Persuasion Coach News

Artificial intelligence is changing how we protect ourselves from scams, ID theft, and other crimes. One expert stated that artificial intelligence is the greatest threat to the survival of the human species, even greater than climate change.

Just within the last few weeks, I have experienced or witnessed several instances of AI skulduggery.

Former advice, “Don’t click on a link in an email unless it’s from someone you know.” No longer enough.

Formerly, “Look at the email address of the sender. If, after the @, you see extra letters or numbers, it’s phishing. No longer enough.

Personal Experience – Fake Email

In a recent email, the sender’s address was the exact correct email address of my CPA. It said the link was to a form that I should look at, If it didn’t pertain to me, I could ignore it. A clever way to indirectly give confidence to the recipient.

This was from someone I know, and the email address was correct. I clicked on the link. It went to a webpage that redirected me to another, where I was asked to log in with Microsoft.

I wish I could say I’d been smart enough to get suspicious at that point, but what really happened was that I got fed up. I don’t even know how to log into something with Microsoft. I thought, This is too much trouble. I’ll just phone. The CPAs answered and said they’d been on the phone with tech-support all morning. They were hacked, yet, there was nothing in that email to give us a clue that it was fraudulent.

I called my ID theft insurance carrier to report this. The representative said, “Wait a minute. Are you telling me there were no extra letters after her correct email address?” I said yes. It was news even to the ID theft people.

Personal Experience with Phones

This next incident is really spooky. A technician was coming to my home because my land line was out. AT&T asked my permission to text me about this. I agreed. I did receive a text from the technician telling me he was running ahead of schedule.

I later discovered that, meanwhile, I had received a voice message on my mobile phone that went something like, “This is for AT&T. Please please feel free to click this….” This was not from a person who speaks English as their first language. AT&T would not write, “This is for AT&T,” and they certainly would not write, “please please.”

After the technician finished, I checked voicemails on the landline. I found about six identical voicemails of a man with a heavy foreign accent jabbering something I couldn’t even understand, except for “AT&T.”

The creepiest thing was that these fake voice messages, that showed up on both my phones, only started when I was, in fact, dealing with AT&T, and they stopped when my landline was fixed. It seemed the scammers knew when I was in communication with AT&T.

I spoke to an AT&T agent in the fraud department. He took the time to check the phone number on the fake voicemail against all legitimate numbers for AT&T departments, etc. He found that the fake number differed from a legitimate AT&T number by only one digit. This shouts “artificial intelligence.”

And on It Goes

Recently, I have started getting spam or scam FaceTime calls.

I received a fake email from my own correct email address.

I received a bogus message purporting to be from the US postal Service.

Even without AI, if you click to “accept all” cookies, lots of information, such your shopping habits, can be shared.

We can no longer rely on land lines or mobile phones to detect and warn us about all possible scams.

What really breaks my heart is that some people might not have the technical inclinations to follow these things. One might be too young or too old. Put a paintbrush in my hand, and I couldn’t make a straight line. Other people have the type of intelligence to create beautiful artworks, but they might struggle with scientific or technical matters. How many of them would suspect a message, “This is for AT&T. Please please feel free to click…”

My Plan

For what it’s worth, I’m trying the following:

• I no longer stay logged in to certain websites, even if I visit them frequently, especially not Google.
• I deleted all cookies from my computer. As I go back to sites, and get requests to set cookies, I will accept the minimum that still lets the site function OK. I will avoid accepting all if possible. (I find this faster than going to each individual site and looking for how to reset my cookie preferences.)
• If I receive an email, voicemail or text with a link, I will contact the sender by other means and make sure they sent it. There might be exceptions if the person is a close friend, relative or business contact, and the message pertains to a subject that we were already discussing.
• We used to think that electronic means of sending things were safer than US mail. For my own comfort level, I’m considering reversing that in some situations. To steal things out of US mail, a human must spend time and effort. On the other hand, a clever AI scheme can steal more kinds of information from millions of people.
• On my social media, I have set my privacy settings to minimize the use of my personal information, including what ads I see. Note: Facebook requires a date of birth for an account, but you can set your privacy so that the date of birth is not shared with others.

