Graph View

Backlinks

The Library

Search

SearchSearch

Persuasion

Sep 25, 2024, 14 min read

Automatic Influence

  • There are three components to automatic influence
    • System 1 is easy to fool, especially when it runs on preprogrammed mental shortcuts and when it runs with its own stereotypes and biases.
    • That most do not understand these automatic behaviors. Those that do understand will, therefore, have the advantage
    • That those who execute it do so subtly with almost no effort. It is the ability to manipulate without the appearance of manipulation.

Reciprocation

  • Repay, in kind, what another person has provided; Give and Take and then Take

  • By giving you impose a sense of indebtedness in the recipient.

  • Indebtedness overpowers Likability. 1 If you feel indebted, you are more likely to repay it even if you do not like the person

  • This rule has its roots in our evolution

    • Giving gives the promise that what is given will not be lost or wasted.
    • It allows for establishing reciprocal relationships without loss.
    • The feeling of indebtedness is unpleasant and so we try to get rid of it by performing a larger favor. There also exists the external pressure to repay unless we want to be labelled ungrateful.
    • Our ability to concede is tied to compromising. Compromise ensures cooperation between two parties with different interests. Without conceding, we cannot take the first steps towards a negotiation.

  • This is why free samples and gifts are disarming and powerful. Even gifts that were unwarranted have bite as we cannot help but accept and repay.

  • Remember that the level of reciprocity is determined by the perceived value of the gift to the receiver.

Obligations

  • A specific case of reciprocity that is based on social norms or expected behaviors.
  • Another person can trigger a feeling of indebtedness by doing us an uninvited favor. Hence it is not just our obligation to repay, but our obligation to receive the favor.
  • It can prompt unfair exchanges — give a little and then take a lot more. Conversely, because of pressures, people do not ask favors they are not in a position to repay.

Concessions

  • We have an obligation to make a concession to someone who has made a concession to us. We want to reciprocate the concession.
  • Rejection-then-Retreat. Offer a larger request that is likely to be turned down. Then, make a smaller request that you were aiming for all along. The second request is viewed as a concession.
    • Research indicates that this tactic spurs people, not only to agree to the desired request, but actually carry it out and volunteer to perform further requests.
    • The person facing the opponent who used the retreating strategy felt more responsible for the final deal. They felt that they controlled their opponent and got them to concede.
    • The person facing this strategy felt more satisfied with the final arrangement.

Commitment and Consistency

  • Once we have made a choice or taken a stand, we will encounter personal and interpersonal pressures to behave consistently with that commitment.
    • Once an active commitment is made, the self-image is squeezed from inside and outside to be consistent*
      • There is the pressure to align self-image with action and
      • There is pressure from outside to align self-image with perception.
    • Public commitments tend to be lasting commitments. There is additional pressure to be consistent with how others see us.
    • The more effort that goes into a commitment, the greater its ability to influence the attitudes of the person who made it. 2
    • A commitment is extra powerful when it convinces the person that they own what they had done.
      • We accept inner responsibility for a behavior when we think we have chosen to perform it in the absence of strong outside pressures
      • Thus, instead of using a threat or being explicit, make things ambiguous so that the person convinces themselves that they did something because they wanted to.
      • The person may even find new reasons as to why they acted a certain way, even if these reasons are far from the truth.

  • We fool ourselves to keep our thoughts and beliefs consistent with what we have already done or decided.

    • For example: It would be awkward to suddenly be stingy when you have asserted that you are doing fine (even if it is only a part of sociable exchange)
    • People have a natural tendency to think a statement reflects the true attitude of the person who made it, even after they realize it was not a free statement.

  • In most circumstances consistency is important as it is associated with personal and intellectual strength.

    • Blind consistency allows us to simplify things — when things get confusing just stick to what is consistent to our earlier decisions.
    • Sometimes it lets us avoid harsh realizations in the face of uncertainty. It offers a hiding space when we do not want to think about the implications of our beliefs.

  • Foot-in-the Door Technique. Start with a little request in order to gain eventual compliance with related larger requests.

    • By getting them to accept the small request, they are already a co-conspirator. They will then desire to orient themselves to be consistent with that view.
      • Be careful about agreeing to trivial requests. Such agreements increase the likelihood that we would commit to a larger request — even those barely related.
    • Written and Public commitments are powerful. This could be to one’s advantage (i.e., committing to a goal) or disadvantage (being coerced into one).

  • Lowballing - An advantage is offered that induces a favorable purchase decision; then, sometime after the decision has been made but before the bargain is sealed, the original purchase advantage is deftly removed

    • The trick is to give the person new reasons to commit, even those far removed from the old reasons.

