Persuasion and sex have this in common:  Everyone thinks they are better at both than they are at either.  We tend to take an optimistic view of our efforts – who aims sex or persuasion toward failure?  Thus, we think we’re pretty good, yes, indeedydo, thank you Sir and Madam, when we’re not.

We clearly suspect our weaknesses at sex.  Look at the magazine covers you read.  All of them offer quizzes and tests, tips and hints from your Uncle Irv or Aunt Shirley although never with those names but rather something like Amir Rastar or Mamimi LaZimi even though the advice is the same.  So, you admit your weaknesses in bed if only to yourself.  Why not admit them about persuasion?  That’s the first step on the journey of recovery.

So, how good are you?

Take this quiz.  Respond to each statement with your agreement or disagreement on this 5 point scale.

1 = Strongly disagree
2 = Disagree
3 = Neither agree nor disagree
4 = Agree
5 = Strongly agree

1.  When I try to persuade, the Other Guy changes in the direction I seek.

2.  I have a variety of tactics.

3.  I observe the Other Guy to size up opportunities.

4.  I think about persuasion.

5.  I read persuasion sources to learn more.

6.  The Other Guy rarely realizes when I’m trying to persuade.

7.  Most people probably don’t think I’m very good at persuasion.

8.  I can control my thoughts and feelings as needed when I’m trying to persuade someone.

9.  Given a choice between persuasion and power, I’ll take persuasion.

10. Machiavelli is a misunderstood genius.

Interpreting your score.

Score under 35: You’re normal.
Score  35 to 40: You’re effective.
Score  40 to 45: I’d hire you.
Score   over 45: Who are you fooling?

At some level would an effective persuader even take this quiz?  All bad persuasion is sincere, after all.

Green believers face an uphill struggle in their pursuit of Green environmental change.  The status quo resists the most rational, reasonable, and righteous requests of Greens.  What to do?

Unless you are nothing but a locust eating zealot and assuming that you do want True Green, then if your current plan isn’t working, isn’t wise to change the plan?  Otherwise you are trapped in the Dissonance Jar, redoubling your efforts to break out every time you hit that invisible glass, just like a fly in a Bell Jar.  Green is Rational.  Smart.  Scientific.  You’re Right.  But, no one is listening.

Consider:  Change is a good thing.

Switch out of the Al Gore Science Show and get busy with persuasion, baby.  Do something that actually moves people up the Green Stairway to Heaven.  Like this.

Have people read or think about a story that goes something like . . .

. . . imagine graduating from college, looking for a job, and deciding to go work for a large company because it offers the greatest chance of moving up.  The story describes the person’s first day on the job, focusing on the high-status features of the workplace such as the upscale lobby and nice furniture. Readers eventually learn that they will have an opportunity to receive a desirable promotion. The story ends as the reader ponders moving up in status relative to his or her same-sex peers.

. . . in other words, elicit a status motivation in your target.  In this example, the participants were college students, hence to focus on a good job, but with many higher status attributes.  You could alter this as needed and use Buying Your House instead.  Just consider the life of your targets and have them think about something they desire and make sure you add high status elements to the story.

Now, does this status motivation produce Green choices?  Consider this.  Griskevicius, Tybur, and Van den Bergh gave this story or a control story to undergraduates, then had them make product selections.  Each selection gave two choices of products that provided the same function (car, dishwasher) at the same price (!!!), but were either Green or Not Green.  Participants given the status story chose the Green product more often, at a Moderate Windowpane effect (35/65) size.  For example, 63% of the status story participants chose a Green car while only 37% of the control story participants chose a Green car.

Let’s goose this turkey.  To the status motivation, add another element, public versus private choice.  Have people make their product choices in either a setting where other people can see them make the choice or in private where others cannot see them make the choice.  This manipulation led high status people to want the Green product in the public choice condition, but interestingly, reversed the effect in the private condition.  Thus, Green products become more desirable when people are both status motivated and making public choices.  But, Green products are more desirable when people have no status motivation, but make private choices and at a Moderate Windowpane effect.  Here’s a Figure to visualize the effect.

Finally, what about price?  In the two experiments we’ve looked at, price was always the same, but often with Green products they may be more expensive on up front costs that are recovered over time through Green efficiency.  But, people are very sensitive to price.  Or are they?