This is certainly not intended to be a complete “best practices” list for Internet safety. My focus has been about dangerous links and my own personal comfort level. My tech-support tells me that there are all sorts of safeguards one can use to enhance internet safety in general. You might want to talk to your own tech-support about these.

Pause for Thought

Are you thinking these safety measures take too much time or trouble? They pale in comparison to the time, trouble and financial thievery that can happen with AI.

I hope you all have found this article helpful. My next will be about a happier topic, a new project.

I am so very pleased to announce that I have been asked to prepare and deliver a customized persuasion/negotiation course for a group of women commercial realtors. The course will take place in August of this year.

Those who have taken my other courses or read my books know that the most basic principle is to try to avoid what I call “number line tug-of-war.” Instead, try to satisfy the interests of the parties that underlie the numerical positions they take.

It may seem that number line tug-of-war is the very basis for most real estate transactions, and indeed it may be impossible for realtors to avoid number line moves altogether. However, addressing underlying interests can still inform those moves.

Moreover, persuasion success is founded not only on what you say, but how you say it. When I teach a full-blown training in my complete system, more than one third of the classroom hours are devoted to communication skills.

I love that this is a women’s group because, as I explain in my book Women Can Renew the World IF…and So Can You, when we look at statistically significant numbers, women tend to take more naturally to the skills that work best.

I look forward to reporting on the success of this course later this year.

Do you find yourself wondering why some people continue to support particular politicians even when they go downhill after being elected? The reasons arise from deeply ingrained instincts that helped our species survive in prehistoric times.

The Drive to Be Right

In hunter gatherer days, being wrong could make the difference between life or death. In a group of hunters, if someone got the signals wrong, the animal might charge the hunters, injuring, or killing some of them. In a group of gatherers, if the lookout misidentified a dangerous predator as a harmless animal, once again, one or more members of the group could be killed.

Consequently, humans are hardwired to resist the idea that they are wrong. This doesn’t mean it’s impossible to change one’s mind, but it’s hard. The more important the matter, the harder it is. Think of a time when you changed your mind about something you had believed strongly. It might have happened after some dramatic event.

For example, a couple living on the Gulf or Atlantic coast might have lived through a number of hurricanes with no problems. So they don’t evacuate even when public authorities urge them to. The next bad storm destroys their home and belongings, including irreplaceable mementos like old photos and letters. The next time a storm head their way, they evacuate.

More often, changing one’s mind about a strong belief takes time. When you changed your mind, did it happen like a hurricane? Or did it happen little by little as you gained bits of information or found more of your acquaintances changing their mind on the matter?

This is why arguing with people who disagree with your political beliefs doesn’t work. What I teach people to do when addressing a disagreement proceeds in small steps. It takes time, but if the matter is important, it’s worth taking that time.

Resistance to changing one’s mind, however, is also driven by another factor.

 The Drive to Be Consistent

Changing one’s mind not only admits that one was wrong, it suggests that they are inconsistent. People tend to look for consistency, especially in leaders. They may distrust a leader who changes their mind. In fact, however, if one isn’t continually learning, they are going backward. The person who never changes their mind should be distrusted.

The more strongly and openly we support a belief or a person, such as a politician, the harder it is to reverse ourselves. People who remain staunchly in favor of a disappointing electee are most likely those who put out yard signs for that candidate, wore the candidate’s button, donated and actively promoted the candidate on social media. They bought in more strongly and publicly than those who simply preferred that candidate over the opponent.

Robert Cialdini describes a chilling example from the Korean War. Whereas the North Koreans tried to coerce POWs’ cooperation through cruelty and punishment, the Chinese took a different, and much more successful, approach, their “lenient policy.” Post-war psychological studies revealed that, unlike World War II prisoners, almost all American prisoners in Chinese camps had collaborated with the enemy in some way.

The lenient policy began by asking the prisoner to make a seemingly inconsequential—and clearly true—statement like, “The United States is not perfect.” It seems like only a narrow-minded fool would disagree with that statement. After all, no country, city, family or person is perfect. Why deny it?