  • Such techniques are cost-effective. There is no need to undertake continuous effort to make sure the change continues. Simply getting people to commit is enough.

Social Proof

  • One means we use to determine what is correct is to find out what other people think is correct.
    • When we are unsure of ourselves, when the situation is unclear or ambiguous, we are most likely to look to and accept the actions of others as correct.
    • Because everyone looks towards what everyone else is doing, there is an emergent consequence — pluralistic ignorance. 3 4
    • We will use the actions of others to decide on proper behavior for ourselves, especially when we view those others as similar to ourselves. Information Hazards abound. 5

  • Normally this works well because we will make fewer mistakes by acting according to social evidence. The heuristic that the way most people do it is right is indeed right.

  • The trick, therefore, is to convince even a small sizable proportion of the group. Then this conviction will spread to the rest of the group.

  • Apply slight social pressure to get others to conform with how the rest of the group behaved.

Liking

  • We prefer to say yes to the requests of someone we know and like.

  • If there is no pre-established friendship, get the target to like you first.

    • The factors influencing likability include favorable traits and physical attractiveness.
    • Another thing that influences this is similarity — we like people who are similar to us — similar fashion, backgrounds, interests and opinions.
    • An us vs. them mentality negatively affects our likability of the other group. However, this can be remedied by putting everyone (us and them) in a situation where cooperation is key for a shared goal where all parties benefit, and competition only harms everyone.
      • And this can be exploited by establishing that “we are on the same team”. This is why Good Cop / Bad Cop works.
    • Humans are suckers for flattery. Complimenting someone makes them like us more. It doesn’t matter that the compliment is true. It doesn’t matter when it is obvious we stand to gain from others liking us 6
    • Familiarity affects liking.
    • Perceived competition, difficulty or frustration negatively affects liking. Conversely, perceived cooperation, easiness, and a general pleasant experience positively affects liking.
    • Association affects liking. Merely being associated with a good event, even one we had no control over, can be enough to influence others positively. Conversely for bad events.7 8
      • This is especially apparent when prestige is low and we ride on the achievement of others. It is accomplishment deriving from outside the self.

  • Some rules for establishing “likability”.

    • The liking must be genuine.
    • Complements only work if they seem genuine and at the level on par with the rapport established
    • Use nonverbals.
    • Learn to be interested enough that “liking” comes off as genuine

Authority

  • Obedience to proper authority is right and disobedience is wrong. The correctness of actions is not judged on moral considerations but by mere command of authority.

    • Obedience takes place with little to no conscious deliberation. Even when it doesn’t make sense at all.
    • Blind obedience means that we don’t have to think — therefore we don’t.
    • Sometimes *even just the appearance of authority is enough *
      • Titles - simply adopting the title of an authority. Even flimsy counterfeits work as long as they are convincing.
      • Clothes - the cloak of authority. More tangible than a title but also easily fakable. 9.
      • Trappings - It is symbolic of generalized authority.
    • People underestimate how much they subconsciously comply with authority.
    • We tend to be convinced with experts who seem to be impartial. There is an illusion that a fair authority is more just. Who better to believe than a demonstrated expert of proven sincerity.

  • Authority naturally benefits a society — it allows a directed approach to societal development in contrast to anarchy.

    • It is a heuristic — Authorities must be good.
    • Authorities are (perceived) physically bigger. Even animals exhibit this characteristic.

  • Body language and Level of Knowledge play a role in determining who has authority.

Scarcity

  • Opportunities seem more valuable to us when their availability is limited 10.

    • People tend to be loss-averse- more motivated by the thought of losing something than by the thought of gaining something of equal value
    • As opportunities become less available, we lose freedoms; and we hate to lose the freedoms we already have Setting up barriers to these freedoms makes people more vulnerable to the principle of scarcity. 11
    • For scarcity to be especially potent, it must come suddenly and abruptly. It is much more potent than constant scarcity.
      • When it comes to freedoms, it is more dangerous to have given for a while than never to have given at all. Freedom once gained, will not be relinquished without a fight.
      • Thus, inconsistently enforcing rules generally leads to rebellion.
    • Scarcity due to social demand is more powerful than those that were made scarce by mistake. We want the scarce item more when there is competition for it.

  • This is why limited time offers and deadlines are effective

  • Goosing off the fence - a tactic wherein we introduce artificial competition in an effort to make the item appear more scarce.

  • It is based on a heuristic that items that are difficult to possess are typically better.