Griskevicius, Tybur, and Van den Bergh manipulated only that status motivation and then varied the price of the products to chose.  Sometimes the Green product was more expensive; sometimes it was cheaper than the Not Green product (and again, each product type, Green or Not, had the same functional attributes).  Interestingly enough, they found another one of those crossing interactions producing a Moderate Windowpane effect.  Under high status motivation, the more expensive Green product was more desirable.  But under no status motivation, the expensive Not Green product was more desirable.  Again, here’s a Figure to visualize the outcome.

If you are True Green all this is the classic Good News, Bad News outcome.  You can generate the Green choices you want from others, but not by making rational, scientific appeals (the Al Gore PowerPoint, for example).  Green sells through fairly typical high status, Snob Appeal.  Make people status conscious and they’ll go Green.  Make people status conscious, then make them chose in public, and they’ll go Green.  Make people status conscious, make Green more expensive, and people will prefer it.

This is not what many True Greens would want to hear.  They want others to go Green because it is True, Right, and Just.  Now, this research suggests True Greens can achieve their goals, but through Snob Appeals to human nature.

Remember the Rules.

All Bad Persuasion Is Sincere.

It’s about the Other Guy, Stupid.

But . . . does the end justify the means?

Griskevicius, V., Tybur, J. M., & Van den Bergh, B. (2010). Going green to be seen: Status, reputation, and conspicuous conservation. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 98, 392-404.

Get yourself in the mood . . .

Persuasion loves the heat.

Uncertainty?  Fear?  Confusion?  Peithos lights up, “Is someone calling my name?”  The Ancient Attendant prepares for affairs of the heart or affairs of the state.  It’s all the same, you know.

Science loves the light.

Uncertainty?  Fear?  Confusion?  Galileo smiles, returns to the lab and breaks the problem down, step by step until knowledge replaces ignorance.

Except today.  Science has a new companion, Persuasion.  And Science won’t go anywhere without Her, especially in Public.

. . . perhaps Fever at a higher pitch . . .

Need Persuasion for the Science of Health Care Reform?  Let me show you how to spend one trillion dollars to reduce mortality by 1% and make people think we’ve Fixed It.

Need Persuasion for the Science of the FDA?  Let me show you how mandatory menu calories counts will produce a 30 calorie reduction and fool people into thinking it is the End of Obesity as We Know It.

Need Persuasion for the Science of Global Warming?  Here’s how you hide statistically insignificant data in a pretty chart to convince the People.

Need Persuasion for the Science of Selling News?  Here’s how you market Science to people so they get all that great knowledge you’d have to suffer through in lectures, labs, and libraries, but without that annoying peer review.

. . . or Fever with the King . . .

Great times for Peithos, my friends, and it’s only going to get better.  The last time Science came courting like this was during the Clinton Administration.  Democrats are smart people in case you haven’t talked with one lately.  You don’t even have to ask; they’ll tell.  Especially the progressive ones.  You know, the ones that use Science to inform Policy.  Here, it’s good for you.  Trust us.  We’re smart.

Peithos loves them the best.  Progressives don’t mind throwing Science overboard in a storm when you need to lighten the load.  Is the data messy, complicated, and inconsistent?  Pitch it and use this simple chart.  Results disconfirm the original hypothesis?  Let me adjustment myself in private and we’ll call it Post Hoc.  Got folks who disagree?  Frame them as Deniers.

Don’t worry about the Science.  Persuasion will fix that.

. . . that’s all there is . . .

So, you’re walking along your favorite city street today when your cell phone beeps a text notification, so you look at the screen and Wow! there’s a coupon offer for 15% off any purchase in the next hour at North Face and Wow! you realize that North Face has a shop just a block up and a block over from you and Wow! you’ve been thinking about that new sweater and Wow! before you know it you’re already walking that block up and over and Wow! there you are at the checkout with that sweater and Wow! that 15% discount.  Is North Face cool or what?

Maybe.  Just maybe.  Or maybe not.  It’s complicated.  And it starts with location.

