Persuasion Coach News

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 Part II,  just fill out the Persuasion Coach News form in the right hand column of this page.

 If you have not seen earlier articles in this series, just scroll down. My website posts news items with the most recent at the top.

This is the third in a series of articles for those who wish to understand some reasons (aside from the political ones one can read elsewhere) why and how the recent election turned out the way it did. To read the earlier posts, just scroll down this page.

This third article may be especially interesting to my readers of other nationalities and a nice refresher for those in the US.

Two Houses of Congress

The founders of the United States envisioned the former colonies as much more similar to nation states, rather than, for example, counties in England. That’s why they called them “states.”

The federal government provides things that don’t make sense for individual states to do. For example, establish a common currency, postal system, army and navy.

Individual states still retain authority over matters that would be handled by a national government in many other countries. They establish their own civil and criminal codes of law, which are valid unless they violate the national Constitution or laws.

Smaller colonies wanted each future state to have the same number of representatives in Congress. Of course, larger colonies wanted the representatives apportioned based on the populations of the respective states.

Thus, the founders established two houses of Congress. Each state has two senators. The states’ number of representatives in the House is based on population.

The Electoral College

For presidential elections, each state’s number of electoral votes is the sum of the two senators plus that state’s number of representatives.

Each state establishes districts, each of which produces one electoral vote. For example, if 500 people in a district vote for candidate Smith and 200 vote for candidate Jones, that district’s single electoral vote will be for Jones. That’s one reason, the electoral vote can differ from the nationwide popular vote.

Furthermore, each state chooses how their electoral votes are counted. In  some states, the electoral votes are proportional. Let’s say such a state has 50 electoral votes, and so, has 50 districts.  Let’s also say that 20 of their districts turned in a majority vote for Smith and 30 for Jones. That state casts 20 electoral votes for Smith and 30 for Jones.

Other states have a “winner-take-all” electoral vote system. If, in such a state, 20 districts turn in a majority vote for Smith and 30 for Jones, that state will cast all 50 of its electoral votes for Jones.

This is another reason one candidate can win a majority of the popular vote (the number of individuals nationwide who voted for each candidate) and yet lose the electoral vote. This occurred in 2016. Donald Trump won the electoral vote, yet Hillary Clinton won the popular vote by a wide margin.

Drawing Districts

One of the greatest powers of an individual state is to draw up the boundaries of the state’s districts and to change them from time to time. The term “gerrymandering” was first used  when, in 1812, the governor of Massachusetts drew up a district boundary with such a convoluted shape that some people thought it looked like a salamander.

Gerrymandering is still practiced today. Weirdly shaped boundaries might be drawn, for example, to confine those who might vote against the party now in control of the state to as few districts as possible.

In the recent election, Harris received 48.2% of the popular vote. Trump received 50.1%. This amounts to a total of 149,223,169  individual votes cast. However, the number of people  aged 18 or over in the United States is over 258, 000, 000.

So Why Don’t More People Vote?

 For a single parent, working two jobs, voting might be a hardship, or even impossible. Those in other countries are sometimes amazed that election day is not a public holiday in the US.

I believe, however, that most of the reasons for not voting boil down to folks underestimating the value of their votes.

• One might be busy and think, I’m only one person. My vote can’t determine the outcome of the election. But if everyone adopted that philosophy, nobody would vote.
• Another might think, A large majority in my state leans in the opposite direction from me. And it’s a winner-take-all state.  My vote could not possibly change the result of this election.
• I read that, after Barack Obama was elected president, many African-Americans took heart and looked for their lives to change for the better. As president, he achieved a lot—most notably, an affordable national healthcare system, similar to one that had been proposed by President Nixon—even though the Republican leaders in the Senate and House ordered their constituencies to vote against anything the president favored. However, when the lives of African-Americans did not change as much, or as quickly, as they had hoped, some didn’t have the heart to vote the second time around. They just didn’t feel they could bear setting themselves up for another disappointment.

Why It Is Important to Vote – Even if you feel certain that your state’s electoral votes will go the other way

For one thing, it’s important to have an effect on the nationwide popular vote. 

Consider this analogy: vote tallies are not reported until after the polls have closed. That’s because such an announcement could influence those who have not yet voted. The more people who vote for a given candidate, the more likely others, especially those who are not strongly committed, will vote for that candidate.

Similarly, even after the election is over, when people see that their preferred candidate did well, or even won, in the popular vote, they are encouraged to continue voting in the future.

If you want to receive notice of future articles in this series, please sign up for my News Service in the area provided in the lower right of the home page of this website.

I’ll get to some reasons the ‘24  election went the way it did in future posts. First, I offer more self-care. If you have not yet read the first article on self-care, scroll down this page. The articles are in reverse chronological order.

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 marching toward 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 subscribe 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 for me is that I 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.

I’m doing a lot of self care these days, and for now, when the main newsletter headline includes the word “Trump,” I delete that email. I want news that might have some effect on what I do.

I don’t need to know who his cabinet members will be. I don’t need to know who secretly voted for him. Such details won’t change what I do.

I also subscribe to The Poynter Institute’s fact-checking arm, Politifact. Politifact does not simply rate things true or false. They have a scale: True, Mostly true, Partly true, Requires context, Partly false, Mostly false, False, and Pants on fire. Moreover, they explain the reasons for their ratings.

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.

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!

In honor of women’s history month, Women Can Renew the World IF…and So Can You is marked down to $12.75 throughout March 2023, in both print and Kindle editions. 

“Women’s issues” don’t just affect women. This book will show you how today’s women can make history by improving the lives of entire societies. You will learn how to discuss sensitive issues like this in a persuasive, bridge-building manor.

Now is a great time to save if you have not yet read the book. If you have, how about gifting it to a friend or relative?