Once the prisoner took the position that the U.S. isn’t perfect, the interrogator could usually get him to build on it later, as by listing problems with the U.S. and signing the list. Now the prisoner had gone on record while also elaborating on U.S. imperfections. Still later, the prisoner agreed to discuss the list with other prisoners or write a more complete essay, which was then aired on radio broadcasts to other POW camps.

Cialdini writes, “Aware that he had written the essay without any strong threats or coercion, many times a man would change his image of himself to be consistent with the deed and with the new ‘collaborator’ label.” When an American escaped from a Chinese camp, at least one such ‘collaborator’ was willing to inform on the escapee for as little as a bag of rice. The Chinese had a near perfect record for recapture.

If you are like me, this true story not only shows you that we can be influenced sub-radar, but also that we greatly underestimate the strength of the influence. For a mere bag of rice, prisoners would inform on compatriot escapees.

So What Can We Do?

If a person still strongly supports a politician, even after they have flubbed up big time while in office, it would take a long time, perhaps more than a year, in repeated conversations to have a chance of changing their mind. Even such a persistent effort can still fail.

It’s more efficient to converse with those whose beliefs are not so strong, those who admit that the politician has made mistakes, but who fear what their opponent might do. In other words, they are more or less on the fence, and opted for the side with the existing office holder.

Even with such a person, direct and immediate arguments are less effective than the persuasive communication skills I teach. If this boiled down to a few simple tricks, I wouldn’t teach entire classes and write entire books about the system.

I can, however, offer you some starting points. Ask more than you tell. Show the person you understood what they said by paraphrasing it back to them and asking them if you got their point. If they say yes, proceed from there. If they say no, keep paraphrasing until they agree that you got their point.

Now you’re ready to make your own point. Don’t begin your statement with the word “but.” That’s a red flag that makes the person think, Oh yeah, now here it comes. They tune you out and let their minds work on a better way of expressing their opinion to you.

Till next time, take good care of yourselves. If you would like to be sure, you don’t miss future articles and other news, simply fill in the News Service form in the right-hand column.

Before we can understand why people don’t change their minds, we need to know how they make up their minds to begin with. 

Our conscious thoughts represent only a small part of what goes on in the human brain. Every one of us is indirectly influenced, much more often than we would ever imagine, by things that fly below our conscious radar screens, sub-radar influences.

Such an influence can instantaneously generate a like or a dislike, a sense that a statement is either true or false. I bought Robert Cialdini’s, Influence: the Psychology of Persuasion, thinking it would add to my resources about building productive discussions and resolving disagreements. I soon realized it was more of a defense-against-the-dark-arts of persuasion used by people who sell goods and services, ideologies, political candidates, etc.

Cialdini is not alone. In Blink, Malcolm Gladwell details how sub-radar assumptions usually help us but sometimes mislead us. Yet, he offers hope for learning how first impressions, gleaned in “fleeting moments,” can be educated and controlled, so we know whether to trust or question them.

It Started Long Ago

Suppose a prehistoric woman, “Quartz,” sees a man, “Flint,” striding toward her. Is he friend or foe? Quartz’s ability to decide without taking time to think can determine whether or not she survives the encounter.

Quartz knows that a smile generally indicates that a person is safe. Yet, she instinctively distrusts Flint, even though he’s smiling. Why? Our brains are wired to detect a sincere smile by the fact that it involves, not only the mouth, but also the eyes. Quartz will allow Flint to approach if he displays a full-face smile. If his eyes aren’t smiling, she fights or flees.

Even in prehistoric times, though, mental shortcuts weren’t foolproof. Let’s say that Flint is not smiling at all. With a fierce look, he bellows and breaks into a run, brandishing his club. Quartz turns around and runs—straight into the wolf Flint saw creeping up behind her. Flint wasn’t trying to threaten Quartz, but rather, to chase away the wolf.

Fast Forward

Since then, difficulties with mental shortcuts have grown more complicated. Our technological and social evolution has outstripped our biological evolution. Life is more complex, mental shortcuts prove counterproductive more often. Yet, we still need shortcuts.

