Who’s in favor of death?  Show of hands now . . . okay, show of hands, NOW!  Look, isn’t anyone in favor of death?

Of course, no one’s in favor of death.  After death there are no options, no politics, no controversy.  No nothing.  We’ve got to rail on against the dying of the light.

But consider the implications of everyone being against death.  It means that everyone is always for life.  And anytime you’ve got a proposition where one side of the issue is always supported by everyone and the other side is never supported by anyone, you never get a debate.  You never think carefully about the issue.  You never get good arguments.

That’s the crux of the problem in the postmodern world.  Everyone is for life and against death.  As a result we have both an economic and information marketplace where no one competes against all those players who are for life.  The only argument is the Comparative Advantages case, in other words, the classic Miller Lite Beer debate:   Tastes Great versus Less Filling.  Regardless which side you take, Miller Lite Beer sells.

Everywhere today, all you get with life or death issues is a Miller Lite Beer debate.

Atkins versus Ornish.

Exercise versus Take A Pill.

Cap and Trade versus Clean Coal.

Consider all the ridiculous little changes the Obama Administration is fighting for:  calorie counts on menus, 20% less added salt in processed food, taxing soda pop, spending a trillion dollars in health care reform to get a 1% reduction in mortality.  And their opponents offer nothing but a Miller Lite contrast.

Always everyone is on the same side of the issue – AntiDeath – and just arguing for Comparative Advantages, whether the beer is better for its taste or its lightness.

Many people now think that there is a state of Zero Risk, we can measure it, and we can attain it.  Just tax it, regulate it, or nudge it, and it will be achieved.  No one will die because science has proven we can achieve Zero Risk.

The other side stoutly disputes Zero Risk and says it doesn’t exist!  The other side argues for Penny Risk.  Some ridiculously small amount of risk exists, so we cannot save everyone.  Just 999,999,999 out of 1,000,000,000.  All you need is taxes, regulations, and nudges, but a bit less.

But with either AntiDeath with Zero Risk or AntiDeath with Penny Risk you get the same arguments, the same policies, the same old song and dance just with a choice between zero or a little bit more than zero.

Banished is an Existential Case with the ProDeath position or No Beer or No Nutritionists or No Exercise Physiologists or No Environmental Experts.  Banished is the Living Life of More Fun or More Faith or More Money or More Autonomy.

Existential Cases are more interesting than Comparative Advantages.  Norman Mailer is better than Truman Capote?  Who cares, you still end up reading mirror primping narcissists.  Consider instead:  read or don’t read.

The ancient tale of Theuth told by Plato through Socrates in Phaedrus recommended against a written alphabet and books because it would weaken our memory and make us less thoughtful and more slow witted.  Not a bad argument, although history seems to prove other benefits besides a rigorous mind.  But certainly a more provocative argument than Helvetica versus Verdana.

Living Life open our minds.  Instead of falling for the Life or Death hydraulic, when you anchor Life opposite Faith or Money or Fun or Autonomy you’re talking about vital alternatives to the AntiDeath Accountants who think they know the Cost of Everything while never seeing the Value of Anything.  Hey, we commence our Declaration of Independence with Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness, not just Life.

Now, don’t get me wrong.  I love the light of my life, Melanie, and my little brother Rick and his family, and Al and Brady.  I want them all to live long, healthy, and good lives.  But thinking and arguing only from comparative advantages rather than existential positions has led us to the foolish arguments between proponents of Zero Risk versus proponents of Penny Risk.

The AntiDeath option of the Zero/Penny Risk crowd is not only not worth living, it’s not worth arguing.

What’s wrong with Living Life with Death?

Gerardo Martinez, principal of the Edward Devotion School, in Brookline, MA, provides a wholly unintentional lesson in the practical persuasion implications of Reactance.  Via school children, Martinez sent home to parents a note that explained the Pledge of Allegiance legalities and school procedures (read it here, scroll to bottom of new page).  He also thoughtfully provided a Nudgey-looking choice architecture at the bottom of the note with check boxes for the parent to mark whether to permit the child to stand and recite or not.

Then all hell and reactance broke loose.

If you examine the Reader Comments, you find the classic markers of Reactance – that red hot motivational response you get from people who perceive an unfair restriction on their freedom.  And, if you read the actual letter the principal sent home, then compare it against the reader comments, you wonder why anyone saw this as something more than a permission slip for a field trip.

If you persist, however, in marveling at reactant Other Guys, you persist in persuasion lamerness, failing at the First Rule:  It’s about the Other Guy, Stupid.  And, when the Other Guy is Reactant, you failed even if the Other Guy is slightly less than rational.

