Author: Antitheton

Let’s face it, the Right knows how to makes a sales pitch. While it clearly doesn’t work on every one, it works on enough people to give them control of all three branches of government. People like Frank Luntz constantly tweak and review the “sales pitch” of the right wing. In order to better understand how the right wing does this, it helps to take a look at the research that exists on persuasion and influence.

Persuasion and influence are used every day in all of our lives. If we are not selling products or services, we are selling ourselves and our ideas or our politics. Someone is selling and someone is sold in every interpersonal communication. Either you sell yourself, product, service, or ideas, or the person you are communicating with sells you on the idea that they are not buying. In the last three national elections, the Republicans sold their message, and Democrats didn’t. Despite all of these huge problems for Bush and his right wing lackies, the Democrat cannot sit back and hope the right wing self destructs. The message of the left has to be sold effectively, not morphed into right wing lite as people like Joe Lieberman would have us beleive.

Dr. Robert Cialdini is the Regent’s Professor of Psychology at Arizona University. Cialdini admits in the opening of the second edition of his book “Influence:The Psychology of Persuasion” to being a “patsy” when dealing with sales people or, as he terms it, “compliance professionals”. This admission lead Cialdini to study influence and persuasion as he became a social pychologist. This fascinating book covers in great detail the Six Principles of Influence and Persuasion he discovered in over three years of research. In my opinion, this type of information is critical to understanding how the left can do a better job of selling their message.

Cialdini lists the following Six Principles of Influence and Persuasion:

1. Reciprocation
2. Commitment and Consistency
3. Social Proof
4. Liking
5. Authority
6. Scarcity

Cialdini provides numerous examples of each from both his own experiments and research and anedotal evidence from readers of his books.

1) Reciprocation – “This rule says we should try to repay, in kind, what another person has provided us.” This principle of persuasion creates “uninvited debts” and a web of indebtedness. Cialdini cites culutral anthopologists and sociologists to demonstrate that this is a universal principle that is not culural specific. Examples range from the Ethiopian Red Cross donating money to Mexico after an earthquake based on a similar gift from Mexico 30 years prior to the success of the Krishnas found after they began to give a flower before soliciting for donations.

How does the right use reciprocity? How do they create their “web of indebtedness” with voters? I think the primary way is pandering to fundamentalist Christians. In my opinion, Bush, Cheney, and the rest could care less about these issues. They call a Special Session of Congress and get the President off vacation for the Schiavo fiasco to create this “web of indebtedness” by fundamentalist Christians. I am am sure many of you can come up with other examples.

2) Commitment and Consistency – According to Cialdini consistency is generally associated with integrity and intellect. Once a person has committed to an idea, product, or service, they will look for justification to validate that commitment, often while ignoring contrary evidence. Cialdini tells the story of surprising success the Chinese had with American POW’s during the Korean War. A significant part of the success is attributed to the seemingly minor commitments the Chinese would get their prisoners to make. Even small commitments can lead to a big change in attitudes.

How do Luntz and Rove use commitment and consistency? The first thing that pops in my mind is the loyalty oaths that were often used at Bush campaign rallies. Crowd control is an obvious reason for using these “loyalty oaths” but perhaps the commitment of putting your commitment to Bush in writing is an additional benefit sought by Rove? Another thing that comes to mind is the naming of the “Patriot Act”. Obviously, this name was chosen to set the frame of the bill, a frame that is difficult for any politician to come out against. Another way yo look at that is that the great majority of Americans have already made the commitment to be “patriotic”. Using this name takes advantage of that commitment. I am sure there are numerous other examples.

3) Social Proof – Social proof and consensus is often used today in advertising, especially on television. Testimonials and customer quotes are common fair in commercials. The entertainment divisions use social proof to influence as well. Despite the fact that every knows that laugh tracks are canned laughter, programs that use laugh tracks are consistently rated “funnier” than shows that do not (even the same show).

The right wing megaphone, Faux News, is a big part of the social proof and consensus of the right wing message. The slew of right wing newspapers, columnists, and think tanks all add to this echo chamber. I think part of the point of this is to create the illusion of “consensus” amongst those in the know of right wing positions. One of the most frustrating things about arguing with a right wing zealot is their clear assumption that “everyone” agrees with the right. That is social proof at work.

4) Liking – Obviously you have a much better chance of being persuasive with someone who likes you. Cialdini states that physical appreance, similarity, compliments, and contact and cooperation all are part of using liking in the art of persuasion.