The great majority of things that influence our decisions, opinions and actions fly sub-radar. What’s more, our brain wiring prompts us to rationalize our decisions after we have already made them sub-radar, but so quickly that we believe our rationales are the real and only reasons we decided as we did.

In one example, a researcher could stimulate the part of the brain that caused subjects to raise their arms. When asked why they raised their arms, you’ld think, knowing they were engaged with a device, people would say something like, “I guess that machine made me do it,” or “I don’t know. It just flew up on its own.” However, most subjects gave answers like, “I just decided to.” Our brains are fast and silent computers. They can rationalize any sub-radar reaction so quickly that we believe the rationalization was the beginning, rather than the end, of the mental process.

Sensory perceptions are especially powerful because we don’t even imagine that they influenced our opinions or decisions. When I was in college, I took an instant dislike to a boy who sat next to me in one of my classes. But why? He had never said or done anything to offend me. His sister was a friend of mine. Eventually, it came to me. He wore the same cologne as the first boyfriend to dump me when I was in high school. This is why political candidates run TV ads with the most unflattering black and white photos of their opponents they can find.

The idea that we do things for reasons we aren’t aware of disturbs most people. So does the idea that the rationale we think prompted a decision, opinion or action had little or nothing to do with the matter.

Good News – We have options

Option 1: We can deny the fact that we make decisions for different reasons than we thought we did. We might tell ourselves, “Maybe those sales tricks work on weak-minded people, but not on me.” The denial option leaves us open to more and more counterproductive decisions, including more and more sub-radar influence by savvy sellers.

Option 2: We can acknowledge sub-radar influences. When an impression or an opinion arises, don’t lock into it. Wait before acting on it. Recall what sensory stimuli preceded the impression or opinion. Was it an image, a sound, a smell?

Once we recognize the stimuli, we lessen their influence and open up opportunities for making better-informed decisions. The most self-confident and successful people lean toward Option 2. They know that being influenced without realizing it is not a personal failing, it’s a part of human nature. So they recognize the influence of sub-radar forces and learn how to navigate them. 

Here’s an Anology

Say you love fishing in Lake Lucky. Fishing relaxes you. Plus, you provide fresh protein food for free.

Then you hear that a toxic chemical was detected in Lake Lucky. Officials advise not swimming or fishing in the lake until they investigate.

You have options:

Option 1: You can go into denial, tell yourself, “I’ve been eating fish from that lake for twenty years, and I feel fine.” And you might learn the hard way that what you denied is, in fact, true, when you die prematurely and painfully from the toxic chemical.

Option 2: You can temporarily stop fishing in Lake Lucky. You can seek alternative ways of relaxing and getting fresh food. You might look for a safer fishing spot and/or buy fish at a small grocery that specializes in healthier choices. You could try another meditative outdoor activity, such as walking a nature trail.

Try this Exercise

Think of someone who made a bad impression on you. What was the very first thing you noticed about that person? Was it a facial feature? The timbre of their voice? An article of clothing? An aroma?

Perhaps it was something the person said or did that offended you. Try to think of other explanations. Might they have been distracted or worried? What else was going on at the time?

 This doesn’t mean you have to trust everyone you meet on auto pilot. You can proceed with caution without closing your mind.

_________________

If you found this article on social media, or it was sent to you by someone else, and you want to be sure you receive follow ups,  just fill out the Persuasion Coach News form in the right hand column of this page.

A Positive Attitude Can Do More than You Think

I read of a study in which people were asked to walk down the sidewalk, enter a coffee house, and get a drink. The subjects were not told that some money had been placed on the sidewalk (I don’t remember if it was $5 or $20) and that there was someone in the coffee house who would be a good contact for business networking.

Before getting these instructions, the subjects had been asked whether they considered themselves optimists or pessimists. When they proceeded to the coffee house, the optimists noticed the money and picked it up. They also noticed the person in the coffee house and started a conversation. The pessimists, however, didn’t notice the money. They walked right past it. Nor did they notice the business contact in the coffee house.

When we focus on positive things, we will notice more good things in our lives and attract them to us. When we focus on negative things, we are less likely to notice the good things in our lives and even attract negativity.

