Consider this observation from Charlie Cook, a noted political observer and commentator.  He’s analyzing the Obama Administration’s struggles.

. . . And then when unemployment numbers started proving to be much, much tougher and it started becoming more clear that the stimulus package hadn’t worked properly, they just kept plowing ahead on health care. And this isn’t a communications problem. This is a reality problem. And I think they just made some grave miscalculations and as it became more clear that they had screwed up, they just kept doubling down their bet.

The interesting question here is to understand why Presidents make grave miscalculations that smart observers can see, but they cannot, then exacerbate their problems with a double down bet on the miscalculation.  We could frame this problem in other terms:  When people suffer for their choices, then tend to love that for which they suffer.  Dissonance, in other words.

Now, quickly and of course, this tentative hypothesis is not restricted to the current occupant of 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue.  Remember Mr. Bush’s miscalculation with that War of Choice in Iraq.  And, Mr. Bush certainly doubled down following his suffering from that miscalculation with the Surge.  That was, dissonance, too, right?

As outside observers, we can see the Suffering of Presidents for their Miscalculations and when we are correct, dissonance and the pursuit of its reduction is likely a strong explanation.  Why do Presidents persist in their miscalculations?  The suffering caused by the miscalculation causes dissonance, an unpleasant psychological state, and is removed by loving the source of the suffering even more which then motivates doubling down.

Of course, the analysis depends not on what the Presidents are doing or thinking, but rather upon the accuracy of our assessment of Miscalculation, Suffering, and Doubling Down.  Only the most impervious zealot argues today that Mr. Bush’s bet on the Surge failed.  Most see the Surge as the success that made following success more likely.  So, was Mr. Bush merely in the throes of dissonance when he doubled down and is supremely lucky that the Surge worked?  That’s what a dissonance analysis would support.  Or, did he simply see the problem in a different light and make the Surge as a rational solution that might actually succeed?  That’s just smart decision-making.

We should think the same way about understanding President Obama right now.  If we’re right – he Miscalculated, Suffered, and is now Doubling Down to more failure – then maybe dissonance is at work here.

But, can’t he just be rational rather than dissonant or even foolish?  He thinks his policies are Good Things and is trying to make Them happen.  Maybe his analysis of Goodness is flawed, maybe his political skills are weak, maybe his opponents are stronger, and maybe he’s like Terry the boxer in On The Waterfront, and tonight is just not his night (at 3:50 in).

All this turns on another persuasion concept, Attribution, stated in a nice turn of phrase:  Where you stand depends on where you sit.  Like Charlie Cook, we are not sitting in the President’s chair looking at the problem.  We are sitting around at our computers, perhaps in our underwear, looking at the guy in the President’s chair.  We conclude that Obama is an idiot, doubling down on a miscalculation when, if we were wearing a suit and sitting in that chair, we’d probably be doing the same damn thing, realizing that it’s always going to be a Close Run Thing that cannot be avoided.

An advocacy group wishes to convince us that health insurance companies are Evil and need to be controlled as part of health care reform.  Here’s how they make this point.

And here, too.

I understand the cleverness of the metaphor and it does attract broader attention, as with ABC News, for example.  I have to wonder, however, at the persuasive impact of the message.  To equate the legal actions of people with a familiar icon of criminal identification, the Wanted Poster, seems to be an unreasonable stretch.

Sure, these Posters get Reception in the first Stage of the Cascade.  But, do the Posters then generate the kind of Processing and Response that will then lead to desired behavior change (Our Kind of Health Care Reform!)?  As I noted before, advocacy demonstrates its lack of skill or interest in persuasion when it only seeks and gets Reception, but then cannot produce helpful Processing and Response.

As always, All Bad Persuasion Is Sincere.

And, can’t you find more desperate photos of the Evil Ones?  Or Photoshop them like Time magazine did with OJ?

The Insurance Institute for Highway Safety released a study of vehicle crashes that compared states with laws banning cell phone usage while driving to states without such laws.  Even if you don’t know much about history or time series statistics, if you just look at the figures in the report, you can see the Headline:  the Laws Have NO Effect.

Everyone is baffled.

“Absolutely, we were surprised by these results,” says Adrian Lund, president of IIHS and HLDI.

“The study raises as many questions as it answers,” says GHSA executive director Barbara Harsha.

Before we get into the merits of the case, just think about the science and the persuasion behind all of this.  We cannot randomly assign drivers to different conditions, most importantly here, cell phone usage, then observe what happens.  The absence of control is fatal to the quality of the science and the inferences we can confidently draw.  Yet, smart people persistently believe in the Observational Research Tooth Fairy and so we get Laws and Regulations, Nudges and Nags from well intentioned folks who say more than they really know; the sign of FauxItAll.

Worse still is the unscientific orientation of many researchers in Observational Research.  Most strain to confirm a hypothesis and design data collection and analysis to find anything that supports the hypothesis and almost never actively pursue disconfirming evidence.  There’s nothing wrong with entertaining alternative explanations, unless, of course, you already know the true answer and you’re just trying to convince the yokels.

Now, take uncontrolled Observational Research, a confirmation bias, and then add Small Effects and you’re ready for disappointment.  You don’t need an Excel spreadsheet to tell you that traffic accidents are extremely rare events compared to the amount of total driving and further that people drive and talk A LOT and that accidents while driving and talking are also extremely rare events compared again to the total.  Thus, people drive A LOT, but rarely have accidents; people drive and talk A LOT, but rarely have accidents.  The difference between Driving+Phones versus just Driving is a Small Effect.

Thus, we have the commonplace Perfect Storm for failure.  People using science as persuasion in their use of Observation, avoidance of contrary evidence and explanations, and those small effects.   Now, put that persuasion to work in State legislatures and you’ve got Laws and Regulations that produce no effect.

There is no doubt that conversation produces cognitive load and hence distraction for drivers.  Whether on a cell phone or just yackety-yak with a passenger, mere talk requires mental effort and capacity.  It’s just not that important for vehicle crashes.  There is a clear break in the scientific chain of effect between the obvious distraction and the actual wreck.  People tried to draw a straight line from distraction to crashing when it is clear from these data that there are intervening steps and processes that mitigate the distraction.  Nobody looked for those intervening steps.

It’s rather like the silly FDA and Food Police efforts with various kinds of warning labels – whether portion size, calorie count, any other information.  They expect that Warning Labels like this will cause people to eat less and lose weight as if a Warning Label functions like a double-wrapped strip of duck tape over a hungry mouth.  It doesn’t, it won’t, and it can’t.

But, if you’re doing FauxItAll science, nothing else matters.

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.

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.

And, here’s Mr. Obama six months later pitching persuasion for health care reform on March 3, 2010.

Ohhh.  I get it.  The blue scrubs make all the difference!

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 . . .