[BadgerHut]

Oh one more thing on Cialdini - after he wrote Influence he decided that "contrast" should have been broken out into a seventh method. It's super-powerful; early Roissy wrote a lot about contrast game.

One way I use this at work is I make a draft proposal to the boss-man. He is bearish but provides some comments. I revise slightly based on the comments and re-propose; he accepts. The funny thing here is that if I had proposed the revised plan as my first plan, he probably would have rejected it as well, but because the second plan looks "better" than the first one he saw, he's more prone to accept it even though in a vacuum he wouldn't. (Also he feels flattered that I've shown I can integrate his feedback; that's simple value exchange.)

[Hypno]

(11-30-2017 12:52 AM)BadgerHut Wrote:  

Oh one more thing on Cialdini - after he wrote Influence he decided that "contrast" should have been broken out into a seventh method. It's super-powerful; early Roissy wrote a lot about contrast game.

One way I use this at work is I make a draft proposal to the boss-man. He is bearish but provides some comments. I revise slightly based on the comments and re-propose; he accepts. The funny thing here is that if I had proposed the revised plan as my first plan, he probably would have rejected it as well, but because the second plan looks "better" than the first one he saw, he's more prone to accept it even though in a vacuum he wouldn't. (Also he feels flattered that I've shown I can integrate his feedback; that's simple value exchange.)

Contrast is in Cialdini's original book. He tells a great historical anecdote of how G. Gordon Liddy got it approved by some pretty level thinking pols. Adams adds a lot of good advice on how to apply it. In Cialdini's new book, Pre-Suasion, he adds a 7th factor Unity.

In my opinion Cialidini's books pack a lot more than Adams, but Adams is a good place to start with this stuff. My review of Cialdini's last two books is here: archive/inde...59973.html

His first book is fundamental but he provides few examples of application. His last two have many more applications. Anyone serious about gaming and effective communication (e.g. at work) should read all 3 of his books at least once a year.

[Hypno]

(11-30-2017 12:47 AM)BadgerHut Wrote:  

^ finally, everyone (everyone) should read this post from our pal MikeCF on Benjamin Franklin's rhetorical methods (most of it is a long-form and very funny instructional quotation of BF). This combined with the Cialdini/Adams methods can turn someone from a high-school-debate-geek kind of rhetorical bully into a charming and effective persuader where everyone feels smarter and reassured for having talked with you.

http://www.crimeandfederalism.com/2011/0...d-nlp.html

It really. works.

Very interesting, thanks for posting. The Socratic method is a way of teaching that relies on questions rather than lectures. I never thought to apply it to debate. So if you want Italian and your girl wants Chinese, Franklin is saying instead of arguing ask her why to prove to you that Chinese would be better than Italian. Really, and why is that? etc. etc.

[BadgerHut]

"Contrast is in Cialdini's original book."

I didn't say it wasn't in the book - it's buried in one of the chapters as an aside, Cialdini later said after recognizing its power he would consider it worthy of its own chapter.

It's funny how dour and academic Cialdini sounds in person, yet his knowledge is spot-on and very compelling. Game recognized.

[BadgerHut]

(11-30-2017 05:50 AM)Hypno Wrote:  

(11-30-2017 12:47 AM)BadgerHut Wrote:  

^ finally, everyone (everyone) should read this post from our pal MikeCF on Benjamin Franklin's rhetorical methods (most of it is a long-form and very funny instructional quotation of BF). This combined with the Cialdini/Adams methods can turn someone from a high-school-debate-geek kind of rhetorical bully into a charming and effective persuader where everyone feels smarter and reassured for having talked with you.

http://www.crimeandfederalism.com/2011/0...d-nlp.html

It really. works.

Very interesting, thanks for posting. The Socratic method is a way of teaching that relies on questions rather than lectures. I never thought to apply it to debate. So if you want Italian and your girl wants Chinese, Franklin is saying instead of arguing ask her why to prove to you that Chinese would be better than Italian. Really, and why is that? etc. etc.

Lots going on in that post (typical of MikeCF) but the focus I took wasn't so much on Socratic dialogue as it was on taking a tone of "modest diffidence" and avoiding escalatory bombast, or as Franklin put it "a positive, assuming manner, that seldom fails to disgust, [and] tends to create opposition." What has really worked for me is his recommendation of "never using...the words certainly, undoubtedly, or any others that give the air of positiveness to an opinion; but rather say, I conceive or apprehend a thing to be so and so; it appears to me, or I should think it so or so, for such and such reasons; or I imagine it to be so; or it is so, if I am not mistaken." (You can update these slightly for the 21st century.)