Where does that leave us with respect to news consumption? I don’t watch any 24-hour TV news channels. They immerse people in bad news. They repeat the bad news over and over. They bombard one with programming that is not actual news reporting, but rather, so-called “pundits” talking about the news. 

People get addicted to 24 hour news. I gave up on using the gym in my apartment complex because, if someone gets in there before me, chances are they will tune the TV to a 24-hour news channel. They are so addicted that it’s not enough to watch 24 hour news on their own televisions at home. They have to watch while working out.

Humans Seem to Gravitate Toward Bad News. But why?

This instinct evolved when bad news meant that the sabertooth cat was creeping up behind your friend or that a rival tribe was advancing on your settlement, shouting and brandishing their clubs. In our times, this instinct often works against us.

TV engages our senses in many ways—sight, sound and movement. Color images, as opposed to black and white. The more our senses are engaged, the more the news affects our emotions and even physical reactions.

I have found a way to read news, and believe it or not, it takes much less time than watching TV. Plus, it gives me more nuanced information. I subscribe to e-newsletters.  (If you don’t take in information well by reading, I have suggestions for you below.)

I subscribed to several newsletters from Axios They have a morning newsletter, an evening newsletter and a later night newsletter that helps one end the day on a reflective, positive note. Axios also publishes local newsletters in some major cities, including here in Houston.

Axios’ philosophy is “smart brevity.” At the beginning of each newsletter, they tell you how many minutes it will take you to read it. Often, this is less than 10 minutes. They also give another side to each story.

What’s even better, you don’t even have to read the entire Axios newsletter. There are sub headings for the various topics covered. So I can scroll right past ones that don’t interest me.

If You Must Watch News

Now how about those of you who do not learn well by reading? You might be a visual learner. You may be a manual-kinesthetic learner, who learns by physical action, or when you can’t do the action yourself, watching action, such as on a video. You might learn better by watching television, but avoid the 24-hour channels. 

For CBS, ABC, NBC and PBS, news represents only a small part of their programming. They want people who watch their news to stay with their channel and watch other shows. So they are less likely to air biased statements.

I tuned in to CBS when there was major breaking news, the attack on the US Capitol in January, 2021. This was like an attack by a rival tribe in prehistoric times. I felt a practical need to know what would happen..

CBS had preempted all their regular programming and gone to round the clock live coverage of that event. They didn’t stop until the people had left the Capitol grounds. I later learned that one 24 hour channel had not even covered the entirety of the attack. Rather, they under-reported it.

Finally, let’s return to…

Inviting Positivity into Your Life

I begin every day by visiting the Good News Network. They only publish upbeat stories.

Before bedtime, I like to watch humorous  programs, like Shakespeare and Hathaway (on BritBox), or those with happy endings, like A Christmas Carol. I also enjoy playing games late at night, but not the fast paced action games the young people like so much. I prefer games like spider solitaire.

Working jigsaws is good for your mental health in many ways. If, like me, a lot of your work and entertainment involves spoken or written words, working a jigsaw exercises a totally different part of the brain, the visual part. That helps develop brain plasticity. I have also found and heard from other sources that working a jigsaw is sort of like meditation. When I play other games, my mind still wanders to whatever concerns I have at the time. But working a jigsaw totally employs my mind, my thoughts don’t wander.

Here’s a link to A couple of lovely calming music videos and one meditative chant. Be patient. It might take a few seconds before the link to “Watch” appears and also a few seconds for the program to move from one little video to the next.

Till next time, wishing you peace and sweet dreams.

You are invited to my presentation on “Greed, Envy and Consensus Building,” August 6, 10:00 AM.

Afterward, I will be signing all three of my published books:

• Women Can Renew the World IF…and So Can You
• Bridges to Consensus
• Love on The Rocks with a Twist–Delightful Fiction with Lessons on Dealing with Others

Visitors will be welcome to attend either in person:

Emerson Unitarian Universalist Church
1900 Bering Drive (upstairs)

Or by Zoom:emersonhouston.org/adultlearners

See you there!