Consider the many faces of Budda that all exist simultaneously, see in all directions, present to all observers, and always seems the same.

Here’s the scene.

Ahab, an evil King of the ancient Israelites, has sinned greatly and unforgivably against God.  Through his carnal love for his disbelieving wife, Jezebel, Ahab has turned against God and begun to worship the false idols of his woman.   Furthermore, Ahab’s sins have caused other Israelites to sin similarly against God.  God decides to punish Ahab in a way that will also demonstrate to others that they should keep their faith and respect the covenant with God.  God will cause Ahab to die in battle, but he wants Ahab to chose to fight and lead his sinning people into a disastrous war.  God gathers His angels about Him and solicits their recommendations.  At least two unnamed spirits speak and their ideas are not accepted.  Then, one, most probably Satan, suggests a plan that he thinks will work.  The evil angel will cause Ahab’s prophets to speak falsely to Ahab about the war and Ahab’s chances of success in it.  Satan will become a “lying spirit” who will speak through the mouths of the prophets, thus deceiving Ahab and encouraging him to rash action that will cause his death and the death of many other sinners.

Here’s how the King James Bible describes this.

And the LORD said, `Who shall persuade Ahab, that he may go up and fall at Ramothgilead?’ And one said in this manner, and another said in that manner.  And there came forth a spirit, and stood before the LORD and said, `I will persuade him.’  And the LORD said unto him, `Wherewith?’ And he said, `I will go forth, and I will be a lying spirit in the mouth of all his prophets.’ And He said, `Thou shalt persuade him, and prevail also. Go forth, and do so.’  1 Kings 22:20-22.

“I will be a lying spirit in the mouths of his prophets.”  Satan has a lot of great lines, doesn’t he?  (For a fabulous fictional representation of Satan, John Milton’s epic masterpiece, “Paradise Lost,” is unexcelled in showing his exuberance of evil.)  Please note two important persuasion angles in this quotation.

First, observe that God does not persuade, but rather permits Satan to use persuasion on humans.  Even if you are not a believer, it is interesting to imagine a god concept that is all knowing and eternal.  How could something as uncertain, conditional, and incomplete as persuasion be of any use to anything that already knows everything?  This suggests an important limitation to the concept of persuasion and to human nature.  It is unworthy of God or god as a concept, but most useful to humans.

Second, note how Satan decides to use persuasion.  He becomes a lying spirit that lies in the mouths of prophets who then tell the lies.  Thus, Satan cloaks himself in the cloth of credibility, perhaps the oldest persuasion tactic in human history.  Again, regardless of whether you are a believer, the concept of a “prophet” suggests an operatic scale of competence and character, the two prime elements of credibility.  Whether the prophet is possessed of Satan or merely just a human prophet with human limitations and frailties, Satan certainly chooses well and human-wisely when he lies in the mouths of the most credible sources in the Old Testament.

How this story is presented speaks volumes to me about our current point of view on persuasion.  Even in this ancient, verified, and historical text we learn almost everything we need to know about a definition of persuasion.  It uses communication.  It works best with credible sources.  It can be used to deceive.

No wonder so many people feel so uncomfortable with persuasion.

Today we quote persuasion scripture from, of all places, the Book of James from the New Testament.  I say to all with ears to hear, listen; all with eyes to see, read!

Let no man say when he is tempted, “I am tempted of God”: for God cannot be tempted with evil, neither tempteth he any man: But every man is tempted, when he is drawn away of his own lust, and enticed.  James I, 13-14, KJV

Thus, endeth our listening and reading from scripture.

Now, to our persuasion lesson.

James claims that when people fail, they speak incorrectly, inaccurately, and untruthfully when they attribute their failure to God because God does not tempt anyone, believer or doubter.  Rather, James asserts that our failures are our own and that we speak correctly, accurately, and truthfully when we attribute our failures to ourselves.  Thus, when we are tempted with Evil, evil, or just plain cussedness, we cannot blame it on God or Satan or our little sister.  James tells us that God tells us, our virtue lies in our own hands.

