We all try to convince. But some people use techniques that later make the listener feel like “I was told one thing, but the reality is something else.” These aren’t lies, per say. Lies are outright false statements, known to be untrue by the speaker and, often, verifiably untrue with some research. The type of manipulations I’m talking about are “true” in the strict legal definition, a fact which hides their deeper miscommunication.
“You could make millions!”
“Lose 30 pounds in 30 days!”
Some of the most common lies are by percentage chance. Lotteries, casinos, CEO’s, and anyone selling you on upside will tell that there is amazing potential and a good-enough chance of getting it. The excitement for the result often overwhelms the consideration of likelihood. To avoid this trap: determine the past success ratio, ie how many people started the process vs got the advertised result and assume your fate will be statistically similar.
“Payday loans help poor people get needed credit.”
“My proposal creates jobs”
One powerful way to convince people is to focus only on the parts of reality that support your argument. For instance, there are a small number of people who responsibly use payday loans and pay them off before they accumulate high interest fees. The defenders of payday loans highlight this case yet, in reality, payday loans have proven so destructive that the military has banned them < http://usmilitary.about.com/od/millegislation/a/paydayloans.htm>. To avoid: Write down the opposite of the given statement, separately attempt to prove each is true, and examine the balance of believability.
“This is what most people in your job make”
“Our recon indicated the attack was justified.”
Saying something that the person can’t verify (or would have to risk the entire relationship to verify) forces people to accept the statement because it’s too much psychological energy to distrust someone without a solid reason. To avoid: investigate claims and doubt unverifiable statements.
“I did not have sexual relations with that woman.”
“We’re a leading company.”
Redefining terms is a way to say something defensible while giving someone else a very different idea. Bill Clinton later said that “sexual relations” meant intercourse however most people would think of it as “any sexual contact” which he had been denying. To avoid: know the speakers’ and the laws’ definitions and replace words with accurate terms before you judge a statement.
“You won’t have to worry about free time once this company goes public!”
“This injustice will be solved as part of the Glorious Revolution”
Making personal goals dependent on a shared goal puts the drive usually reserved for personal goals into the shared goal. This can be a powerful force for good and ill. Most revolutions and companies are powered by these dependent goals. However, sometimes an authority figure encourages this behavior when it isn’t in the persons’ interest. To avoid: consider whether doing this increases or decreases the chance of your personal goal getting fulfilled. Handy trick: when you’re tired in bed in the morning, think of everything in your day depending on putting two feet on the floor now.
“I agree it’s not perfect, but we’re running a company/country/etc here and it’s the best we can do.”
“If we made the change you suggest, it would actually make things worse.”
An insidious manipulation is the idea that something better cannot be achieved, or even hoped for. There are constraints and compromises in the world but removing someone’s hope for something better is a common way of quashing dissent. To avoid: watch similar companies/countries; if others do it, it’s possible.
Thoughts? Comments?
It’s amazing to me that people will just accept even plain lies. Thought doesn’t figure into a lot of lives, seems like …
Darius – This is an extremely thoughtful and well-written post. One of my research streams deals with the decisions that we make that we are not often aware of and the cues that systematically influence those decisions beneath our conscious awareness. I think the key idea is that the human brain, although amazing, is designed to let these cues influence it without us needing to waste cognitive resources actually processing the input. This can be extremely helpful – e.g., running instinctively when we see a snake – but it can also be extremely risky – e.g., allowing our innate desire to remain socially connected to override our gut feeling that something might not be an equitable deal. Your insights on goal alignment are spot on, and I imagine if more managers were able to enable genuine goal alignment then companies might produce more fruitful workers and better workplace cultures. I could go on and on… keep up the good work, and I look forward to hanging out again when I am back out in SF!