  • One can influence others by using FOMO — offer something that is only available for a limited time

How to Say No

  • It is important to realize that the compliance techniques presented can be used for good or bad.

  • Reciprocation: Accept offers as they are, not how they are represented to be. Another countermeasure: Simply accept the gift but don’t reciprocate.

  • Commitment: Recognize when commitment will lead to a poor choice. The key is in two signals

    • The Gut-Feeling - that something feels wrong and we know it. When the Gut says that something is wrong, explicitly point it out.
    • The Heart of Hearts - that even if we don’t know something is wrong, we need only to see that the commitment is not in line with our true beliefs. “Knowing what I know now, Would I make the same choice again?” In this way we eliminate the “new” reasons we come up with to be consistent.

  • Social Proof - Recognize when we have the wrong information. Then take control instead of succumbing to social pressure. i.e., two situations

    • When the social evidence has been purposely falsified. Those that only aim to leave an impression.
    • When an innocent, natural error snowballs into social proof pushing for incorrect decision. This arises when
      • We assume that if a lot of people are doing the same thing, they must know something we don’t.
      • The crowd is mistaken because they are not acting on the basis of any superior information but are reacting

  • Liking - rather than trying to recognize and prevent the action of liking factors before they work on us, we must be well advised to let them work. We must be vigilant that undue liking has been produced. We like the practitioner more than we should.

    • If we find that we like the practitioner more than we ordinarily would’ve, separate them from the rest of the decision factors.

  • Authority - Be aware of authority power. Recognize the ways that authority can be faked. Ask two questions

    • Is this authority really an expert? - An authority’s advice is only good if their credentials are relevant.
    • How truthful can we expect the expert to be here? - Authorities, even the best informed, may not. present their information honestly to us. Therefore, we must consider their trustworthiness.
      • Ask what the authority stands to gain.
      • Sometimes impartiality — the authority seeming to go against their best interests, is a lie .

  • Scarcity - Knowing the scarcity principle is not enough when the emotional reaction it draws overpowers the knowledge. Recognize the signs that scarcity is playing a factor in our decisions.

    • Ask: What it is that we want from the item
      • We could want an item for the advantages of possessing a rare item, in which case we can use the scarcity principle to inform us of its price.
      • However, we could simply want the item for its utility and in the spur of the moment end up wanting it because it suddenly becomes scarce. Scarcity does not affect utility

Manipulation

  • The general principles of manipulation are as follows

    • Increase susceptibility
    • Control the environment
    • Forced reevaluation
    • Removal of Power
    • Punishment
    • Intimidation

  • Fear and anger override the brain’s ability to think rationally, which leaves only emotion for making decisions

Debate

  • Train for any argument with Harvard’s Former debate Coach Bo Seo
    • RISA framework. In a debate, ask yourself the following questions
      • Is it Real?
      • Is it Important?
      • Is it Specific enough?
      • Are we Aligned in our beliefs?.
    • Every disagreement should start with an agreed framework. Make explicit the intentions of the debate (I.e., what both sides are hoping to accomplish).
    • Pick and choose the arguments you respond to. The goal should be to make progress.
    • Empathize with the opposition. Understand where they are coming from.
    • Steelman argument — respond to the strongest argument of the opposition.

Links

Footnotes

  1. According to an experiment outlined in Cialdini. ↩

  2. Hence why certain indoctrination rites such as hazing are effective and can bring loyal followers. The initiate convinces themselves they HAVE to be undergoing this treatment for something extraordinary. ↩

  3. A good example of this is the Bystander Effect and Compassion Fadeause of uncertainty about whether they should intervene, and because no one seems to be intervening, no one actually intervenes. ↩

  4. A good way to counteract this then is to dispel the uncertainty yourself. Point at someone in the crowd and ask them specifically for help. Then, with the uncertainty is dispelled, people will follow suit. ↩

  5. Cialdini gives another example of this — the Wether effect and copycat suicides. Imitation is key. This even extends to copycat acts of violence. ↩

  6. From Cialdini ↩

  7. This is why people shoot the messenger and why advertisers hop on the bandwagon and why Pavlov’s dogs drool at the sound of a bell. ↩

  8. This is also why people from fandoms can become fervent. The fandom must be good because they, the person, must be good too. Otherwise, what does it say to ourselves and others when our object of worship is “bad” ↩

  9. This includes appearing in uniform or business attire, or even appearing prestigious. ↩

  10. This is the essence of FOMO. ↩

  11. Hence an argument for why censorship doesn’t work — it only moves the market underground. Even the act of censorship can be used to gain power or spread Information Hazards. ↩