See, marketers are creating what they call geo-fences, electronic rings around businesses that sense GPS signals from opt-in cell phones.  When you cross the fence with your opt-in cell phone, the marketers pick up your signal, then match it to opt-in businesses within the fence that have offers.  The marketers then match your cell phone with your businesses and their offers, then shoot you opt-in text messages.  Think of it as a marketing dog collar and shock fence, but not for dogs; it’s for you.  And, at present there are no shocks.

From the Cascade perspective this is a rapid communication play wherein the fence triggers immediate Reception which torrents through prior Processing and Response to elicit almost instant behavior – Go or Not – as you amble along the road.  It’s a whistle and a shout, “Here, boy!  Come ‘ere, girl!” to a happy dog on a summer day lolling on the lawn now joyously interrupted with an exciting offer of a new play.

You’ll experience precious little High WATT Central Route processing of strong Arguments with this persuasion play.  This will be the hot Low WATT Cue on that text message:

Hey, look at all the North Face logos walking around me, everybody’s doing it, let’s join in!

Hey, North Face is the face of cool, what’s not to like with North Face?

Hey, North Face would protect me from the elements on Mount Everest, so they’ll keep me warm on this cold city day!

Hey, North Face is giving me this 15% discount, I need to give them something in return!

Hey, North Face is my brand and here’s my chance to prove my loyalty; onward a block up and over!

Hey, I’m the only guy on this busy street getting this rare offer of a discount from North Face that is only good for the next hour!

At least this is the theory and the dream behind the persuasion play.  Man, to quote the immortal Young Frankenstein, “It . . . Could . . . Work!”

But there are problems, problems, problems.

Initially, realize: It is a dog collar for people.  You don’t see it right now, but you will.  One day you’ll be waiting for an important message through your cell phone and your heart will jump when it buzzes with word of life, death, love, loss, victory, or defeat, except, it’s that damn North Face with a damn coupon dammit, leave me alone.  Then you’ll see the invisible dog fence you just crossed and you’ll realize every time you hit North Michigan and Ontario, your cell phone starts chirping.  And, you’ll go Commando, circling your favorite business areas trying to find the perimeter.

Now, consider:  How will marketers restrain themselves?  Sure, this whole play can be just fun like a dog playing fetch with the kids and sometimes we won’t mind being the dog as long as we’re having fun on a spring day with that blue sky and those puffy Simpson clouds.  But, what happens when greed and competition break all the shackles on business prudence and your cell phone is a constant shock box of offers, discounts, Get It Now! text messages?

Finally, ask:  How you gonna like it when the Queen of Tomorrow finally invents that iEye visor and you get subliminal messages when you cross her lines?  There’s an interesting future ahead of us, ladies and gents.  1984 and Brave New World are so quaint aren’t they?  Those high school chestnuts, remnants of the old modern neuroses clinging like cobwebs to our PostModern snark.  Except maybe Orwell and Huxley weren’t Moderns, but Prophets for All the Ages.

Consider, Mr. Orwell . . .

“It was terribly dangerous to let your thoughts wander when you were in any public place or within range of a telescreen. The smallest thing could give you away.  A nervous tic, an unconscious look of anxiety, a habit of muttering to yourself –anything that carried with it the suggestion of abnormality, of having something to hide.  In any case, to wear an improper expression on your face . . . was itself a punishable offense. There was even a word for it in Newspeak: facecrime…”

Now, Brave New World . . .

“I only said it was lovely here because . . . well, because progress is lovely, isn’t it?”

Persuasion, persuasion, persuasion.

Thomas Friedman provides this persuasion advice for frustrated True Greens.

In my view, the climate-science community should convene its top experts — from places like NASA, America’s national laboratories, the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Stanford, the California Institute of Technology and the U.K. Met Office Hadley Centre — and produce a simple 50-page report. They could call it “What We Know,” summarizing everything we already know about climate change in language that a sixth grader could understand, with unimpeachable peer-reviewed footnotes.

Friedman also offers this name change for Global Warming.

1) Avoid the term “global warming.” I prefer the term “global weirding,” because that is what actually happens as global temperatures rise and the climate changes.

The Rules.

All Bad Persuasion Is Sincere.

It’s about the Other Guy, Stupid.

If You Can’t Succeed, Don’t Try.