I offer this Biblical lesson not to evangelize, but to point to human nature and persuasion.  Whether you believe, doubt, or are still shopping around, consider the human nature implied in this passage, written at least 2,000 years ago.  It employs a most common human attribute:  Attribution Theory.  How we explain causality – internal attributions to ourselves or external attributions to forces beyond us – drives our beliefs and actions.  And this powerful persuasion theory from social psychology is old, deep, and wide.  It is not simply a creative invention of a clever researcher.  It is understood and implied in the oldest of texts from human civilization.

Yet, realize that Attribution Theory eluded systematic analysis and development for a very long time.  Even Aristotle, probably the first mind in Western Civilization to think scientifically about “cause,” missed the human misuses of it; perhaps it was too obvious for his comment?  We have to move over two millenia from 350BC to 1958AD and Fritz Heider’s examination before we get an analysis more systematic than this fragment from James.  Of course, Heider does not cite Aristotle or the other silent Ancients.  He notes Sartre whose bitter external attribution -  Hell is other people – may be the greatest and most beautiful rationalization, oops, external attribution, in recorded literature.

But, Heider does not cite James.  And, not because Heider doesn’t cast a wide net with his references.  He reads and cites the Works of Epictetus, that ancient Greek Stoic, and Marcel Proust’s epic novel cycle and variable-titled series,”À la Recherche Du Temps Perdu translated as In Search of Lost Time, and sometimes, Remembrance of Things Past.  Heider read past the gang of usual suspects in his meditation of Attribution.  But he didn’t read and cite James.

Which, as you can see from our fragment, is unfortunate because James in two sentences explains the foundations of a theory and our human nature.

Remember the Clinton Triangulation Persuasion Tactic?

Clinton would pick an issue and a position on that issue that tended to drive key audiences away from their normal allies and toward Mr. Clinton.  School uniforms to instill discipline in students, for example, is an outstanding example of Triangulation Persuasion.  The idea sounds kind of conservative, but only in a symbolic way; however, if you’re not thinking too carefully, the idea appeals to a conservative.  They move closer to Mr. Clinton and farther away from Republicans.  Triangulation.  (It’s based on Balance Theory by Fritz Heider and someday I’ll explain that.)

Now, what’s the Persuasion Triangulation here?

Bin Laden Rebukes U.S. on Climate Change

By JACK HEALY
Published: January 29, 2010

Osama bin Laden, the leader of Al Qaeda, blamed the United States and developed countries for not halting climate change and said that the global economy should immediately abandon its reliance on the American dollar, according to an audiotape released Friday by the broadcaster Al Jazeera.

1.  He’s running for office as the One World Green Party candidate.

2. He’s no longer receiving Oil Money for his financing and is now free to criticize the former hand that fed?

3. He’s never heard of China?

4. He’s holding Gold Stocks and expects a return to the Gold Standard?  (Is he in combination with arbitrage traders like George Soros?)

5. He’s trying to make President Obama look like President Bush?

I can’t decide whether this is smart or the desperate play of someone living too long in caves.

Can you think from the Bible?

Some people find it a collection of ridiculous stories that rival fairy tales.  Some fear it so that they quiver just seeing the gold letters on black leather.  And, of course, there are many stops in between these extremes.

But, can you think from the Bible?

Researchers have determined that the text is among the oldest, authenticated records we have from ancient times.  Considered only as a text, pages of written words, the books of the Old Testament, the Hebrew Bible, are among the oldest artifacts of human cognition we possess.  Thousands of years ago, people wrote those words.

The books of the Bible are older than any manuscript we have from Plato or Aristotle.  If you believe the inestimable Ben Jowett wasn’t fooling with his translation of the Dialogs from Plato, then you can accept the Bible in the same way.    And, if you cannot do this,  you haven’t thought the thought through to its end.

So, if we can think about the Bible, what are we to think about persuasion from the Bible?  If there is any truth in persuasion science then it should be apparent in all Walks of life.  Shouldn’t it?

Consider persuasion in Genesis, there at the beginning . . . from the King James translation . . .