As you note, that's an entry stub into Socratic debate, where you need to pose tactical queries about the topic immediately at hand without asserting that they are wrong or asserting alternate propositions, causing the other person to gradually expose and speak the flaws in their own thinking. Consider how cross-examination works in a similar way, forcing a witness to re-construct various details of their testimony to either reinforce their veracity or confront contradictions.

I wouldn't bother debating dinner choices too often, but you bring up an interesting scenario; most people would probably attempt either a compromise where no one gets what they asked for (a fusion joint or a third place unlike either of the first two wants) or a reciprocation deal (split-the-difference negotiations are effectively reciprocation gambits, hoping that giving some ground will cause the other party to move to the center).

Your suggestion would probably be effective in discovering what she really wanted in her food experience - comfort, protein, spice etc - and finding some way where you both got what you wanted.

[Hypno]

Exactly. Instead of being forceful and trying to convince the opponent why your opinion is superior, you flip the script and subtly challenge them to explain why their choice is superior. If she says because it has a better decor, is closer, etc., then you have learned something new - you are not evaluating choices on the same criteria. You only learn this when you shut up and put the ball in their court. It can also be less confrontational because Franklin's attitude is not one of superiority but an invitation to the other to explain their idea, he is giving them an opportunity to be heard. And yes, asking a woman their opinion on where to eat is a mistake, so yes I agree a simple one.

[blck]

(11-30-2017 12:42 AM)BadgerHut Wrote:  

(11-23-2017 04:18 AM)blck Wrote:  

To the extreme, salesmen are like pimps, they have unusual insights on the human brain backdoors and how know exactly how to use them

The second link you posted is an uncredited knock-off of Cialdini's six types of persuasion...
...

"You don't need to reinvent the wheel, better learn how to use it your way..."

Did Cialdini put the light on those principles or invented them ?
And as a scholar can everyone use his statements as they want or are they copyrighted ?
Anyway I like your posts because you seem interested in this subject as much as I am.

[ShuaiGe]

I was a telemarketer for a few years. There are similarities and differences between sales and game but the main fact stands:

People are emotional creatures, appealing to emotion rather than logic is significantly more effective.

[BadgerHut]

"If she says because it has a better decor, is closer, etc., then you have learned something new - you are not evaluating choices on the same criteria. You only learn this when you shut up and put the ball in their court."

I highly, highly recommend Chris Voss' "Never Split The Difference" which goes into detail on how to put the ball in their court and get maximal information from the other side about what they want and where their boundaries are, while at the same time making them feel comfort and trust in you. (Sound like game to you?)

"Did Cialdini put the light on those principles or invented them ?
And as a scholar can everyone use his statements as they want or are they copyrighted ?"

Good question. Cialdini hypothesized that human persuasion could be broken down on those 6 vectors, and conducted (or cited) scientific research to evaluate the hypotheses and show them to be reasonable. From a scientific perspective, given how new this stuff is (relatively speaking), Cialdini should be given credit for showing these ideas are valid...even though psychology is kind of a pseudoscience, although I'd argue

As far as using his statements, his writings are copyrighted, and so from a legal/formal perspective, he should be given credit for direct quotes or close paraphrases.

People on feel-good sites like thoughtcatalog think they are more original than they are so I think they should give more credit where it is due.

"Anyway I like your posts because you seem interested in this subject as much as I am."

Thank you! I love reading and discussing this kind of stuff. It both sheds light on past mistakes for me, and is educational on new ways to go about working with people. It's made a huge difference in the past ~3 years of my career, I'm much more in tune with persuading my colleagues and customers and communicating effectively.

[EmotionalGeek]

Can you please write review of never split the difference?

[BadgerHut]

(12-03-2017 10:07 AM)EmotionalGeek Wrote:  

Can you please write review of never split the difference?

Sure. I'll put that on my to-do list and post it when done.

[MoultrieScout]

I just finished his last two books. I actually found my way here yesterday by a Goo gle search on the topic of him.

I'll post on the thread that first brought me here, but let's say. Scott's game where he went from being criticized for being soy (and he is a little soy) for marrying a mom of two, well that thread didn't age well.

Don't know him but his game has obviously improved. I think he actually, finally, realized his power only recently.

He takes her on trips, she comes over a few times a week......

And then she is sent home.