Despite the disgust Bush inflames amonst many, he obviously appeals in some way to many voters, and strangely enough, to the press. Apparently Bush is very personable and likable in person. This constantly amazes me, but happens nonetheless. Rove clearly plays this up at every opportunity. Of course, since this is by far the most obvious and used persuasion technique, every poitician looks for way to be more likable.

5) Authority – This is no surprise either. People in positions of authority or with clear expertise in a field have more credibility and are more persuasive than others. Cialdini points out just how little authority is required with his description of Stanley Milgram’s Obedience experitments at Yale in the early 60’s. On the instructions of an experimenter in a white lab coat, numerous people were asked to administer a series of shocks to a person in another room each time the incorrectly answered (or failed to answer) a question about word pairs. The shocks went up to 450 volts. The subjects were told afterwords that no electric shocks were actually used, and that the groans of pain and cries of agony were all recorded. Psychiatrists were asked to predict how many subjects would actually go up to 450 volts. One tenth of one percent were predicted to go all the way to 450 volts. That actual number was approxiamately 65%. Further, every subject went to at least 300 volts. The power and authority of an actor in a white lab coat apparently was enough to overcome the subjects vehement objections to administering powerful shocks to other people in two out of three cases.

Authority is probably the most used tactic by Bush, Cheney, et al. since 911. Bush pushes this farther than any other President. Ultimately, this is the fall back to all the other techniques used. If liking or social proof doesn’t fly, the President’s authority is always the fallback position. We see this in both the NSA spying scandal and the ports deal. I have seen a short film on Milgram’s “Obedience” experiment. Watching it helped me understand much more the power of authority over many people.

6) Scarcity – “Only three days left” or “Just 3 models available at this price” are common tactics used by marketers and sales people to spur potential customers to action. Anything that is limited, available only for a short period, or rare increases in value. Whether it is antiques, a special edition sports car, or a dollar bill with no serial number, the rare and unusual are valuable in many cases simply becuase they are rare and usually unattainable.

I would like to hear from commenters on this one. The first thing that comes to my mind is how unavailable Bush is to the press. We assume its to limit the opportunity for him to make a huge gaff, and I am sure that is an important motivation. Is a side effect of this “scarcity” that the press values talking to him much more than another polictician who is often available?

(Full Disclosure: I originally wrote an article on Cialdini’s book for a site on persuasion and sales
http://wwwpersuasion.com/persuasion/persuasion-techniques
That article is focused on sales and  marketing, not politics)

As I read Cialdini’s book and wrote a review of it, I found myself constantly thinking about how these techniques are used against us every day by the right wing noise machine. That lead me to revamp the review to take a closer look at how Cialdini’s principles are used by the right against us. I hope this post leads to a discussion of these techniques used by Rove, Luntz, and others to sell the message of the right. The Democrats must also understand how these principles of influence are used, and use them ethically where appropriate to sell their own message. If the right continues it success at selling their message despite all their recent troubles, I do not see an end in site to their domination of our government and society.

For those that want further detail, here are some links that may interest you:

Wikipedia on Cialdini
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_Cialdini

Influence: The Psychology of Persuasion on Amazon

Wikipedia on Milgram’s experiments
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Milgram_experiment

A book by Milgram on Amazon

 There are now several diaries on the stories of the survivors of New Orleans. These kind of stories need to be read, they need to heard, they need to be experienced. We cannot let the stories of these survivors be lost amongst the political back stabbing and the ducking of responsibility. These stories speak for the those who cannot speak for themselves.
 
Thousands of Americans are dead. Babies and grandparents, children and pregnant mothers, nursing home patients and their caregivers. Their bloated corpses are floating in the toxic flood waters of New Orleans, hidden from view by the muck and sludge, their voices now silent, their cries for help unheeded.  We must listen to the voices of the survivors, we must look into their eyes, we must feel their pain and unending sorrow. These survivors have smelled death, they have tasted gut wrenching fear, they have witnessed the destruction of mother nature and the weakness, indifference, and incompetence of man. These survivors are Speakers for the Dead of New Orleans.

