Persuasion is all in the mind

On topics both big and banal, we engage in persuasion on a regular basis. We discuss the credit crunch, climate change, or cooking choices, and we have a point of view that we want someone else to adopt.

We build a watertight argument to support our claim. We cite facts, present incontrovertible evidence, point out logical consequences, and prove without shadow of a doubt that we are right, they are wrong, and anyone who can’t see this is a fool.

And the person whom we are trying to persuade is of course convinced:

“I’m terribly sorry, I am very much mistaken. No one has ever explained it to me like that before. You must be awfully clever.”

But it doesn’t seem to go that way, does it?

Instead, we are taken aback when the person whom we’ve just proved to be stupid for disagreeing confirms their stupidity by maintaining their disagreement. They dispute our facts, they cite irrelevant information, and they make inferences that are patently illogical. They have all manner of reasons for their belief, none of which are valid.

But wait – assuming that our case is sound and our argument is good, why isn’t the listener convinced? They are not convinced because they are not listening to our argument, but attempting to convince us of theirs.

“Well, that’s their problem! They should be listening, or how can they evaluate our argument? If only they were more like us!”

It doesn’t matter. If we want to persuade them, then it is our problem. In fact, the problem is that they are “more like us” – they are not listening; only arguing.

In any debate, from each point of view, it looks the same. We are being logical and reasonable, and the other person is not. Everyone, from pornographers to priests to politicians, thinks that his or her own beliefs are logical and reasonable.

So how do we break this impasse?

We can do what we want them to do: assume that they are rational and intelligent, that they may know different things, and seek to understand their perspective on the subject. Treat this like an anthropological study, and ask questions in order to understand how they rationalise their belief. Don’t argue – just learn.

If we argue with someone before demonstrating to him or her that we understand their perspective, we cause them to perceive us as fools, who argue about things we don’t understand. To be clear – if they don’t know that we understand their point of view, they cannot distinguish us from a person who doesn’t understand the subject.

So before convincing them of our argument, we need to convince them that we understand theirs. This approach, of understanding them first has three effects:

Firstly, we may learn something, and might even change our own mind. One of the problems of debate [see footnote] is that it blinds us to alternative viewpoints, because the more we argue, the more we convince ourselves. After all, we choose the arguments we do because we find them convincing.

Secondly, we’ve set the tone and example, and they are far more likely to inquire about our views and seek to understand in reciprocation. It’s far easier to convince a person who is interested, than a person who is defensive.

Finally, we no longer stand opposed to the other person in combat, but alongside them, mutually building understanding. From his or her perspective, we understand the issue, yet hold a different point of view, and may be worth listening to. They are now listening, and evaluating our argument. And our ability to construct a persuasive argument is enhanced, because we can see things as they see them.

To persuade is to change someone’s mind. If we don’t understand what we’re trying to change, then we won’t be able to change it, regardless of how well we understand the subject in question.

Persuasion is all in the mind – their mind. First understand them, then persuade.

---

Footnote:

There is a significant difference between debate and persuasion.

Debate is what politicians do. Debate is not actually intended to persuade the other side (imagine the Leader of the Opposition being convinced that the Prime Minister is right, and crossing the floor), but to persuade an audience who hasn't yet made up their mind, or to score points with an audience who has. In this sense, debaters need to understand their audience's mind more than the mind of the person they are debating.

Persuasion turns into debating whenever there is an audience. It sometimes turns into debating when there isn't an audience, if neither participant adopts a listening stance. The act of debating tends to undermine our ability to persuade the person we are debating with, because the focus is on proving them wrong, and this generates a defensive response.