Now the serpent was more cunning than any beast of the field which the LORD God had made.  And he said to the woman, “Has God indeed said, ‘You shall not eat of every tree of the garden’?”

And the woman said to the serpent, “We may eat the fruit of the trees of the garden; but of the fruit of the tree which is in the midst of the garden, God has said, ‘You shall not eat it, nor shall you touch it, lest you die.’”

Then the serpent said to the woman, “You will not surely die.  For God knows that in the day you eat of it your eyes will be opened, and you will be like God, knowing good and evil.”

So when the woman saw that the tree was good for food, that it was pleasant to the eyes, and a tree desirable to make one wise, she took of its fruit and ate.  She also gave to her husband with her, and he ate . . .

. . . and the LORD said, “Who told you that you were naked?  Have you eaten from the tree of which I commanded you that you should not eat?”

Then the man said, “The woman whom You gave to be with me, she gave me of the tree, and I ate.”

And the LORD God said to the woman, “What is this you have done?” The woman said, “The serpent deceived me, and I ate.”  Genesis 3:1-6, 11-13.

This passage from Genesis illustrates five persuasion concepts.

1.  Reactance.  Observe the Serpent’s calculated observation of a unfair restriction on Eve’s thought and action with his line “You shall not eat!”

2.  Elaboration Likelihood Model.  The Reactance play stimulates Biased High WATT responding from Eve who is now fully engaged on the Central Route.  Satan then provides a series of Arguments to persuade Eve to break a Law of God.  Eve clearly thinks about the Serpent’s Arguments and elaborates upon them:  “Gee, the fruit of the tree is good for food (the first nutrition argument in recorded history, notify the folks in the Food Police that they’re on the same side as Satan here), the fruit of the tree is pleasant to behold, eating this fruit will make me wise, and finally, I’ll be like God.”  She gives voice to that long conversation in our heads and let’s us know that she is really thinking about Satan’s arguments.  No cues for this woman.

3.  CLARCCS Cues.  Observe Adam and see a classic illustration of Cues.  As detailed in a prior post, he goes for “if others are doing it, you should, too” and “if you like the source, do what she requests” from CLARCCS Cues.  He clearly is a Low WATT processor and took his Fall down the Peripheral Route.

4.  Attribution.  The fourth persuasion variable comes from Adam’s sorry performance.  When questioned by God about his actions, what does Adam come up with:  My wife made me do it.  Thus, we see the first record of external attribution deployed to escape the consequences of bad behavior.  And this is not just a guy thing: Eve blames her attitude change and behavioral choices on the Serpent.  Here we have the first recorded attribution of:  The Devil made me do it.

5.  Modeling.  While Eve used external attribution, where did she get it?  She apparently modeled it from Adam’s example.  There they both stood, naked and now ashamed.  God questions Adam and Adam blames Eve.  Eve watches this and observing Adam’s apparent success with this action, she imitates it herself:  the Serpent made me do it!

Genesis provides a demonstration of the major processes of persuasion in one compact example.  And, you should begin to realize that persuasion is a fundamental element of our eternal and evolved human nature.  Our ability to give and receive persuasive words marks us as human from the beginnings of our recorded history.

Consider, now, Adam on the Peripheral Route ambling towards a Fall with CLARCCS Cues.

Comparison (When others are doing it, you should, too.)  “Gee, everybody I know is eating apples.  They must be good.”

Liking (When you like the source, do what she suggests.)  “Gee, Eve is a great gal, good looking, smart.  She’s suggests apples; they must be good.”

Authority (When the source is an authority, do what she suggests.)  “Gee, Eve is the best cook in the Garden.  This apple dish must be out of this world.”

Reciprocity (When the source does something for you, do something in return.)  “Gee, Eve was pretty good to me last night, so why not eat her apple dish?”

Commitment/Consistency (When you take a stand, you must stay consist with it.)  “Gee, I’ve always eaten what Eve serves, and dammit, I’m gonna eat her apples.”

Scarcity (When it is rare, it is good.)  “Gee, apples!  Never had one of those to eat.  They must be great!”