Influence, the psychology of persuasion

Influence, the psychology of persuasion

Even though I've put my philosphy reading on hold (in the hope to return to be able to do it justice in the autumn) , I'm still trying to get some productive reading done on the meantime, so am making my way through the interesting psychology books I've heard about in the last few years. It's a nice compromise since these books are both easy reading and informative. Though as always how much i'l remember from just cruising through them is another matter- am basically hoping if throw enough intellectual mud at the wall of my mind some of it will stick!

Influence, the psychology of reason , is a perfect example of his genre : lots of intresting points which i even think have some background relevance to my long term philosophical project of working out a theory of morality with a strong practical grounding in the realities of human nature.

The book outlines various situations whereby we (in general) become more conducive to the requests of others. It should come as no surprise that people whose job involves persuasion and sales already make use of these facts, whether knowingly or not, and the book is peppered with relevant ecamples. The main theme is that like all animals we (and our minds) make extensive use of heuristics, rules of thumb, to be able to handle a complex social world, and thesem, since they are imperfect generalizations can sometimes be invoked inappropriately. So for example the notion that the more expensive something isthe more valuable, is, in principle, not a bad one. However it only works if certain normal market forces apply, especially that the worth can easily be evaluated. However in areas where the average consumer is not an expert, then suppliers can take advantage of our common ignorance and artificially inflate the price. Each customer might then, even if they admit their own inability to judge the value, assume it would only be at that price if customers in general (assumed as a group to know what they're about) judge the price to be fair. But this of course falls down when we're all in the dark.

Such cases are relatively simple, since they largely involve rational reasonings which it should be possbile to evaluate in each circumstance, if suspect we are faling down the wrong path. More complex and interesting,in my view, are the mechanisms which have a more emotional basis. An example ismthe principle of reciprocity- you scratched my back so i'm inclined to scratch yours, especially if the initial favour was u asked for. Hence a free gift, or a reduction in price (which of course might have been inflated to begin with) has an amazong effect on our subsequent responses to sales offers. The classic example being the Hare Krishnas boosting their donations significantly by adapting the practice of first foisting a free flower on people. At first glance it might be puzzling why this should work rational homoeconomicus should just accept the benefit without feeling any obligation to then reciprocate. But what this relies on is the social fact that society is verg anti cheaters and freeloaders, and most normal people have internalized this. My own theory is that evolution has made our natures very prone to such intenalizations and gives them force by linking them with our emotions. This allows such rules to overcome (on average) opportunistic cheating, and this allowed our social world to prosper and develop over evoldutionary time. We 'feel' bad if we are taking advantage of others unfairly, and this ingrainex dispositon is what is being tapped into. Again such a nature is in general a good thing, and is only a disadvantage in certain artificilally arranged situations.

Fascinating as all these and all the other examples are, the question which arises is of course, knowing we have these weaknesss, is there anything we can do about them. The problem is in general these are not weaknesses , so we wouldn't want to nullify them completely. So, for instance, while being emotionally numb to the need to reciprocate might prevent us making some unwanted purchases, it would probably also lose us some friends. In the end the only advice seems to be to try and be as aware and selfckscious as possible in sales situations etc.,and hopefully we might then catch ourselves applying inappropriate responses. These vulnerabilities are thankfully in general quite weak- they help tip the balance rather than force our hand, and as such can be reacted against, if we notice them in action. It seems our nature isn't completely against us in this matter either, and often we might get a feeling in our gut we are being manipulated (even if by our own dispositions) against what we really want. So the idea would be, if feel on the one hand emotionally 'should' do so something - go through with a deal even when conditions change (lowballed) or price has been dropped a bit but not really as much as we want etc.- then we should remember that in most commercial situations (unlike social ones) we don't have real 'obligations' etc. and should always be to walk away if rationally makes sense. Easier said than done, but hopefully forewarned is indeed forarmed.

Outliers

Outliers (Malcom Gladwell)


Finished this book in record time, which in itself is testament to its readability. Nice light psychology book examining the factors behind "outliers"-exceptional individuals like bill gates etc. Basic point is while of course such people are exceptionally intelligent And creative, that on its own does not explain why they are so outstanding. In all cases theee weremsome unique circunstances that promoted mere excellance to one in a million brilliance. So, whether it was bill attending a school which happened to have extraordinary computer facilities,or the beatles having a job in frankfurt which had them playing hours on end - the raw talent was exploded due to freak chances to obtain massive amounts of high quality stimulating practise. It seems to be world class in any field involves typically 10,000 hours of practise and this requires the right opportunities and stimilation.

This is fascinating enough in its own right, but also gives rise to some interesting thoughts. Firstly, while not denigrating the achievments, it shows the role luck plays in sucess. For me it is ironic that the examples are largely american, since i think it is a strong counter argument to an opinion that i think is common in the US,namely that success is very much an individual achievement, and as a consequence it is unfair and wrong to tsx and redistribute what are seen as the pure fruits of one's labours. Of course in part they are,but what the book shows is that the magnitude of the fruits are not. Not that the fact that bill gates could put in thouaands of hours work means his doing so wasn't amazing effort, but the point i take from it is there are other coincidences that made the difference between him and lots of other people who probably worked just as hard. It's not that bill gates doesn't deserve to earn way more than the average person, he of course does, it's just that he doesn't deserve to earn milions of times more. His success is due to many unacknowledged efforts of others ,from the people who paid via taxes or charity to fund the computers he worked with, to the cleaners and road workers etc. who built and maintain the infrastructure that allows his techonological ideas to flourish and be used.

Hence, while such achievers should be rewarded and praised, they should not be considered gods who managed it single handedly. This idea i think also has relevence at all levels of society; everything we achieve is in part on the backs of others, and that i think is a major reason why progressive tax regimes are valid and fair. It takes account of the "scaling factor" which underlies why one persons eight hours of work earns more than someone else who works just as long and just as hard. Or even harder- my hour at the computer might earn me way more than an hour somebody spends lugging bricks in the hot sun, but i had the luck to not only have the ability but also the chances and education to get such a job, and it is hence ownly partly down to me.

On the subject of ability, another interesting point in the book was while some level of say,IQ, is necessary, more than a certain level doesn't help much with "success". The example was given of the guy who had an IQ topping Einstein and yet was long term unemlpoyed. Or the group of kids idenitified with very high levels of intelligence, but when tracked as group only achieved pretty average achievements in general. While it is a pity to see how talent can be frustrated by life, the positive flipside is that if there are many mechansisms then ther oportunities are open to more of us.

Another interesting theme was the influence of factors like culture, most astonishingly in the increased risk of plane crashes in flight teams from very hierachical and diffident societies. In this casemthe reason was the reluctance of co-pilots etc. to question flawed decisions by pilots, or demand clairification from air traffic control, but it highlights a general problem in modern societies where roles are necesarily divided into areas of expertise. As Caldiani shows in Influence, the psychology of persuasion, even in "flat" societies like the US nurses for examplem will blindly follow through on doctors blatantly dangerous mistake, simply since used to defering to authority.

Anyway, all in all a very interesting and thought provoking read-just what wamt in a book!