You Cannot Persuade a Falling Apple.

. . . so I come early from work and catch my best friend in bed with my wife and I says, “Lennie . . . I gotta . . . but you?

Get your swing ding-a-ling on . . .

. . . Machiavelli adheres forever with persuasion as both description and prescription.  To persuade is to be like Mach and to persuade well is to make Machiavelli proud.  Machs exhibit no ideological commitments, possess a cynical take on human nature, follow a heartless calculation toward other people, and display a marked disregard for conventional morality.  “Git ‘er done, baby” could be the popular homespun saying, properly twisted.

Academic studies of Machiavellianism paint a dark and dangerous portrait.  Those infected with Mach qualities find themselves classified as pathological and can read detailed descriptions of themselves in the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual, the bible of deviance for clinicians and insurance companies.  And, those who elude capture, but range free in the world like Hannibal Lector between incarcerations, can find themselves quantified in journal reports with Normal Machs who reveal their dark side in Prisoner’s Dilemmas, the Ten Dollar Game, and blasts of white noise.

Of course, it also helps when you invent a Machiavelli that does not exist.  If you read the original Mach IV scale that measures the contemporary meaning of Machiavellianism then compare it to to what Machiavelli wrote, you wonder whether the scale authors were academics or poets.  The Prince is much more subtle than hammers on the thumb like,

“One should take action only when sure it is morally right,”

“Most people are basically good and kind,”

“Honesty is the best policy in all cases,”

“There is no excuse for lying to someone else.”

Certainly anyone who scores High Bad on statements like this is someone to examine carefully for either poison or a bad sense of humor.  They might even be crazy.  But, persuasive?  Manipulative, even?

And while it is good to despise pathology – but, isn’t that a tautology – it is free riding to savage those who save the city from predators.  Machiavelli should not be acknowledged as a bastard, but our bastard, but as a deep thinker on the means of survival, success, and succor for all, including those who would carp, criticize, and cavil all the way to a death camp.

Consider from the Dark Source itself, The Prince, with Machiavelli describing the case of the notorious tyrant, Agathocles:

Yet it cannot be called talent to slay fellow-citizens, to deceive friends, to be without faith, without mercy, without religion; such methods may gain empire, but not glory. . .  Nevertheless, his barbarous cruelty and inhumanity with infinite wickednesses do not permit him to be celebrated among the most excellent men. What he achieved cannot be attributed either to fortune or to genius.

And, now, a different source, but still Machiavelli’s thought:

“All cities that ever, at any time, have been ruled by an absolute prince, by aristocrats, or by the people, have had for their protection force combined with prudence, because the latter is not enough alone, and the first either does not produce things, or when they are produced, does not maintain them.  Force and prudence, then, are the might of all the governments that ever have been or will be in the world.”

from “Words to be Spoken on the Law for Appropriating Money”, in Chief Works and Others [of Machiavelli], trans. Allan H. Gilbert, 3 vols. (Durham, NC: Duke Univ. Press, 1965), v. III, 1439.

Prudence operationalizes itself through power and persuasion.  This is pathology?  This is dangerous?  Even Jesus admonished the Disciples to spread the Gospel, but wise as a serpent and harmless as a dove . . .

. . . or blues out with Mr. Armstrong . . .

Please consider this etymology from EtymologyOnline.

hypocrisy:  from the Greek, hypokrisis, “acting on the stage, pretense,” from hypokrinesthai, “play a part, pretend.”

from hypo- “under” plus the middle voice of krinein “to sift, decide” (see crisis).

The sense evolution is from “separate gradually” to “answer” to “answer a fellow actor on stage” to “play a part.”

[Sidebar:  Actors also look for subtext, so they sift the meaning under the playwright's text, truly to sift under.  One can drift into this subtext sifting with readers, too, as some look for other meanings beyond the obvious.]

hypocrite
from Greek, hypokrites “stage actor, pretender, dissembler,”

hypocritical
from Greek, hypokritikos “acting a part”

crisis
from Greek, krisis, lit. “judgment,” from krinein “to separate, decide, judge,”

Persuasion can literally be hypocrisy.  It acquires its unsavory connotation from those who are sincere, realistic, and traditional watching those who offer many meanings.