Reactance, from a persuasion perspective, is a marker of how well you understand your Other Guys.  No persuasion maven would ever unintentionally start a fire that motivates your Other Guys to organize in torchlight parade on Castle Vous, set on burning down your house.  (Reactance does, of course, have its intentional uses, but that a different case.)  If you do something with your Other Guys, and you get Reactance, you need to get back in the bushes with all the monkeys.  And you need to do it quickly or you will be looking for a new line of work.

In an uncontrolled case such as this, it is impossible to conclusively nail down the necessary and sufficient contingencies that caused Reactance here.  We know that there was no Reactance problem among the school administration, children, and parents before Martinez sent home the note and that immediately after the note, Reactance exploded.

We are talking about the Pledge of Allegiance which tangles up patriotism, nationalism, oaths, and God.  Those elements are always in a pre-explosive state and need just a little starter to ignite.

The Reactance starter was apparently about the status quo.  I suspect that many parents thought the note implied or described a change in the normal routine – reciting the Pledge at the start of the school day – and any change from an authority source related to this kind of behavior is certainly sufficient starter for the fire.  Even without the checkboxes, just as a formal notification and statement of standard operating procedure, the note was probably enough to elicit concerns about restrictions, loss of freedom, loss of control.  Why would an authority merely restate the status quo?  Everyone already knows that.  If an authority brings this up, it must certainly signal a change.  And that change is occurring without the knowledge, acceptance, and approval of the parent reading the note.

I realize that some readers might want to see this as a weakness, flaw, or deficiency in those Reactant parents, but that ignores the key persuasion fact:  Somebody else caused the Reactance unintentionally and that means somebody does not understand the Other Guy.  If you are an authority source, you cannot afford to miss like this.  All people can and will respond with Reactance whenever they perceive an unfair restriction on their action.  You may believe that the principal was acting with good intent, but the response of his parents suggests his intentions are not well aligned with their perceptions.

And, that is a problem for the persuasion source, not the persuasion receiver.

The WSJ takes their investigative series on Internet privacy into politics and discovers that, yep, politicians like cookies ‘n databases, too.  Gratefully, the story does not include dark implications from political nightmares like “Seven Days in May,” or “Three Days of the Condor,” or the “Manchurian Candidate,” but you know it’s in the back of everyone’s head.  Those pols are manipulating us!

I understand the potential and have warned about it.  Right now, however, on the politics side, I am less concerned about that nightmare.  Democrats and Republicans still hate each other and their Internet predations cancel out each other.

But, if there every comes a time when all the pols start playing on the same team, we’ve got Man as God.

Begin with Jesus Christ Superstar (about 45 seconds in) to get the concept and the groove.

Buzz is a new name for an old concept called word of mouth.  When people you know say something to you about another product, service, person, event, issue, and on and on, that is word of mouth or buzz.  It is an interpersonal, face to face persuasive message delivered without obvious benefit to the source.

If you read the scientific research literature of the pop press, most notably the NYT,  Malcolm Gladwell or other such FauxItAlls, you know that Buzz is a preferred Cool Table Nudge, the gentle push behind your friend’s voice cooing in your ear, “ooohh, iGizmo, baby.”  Thus, the Cool Table guys never talk to new potential customers, converts, or suckers, but rather the Cool Table Nudges Buzzers who will then talk to you.  Hollywood shows this in those conspiracy movies that feature a CIA agent overthrowing a government.  Hey, you don’t actually man the tank yourself, you just tell someone else who then tells another someone else and voila, you’ve got a revolution and another bad Matt Damon movie.

There’s no doubt that when a lot of people are Buzzing, there’s a lot of change in the neighborhood.  But, is this Buzz truly causal and persuasive or is it merely correlative and not?  It’s possible that after people have actually changed due to some other persuasive cause, they then start Buzzing and if you don’t know about that earlier and genuine persuasive cause, you’ve just fooled yourself on Buzz.

Now, here’s a novel idea:  Let’s start with the real research literature rather than the latest pseudoscience from guys trying to sell ads.  Get to a good social science search engine like PsychNet or EbscoHost and search on key terms like “wom” or “word of mouth” or “buzz” and see what you get.

My search turned up 100 hits for the various combinations of search terms going back to 1983.  When you tighten your focus to publications that are “quantitative” and “peer review” the number drops to around 50.  There are only a couple of “review” or “meta analysis” publications.   (Here’s a pdf of the meta for you gear heads: WOM Meta)  Now, 100 references over nearly 30 years is not much work.  Over the same time period there are over 400 hits for “elaboration likelihood model” as a comparison.  “Cognitive dissonance” turns up over 2,500 hits.  “Credibility” delivers over 5,000 hits.  There’s actually not that much good scientific information out there compared to other persuasion concepts.

