees: First is Best
Which idea is best? Most often, it’s the first idea.
I’ve written about the first-is-best bias before. This morning, I was pleased to see that The Economist‘s columnist, Schumpeter, agrees 
with me. This week, Schumpeter reports on new research that finds the first-is-best bias in everything from chewing gum preference to the costs of television advertising (the first ad slot costs more than the second and so on). When people are distracted (and who isn’t these days?), they often go with the first solution they hear.
So what does this have to do with persuasive communication? Two things:
- If you’re trying to persuade an audience that a given idea is best, it’s best to present that idea first. If you need to present several alternatives, present your preferred alternative first.
- If, on the other hand, you want a thorough and balanced discussion of all the alternatives, you need to overcome the first-is-best bias. You can do this through “synchronized” discussions. For instance, you could ask participants to write down their thoughts and submit them simultaneously. Since they’re submitted at the same time, they don’t influence each other. Your job, as the idea coordinator, is to ensure that all the submissions are discussed fully and fairly.
You can find the article that Schumpeter reports on — “First is Best”, by Dana Carney of UC Berkeley and Mahzarin Banarji of Harvard here.
Activate Your Friends, Energize Your Enemies
In highly political situations, your ability to speak eloquently may actually work to your disadvantage. By speaking forcefully about a political objective, you may activate your friends but thoroughly energize your opponents. Your friends may support your objectives but without a great deal of energy. Your opponents, on the other hand, may be thoroughly alarmed by your presentations and highly 
energized to oppose your initiative. You can provoke a strong immune response from your opponents that can swamp even the best laid plans.
This happens regularly in political situations — especially during election campaigns. When one side speaks for something, the other side is motivated to increase the volume when speaking against it. Even if it’s a perfectly logical proposal, the mere fact that one side is pushing it hard may cause the other side to push back even harder.
Does this happen in business situations? All the time. But in business, the immune response is often cloaked. (In politics, the conflict is right out in the open — which may be healthier). If your business is highly political, you may find that speaking strongly for an initiative simply activates your opposition and weakens your position. If you think that’s happening to you, don’t stop speaking for your initiative but be sure to reach out to the opposition to look for common ground and areas of agreement. You need to make the first move — your opponents are not going to come to you. Look for private, face-to-face meetings with your opponents to clear the air and bridge the gap. You can learn more in the video.
By the way, the book I mention in the video is Beyond Ideology: Politics, Principles, and Partisanship in the U.S. Senate by France E. Lee. You can find it here on Amazon.
My Social Media