   
*

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2005/9/6/211436/8987

http://www.duluthsuperior.com/mld/duluthsuperior/12588800.htm

http://www.thenassauguardian.com/national_local/284186112608310.php

http://www.beloitdailynews.com/articles/2005/09/06/news/news01.txt

http://www.auburnjournal.com/articles/2005/09/08/news/top_stories/02survivor.txt

http://www.sanluisobispo.com/mld/sanluisobispo/12588104.htm

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2005/9/6/211436/8987

http://www.memphisflyer.com/gyrobase/Content?oid=oid%3A10077

http://www.kvue.com/news/local/stories/090705kvuesurvivorstory-cb.3460f5a0.html

http://www.suntimes.com/output/brown/cst-nws-brown08.html

http://www.kansascity.com/mld/kansascity/living/12556029.htm

Share these stories with others. If you find other stories that speak for the dead, add them to this list and share them as well.

Make the voices of the Speakers for the Dead of New Orleans heard. Take a moment to feel their sorrow and loss, to see their tears and sadness, and to listen to their powerful story of destruction, violence, death, and survival.

In an earlier diary, I covered some language patterns that can be effectively used to counter the arguments of wingnuts spouting (never) right wing talking points. Here is a further example of some responses you can string together to attack and weaken an argument.

Belief Statement:
Liberal War protestors cause our troop morale to drop.
(cause effect statment)
Protesting the war leads to lower troop morale.
(Complex equivalence statement)

I think believing that exercising a constitutional right to freedom of speech and freedom to assemble somehow weakens our military morale is very demoralizing.

If the war actually had been about WMD and 9/11, there might not be so much protesting.

If Rumsfeld had a real plan for pacifying Iraq after the “major combat operations ended” there might not be so much protesting.

Which liberal war protestors? All of them? Is there any way to disagree with the war without hurting troop morale?

Does protesting the war lower the morale for every military member? How do you know which ones are affected? Do you know of any military members who are not bothered by war protestors?

War protesters don’t lower troop morale, the poor planning by the leadership lowers morale.

War protesting on the scale we see today is caused by the amount of festering dissent in society as a whole, and our military members are a part of that society. In fact, there are members of the military who have spoken out against the war.

I think it is obvious the reason you say that is you do not want to deal with the real problem: the war is not going well and the whole justification for the war has been a lie.

Isn’t one of America’s great strengths our freedom? Do you feel that it is acceptable to try to limit one of our core freedoms, the freedom of speech, because of a war?

Is it ever acceptable to protest a war, or is it always wrong?

So if you think war protesting is hurting troop morale, and therefore weaking our national security, do you think we should use troops on war protestors?

If you believe that the military if fighting to protect our freedom, why are you against some people acting on that freedom to speak out aginst the war.

It’s great to hear you are so concerned about troop morale. Please tell me about all the things you have done to improve troop morale.

If lying about the reasons for the war, not using enough troops, not providing adequate equipment and decimating active, guard and reserve forces is not enough reason to protest the war, please tell me, what would have to happen for you to protest against the war? Do you have a limit, or do you beleive that the president not only has never made a mistake, but never will?

Can you think of anything that could possibly happen that force you to speak out against this war? Or do you believe that Bush us infallible?

Does it please you to believe the actions of those who disagree with you somehow hurt troop morale? Do you believe that if someone doesn’t agree with one of your positions, that somehow hurts the country or our military?

Did you come up with that opinion on your own, based on facts, or are you spouting talking points from Limbaugh or O’Reilly?

If our military had been welcomed as “liberators” as Cheney promised and the “insurgency” was in the “last throes” would protesting still hurt troop morale?

If you would like to see another example belief statement taken through a series of belief changing patterns, please post it in this thread.

Debating with ditto heads? Wonking with Wingnuts? Are you frustrated by the fact that “facts” just do not work with Neo-Cons? Or that they make up their own facts at will? Have you noticed how often (never) Right Wingers change the subject after you score a point? Do you hear the same points word for word from different people?

There is a technique you can use to argue with a wingnut. Analyze their complex equivalences and cause effect statements. Attack the source of their beliefs, use counter examples, or metaphor. Read on if you are ready to whack a wingnut up side the head.

Debating with winguts can be extremely frustrating. The (never) Right Wingers typically use a strict father frame for all political topics (see George Lackoff’s Don’t Think of an Elephant) and therefore will swallow any talking point handed down by the Right Wing Noise Machine. After you learn these techniques, you will undoubtedly be able to make even a neo-con zealot think about the talking points they spew, if not change their belief in them all togther. In my opinion, even making a wingnut actually think about neo-con talking points is a giant step forward.

I have learned a very effective technique for changing beliefs and overcoming arguments by using langauage patterns.

There are several ways to challenge a belief using language. First, I will review the structure of belief statements. Once you undertand the structure, you will be ready to review several tactics that can be combined together into an organized challenge to  neo-con talking points. I provide a specific example using five different tactics to challenge a example belief.