What else is interesting is that most of the “wom” hits are in the last 10 years.  Why?  I’d guess we’re seeing the Cool Table at work here and that simply because we have networked computers, it’s just a lot easier to do a WOM study.  Back in the day, you’d have to have a lot of confederates buzzing which takes time and money.  Today you can buzz on a computer.  Of course, one might ask if WOM is different when it arrives in the form of an email versus an actual person actually talking to you, but apparently that distinction is unimportant to the Cool Table.  Buzz is Buzz even when it is mediated . . . if you sit at the Cool Table . . . otherwise?

Now, as I scan the various WOM studies one factor screams at me.  Buzz functions differently across the studies.  Sure, they all feature people talking to people about something else – the basic element of the Buzz – but what that Buzz accomplishes varies across studies.

This is not surprising if you’ve read modern persuasion theory.  Any persuasion variable can function in a variety of ways.  For example, across the Cascade, Buzz can affect Reception, Processing, or Response.  Within the dual process models like the ELM or HSM, any persuasion variable can function as a WATTage switch, an Argument, or a Cue.  Let’s consider Buzz in the many facets.

1.  Buzz with Argument.  The content of any buzz can contain information that bears directly on the central merits of the attitude object in question, whether a person, event, product, yada-yada.  If the information in the Buzz is favorable we call it a strong Argument.  If it is unfavorable, we call it a weak Argument.  When people tell us this crucial information we are directly exposed to Argument quality and if we are High WATT, we engage that Long Conversation in the Head and Elaborate our thoughts to the Argument and change our attitude accordingly moving along the Central Route to create resistant, persistent, and predictive change.

2.  Buzz as Cue.  If we are Low WATT when we get the Buzz, we won’t engage that costly Central Route process, but we can make a simple Cue:  If Other People Are Doing It, You Should, Too.  Thus, through Comparison, we can create change as we hear people Buzz and follow the crowd.  It helps, too, if we have affection for the Buzzer; we then get the Liking Cue piggybacking along with Comparison.  Of course, this Peripheral Route change is less resistant, persistent, and predictive than the Central Route, but in the short term, it is real change.

3.  Buzz as WATTage switch.  “Gee whiz, this is the second time today one of my buddies has Buzzed on the New New Thing.  I’d better look into this!”  You don’t actually pay that much heed to the Arguments you hear and you’re not Cue-ing along the Peripheral Route, but at your earliest opportunity, you seek out your own information on the New New Thing and change accordingly.  The Buzz flips the switch on your willingness and ability to think and motivates your drive on the Central Route.

4.  Buzz as Reception.  In the Cascade, the first step to ultimate downstream behavior change is Reception or just getting the message.  Buzz thus becomes a form of advertising that appears all around you giving you opportunities to realize that there’s a New New Thing out there.  No Arguments, Cues, or Switches, just pure awareness of the New New Thing.  Thus, Buzz can break through the clutter and noise and make your New New Thing stand out as worthy of further attention.

5.  Buzz as Response.  Simply because people are Buzzing, some folks will form a positive response based not on the Cue, the Switch, or even the Arguments in the Buzz, but just from the pure presence of Buzz.  Those are the Cool Table folks who value Buzz for itself and will hook onto the New New Thing merely because it is new.  Thus, Buzz attracts like minded souls who dress, drive, read, eat, sleep, reproduce, and think like the Cool Table.

6.  Buzz as Nothing But Chatter.  You should never overlook the possibility that all that chatter is not Buzz, but just chatter, just people talking to while away the day with family, friends, and coworkers.  It’s just the stuff of socializing, hanging out, killing time, just being there.  Yeah, they used the New New Thing and they are talking about It, but more to talk with you than to talk about It.  Not to be a Buzz Kill, but . . .

Now, when you realize how multi-functional Buzz is, it should dawn on you that a Buzz is not a Buzz is not a Buzz.  It depends on how the Buzz functions if you want to understand how it works.  Those self educated FauxItAlls at the Cool Table who don’t need no stinkin’ peer review science will simply see that Buzz can work, but will have no idea why it works in some instances, but not in others.  They will focus on the mere fact of some success and groove on with it.

Instead, you’ve got a really good theory and you can think properly with it, so you realize that Buzz does work, but its effect will always depend on how you use it.

Finally, the practical part:  How do you make Buzz?

Realize that Buzz is primarily Comparison or If Other People Are Doing It, You Should, Too.  Typically Comparison is a Cue, except when the house is on fire, you don’t know it, and you see everyone else running, then Comparison is an Argument.  Jokes aside, keep your eye on the persuasion ball.  Buzz is Comparison.

The easiest way to generate Comparison is to buy people and pay them to Buzz.  If you read the Comparison section in CLARCCS Cues, you’ll see many different ways to do this.  My favorite goes back to a History of Theatre textbook about how play producers used to pay shills to hit the streets before a play and Buzz about it, then sit in the audience during performances and Buzz when the star entered and Buzz on the laugh lines and Buzz on the tear-jerker scenes and in general communicate positive Buzz on cue (nice irony there, huh, a Cue on cue.)

A nice variation on this strategy is to employ the Two Step Flow wherein you buy Buzzers who are Opinion Leaders in a targeted network.  Those Opinion Leaders pour information into the network about your New New Thing creating a two step operation of You to Opinion Leader, then Opinion Leader to the Other Guys.  (This is the basic process behind those large corporate type meetings where you assemble a bunch of fellow travelers on some topic, let them stand up in public and say cool things, then while serving them a fabulous lunch, you show them your New New Thing and how it connects to their Cool Table work.  They then leave the room and Say It For You which means, Buzz, baby.  This is why NIH will never suffer a budget cut.  Take a lesson – some of those Feds are really dangerous people.)

Of course, the Buzz better front strong Arguments because once the Other Guy gets your New New Thing and discovers that it is cheap, lame, broken, stinky, rancid, expensive, and useless, your Buzz just bought you a customer base of Angst, Anger, and Hate.  Buzz is one of those Be Careful What You Wish For admonitions.

Finally, don’t look to Steve Jobs and Apple as Buzz Mavens.  They create desirable products that satisfy a large and rabid population.  Jobs is shooting Buzz in a barrel because he’s got really strong Arguments with his iGizmos.  Jobs may play some of the other tricks, too, but it all begins with those fabulous toys.

In my never ending quest for Persuasion Truth, consider with me now, this scripture . . .

8 But Daniel purposed in his heart that he would not defile himself with the portion of the king’s delicacies, nor with the wine which he drank; therefore he requested of the chief of the eunuchs that he might not defile himself. 9 Now God had brought Daniel into the favor and goodwill of the chief of the eunuchs. 10 And the chief of the eunuchs said to Daniel, “I fear my lord the king, who has appointed your food and drink. For why should he see your faces looking worse than the young men who are your age? Then you would endanger my head before the king.”

11 So Daniel said to the steward[a] whom the chief of the eunuchs had set over Daniel, Hananiah, Mishael, and Azariah, 12 “Please test your servants for ten days, and let them give us vegetables to eat and water to drink. 13 Then let our appearance be examined before you, and the appearance of the young men who eat the portion of the king’s delicacies; and as you see fit, so deal with your servants.” 14 So he consented with them in this matter, and tested them ten days.

15 And at the end of ten days their features appeared better and fatter in flesh than all the young men who ate the portion of the king’s delicacies. 16 Thus the steward took away their portion of delicacies and the wine that they were to drink, and gave them vegetables.

Daniel 1:8-16

Holy Comparison and Control!  Daniel directs the King’s chief of servants (who were also eunuchs) to conduct a pre-post control group design experiment with diet as the independent variable and appearance and fatness of flesh as dependent variables.  This is the oldest example of experimental research I’ve ever encountered.  Even Plato, Aristotle, and those really smart Greeks missed this!

Unstated is whether the chief used randomization to assign his young men to either the Treatment (Daniel’s diet) or Control (the King’s diet).  Given the Divine Inspiration here, God’s hand would have directed random selection and assignment of the King’s eunuchs to either condition, since God must understand the power of randomization even if evolutionists, economists, epidemiologists, and environmentalists don’t.

Realize, too, that Daniel uses experimental research as a persuasion Argument – information that bears on the central merits of the issue – to convince the chief of the King’s eunuchs to change the eating habits of the servants.  Daniel argues his case with empirical evidence.

Hey, do the Food Police know about this?  Yet another Biblical example of the importance of diet and nutrition (cf. Genesis and the Apple Diet)!  The news here is better than the Garden of Eden fiasco.  Daniel recommends a diet high in veggies and low in wine and the “King’s delicacies.”

P.S.  This Daniel is the Old Testament prophet from the Babylonian Captivity.  Not only did he introduce experimental research, he survived a meeting in the lion’s den.  He also left a beautiful and wise Book of prophecy and wisdom that is another kind of writing on the wall.