The Structure of Belief Statements
First, we need to analyze the structure of a belief statement. Beliefs are typically expressed as "complex equivalence" or "cause effect" statements.

Complex Equivalences – Complex Equivalences are statements which imply that two different ideas, actions, events, etc… are equivalent (A=B or A means B). These statements are used to make definitions of values and to state whether those values have been met.   
"The fact that Bush was elected twice means he has the support of the people" or "Liberals hate Bush, they are unpatriotic." are examples.

Cause-Effect – Cause Effect statements link a value to another idea, action, event, etc… Common verbs used in a Cause Effect sentence include causes,  forces, leads to, makes, etc… These statements are used to define the origins and outcomes of ideas, actions, or events.
"Activist judges lead to a weakened America" or "The Clinton Administration caused 9/11 " are examples.

In order to completely define a belief, complex equivalence or cause effect must be established. "Democrats don’t care about America’s security" is not a completed belief statement because the beliefs associated with this statement are not stated. Further questioning is required, such as "How do you know Democrats don’t care about America’s security?" or "What do you think the consequences are of democrats not caring about security?" or "What makes Democrats not care about American security?"

The answers to these questions will complete the belief statement. For example, "Democrats don’t care about American security because they don’t support the Iraq War" or "Democrats don’t support the Patriot Act, so they don’t care about our security"  or "Democrats lack of concern about our security means they will never be the majority again."

Each of the preceding statements are full complex equivalence or cause effect statements. Each represents a full belief statement which can then be challenged with the patterns that will be discussed in this series.

Now that we have reviewed how to recognize or elicit a completed belief statement, we can go on to how to challenge and change these beliefs with language patterns.

The tactics utilized for attacking a belief are arranged into the following categories:

• Breaking Down the Belief

• Redefining the Belief

• Attack the Intention of the Belief

• Increase the Frame Size of the Belief

• Use Metaphor

I have put together quick examples of five tactics you can use to verbally challenge a belief.

There are 20-25 different tactics within these five categories. I have chosen five of the tactics to use as a demostration.

Belief Statement:
"Democrats don’t support the War in Iraq because they don’t support the care about national security"

First tactic – Drill Down on the source of the belief
Ask for specifics on each side of this cause effect statement. How, what, when, where, etc…
"Are you saying all democrats don’t care about national security?"
"Which Democrats don’t care about  national security?All of them?"
"How does not supporting the Iraq War mean that Democrats don’t care about national security?’
"Is the Iraq War the only one that must be supported to care about national security, or do all wars have to be supported?"
"When is is acceptable to not support a war?"

Second Tactic -Redefine the parts of the belief
X does not cause y.
"Democrats don’t support the War in Iraq because they do care about National Security"
"Democrats don’t support the War in Iraq because it is weakens our national security."

Third tactic – Counter Example
Are you aware of any examples when X did not cause Y? Do you know of any time where X caused something other than Y?
"Do you have to support every war in order to care about national security?’
"Is it possible to care about national security and not support a war?"
"Not supporting the Iraq War doesn’t mean Democrats don’t care about national security, the Iraq War is not about national security."

Fourth Tactic – Change the original intention
You have this belief so you can X.
"Do you really believe that, or do you just refuse to listen to an opposing view on the Iraq War?"
"Are you against all dissent in war time, or just dissent by the opposition?"

Fifth Tactic – Environment of the Belief
Insist that the belief has undesirable consequences
"Is the belief that useful? How does it help to suppotr national security by stifiling discussion?"
"What is the real reason you feel the need to alienate half the country?"
"How does it serve national security to label and isolate millions of Americans?’

One more key point. You must chain these tactics together in order to be effective. One single attack on a belief will not break it free. Four, five, six challenges in succession will be very effective. You will often find that after three challenges, a new belief emerges, and the chain begins again. This progressively weakens the foundation of mud and sand on which most neo-con beliefs are built.

Many of you may have picked up on the fact the this technique is all about process, not content. I am not suggesting counter points to any specific arguments, I am elaborating on proven techniques that provide a process to challenge any belief. You can use to this process to effectly argue any topic. If you string three, four, or five of the verbal tactics together, you can challenge virtually any belief.

These techniques were originally developed by Robert Dilts, and are called Sleight of Mouth patterns. There is a book called Sleight of Mouth, though I believe it is out of print. If you want to dive into the jargon of lingusitics, external behaviors and internal states, google Sleight of Mouth.