The Rules of Persuasion is an integral feature of Practical Persuasion that helps us make our work useful and accessible to everyone. To be honest, most of what we do here is for ourselves; we scour databases and resources of all kinds looking for scientific evidence of what works and what doesn’t, and we compile what we find into this blog to keep it organized. But researching, analyzing, and organizing do not, by themselves, fix the problems we set out to solve. We want to show you how to use persuasive techniques to be more influential and we want to show you how best to use them. Condensing our research into simple rules helps us do that.
Today, we are presenting three new rules that expand upon those we already have.
Strategies
When we need to solve a problem, we start by forming a strategy. We then check that strategy against three criteria:
Does this appreciably increase our odds of success?
How could it backfire or hurt us later?
Does it make good use of our strengths?
Do these questions sound familiar? They should; they’re Rules 1 through If a strategy doesn’t pass, it’s scrapped or altered until it does pass (or until we must act, for better or worse). The first three rules assume that you already know how to form an effective strategy. The next three rules are intended to break down that process into logical steps.
4. When developing a strategy, make your goals as clear and unambiguous as possible. Use quantifications and milestones, and abide by them no matter what.
Vague advice is useless, even if the principles underlying the advice are sound. We’ve been saying this since Day 1. Practically useless advice constantly floods the Internet, as well as other forms of media. We intend to improve on this advice. Much of it could be greatly improved with just a little clarification.
For example, in the second chapter of his landmark book Influence: Science and Practice, social psychologist and business consultant Robert Cialdini explains the concept of reciprocity. Reciprocity is the ingrained psychological need to discharge an obligation, even if the obligation is to return a small, unsolicited favor from a complete stranger. One variation of reciprocal persuasion Cialdini examines is the classic “door-in-the-face” (DITF) technique. By making an extreme request first, backing off once refused, and then making a smaller request later, salespeople turn reluctant strangers into long-time clients. But there’s a catch: the initial request can’t be too extreme. How extreme is too extreme? He doesn’t say. Clarifying what “too extreme” is would be as easy as comparing the values of the first and second requests to establish a clear, quantifiable threshold.
While tactical clarity is important, clarifying your “end-game” is equally vital, especially if you’re planning long-term. Over-reach is just as bad for your chances of future success when you’re winning as it is when you’re losing. Every guy who’s tried to close a pick-up knows that going past the night’s goal with too little planning or too much alcohol is a recipe for disaster. Every customer looking to haggle down the price of a car should know what his or her total spending limit is before stepping on the showroom. Every pitchman and scam artist knows when to stop trying to persuade an obviously incorrigible skeptic and switch to a new mark. Unfortunately, knowing when to stop is usually the last thing a person plans for, if they plan for it at all. But if you’re smart, you’ll have an end-game. If you’re strategy is good, you’ll have a clear end-game.
How do you take something vague and make it clear? Quantify it. In the DITF example, take Cialdini’s advice (“don’t make your initial request too extreme”) and quantify it (“don’t make an initial request that’s worth more than x percent of your planned second request.”) Even if there’s no evidence whatsoever that the quantity you choose is the proper amount, do it anyway. If it’s not, you can adjust it later; if you don’t quantify it, though, you won’t know what to do. If you can’t quantify something, set up a milestone. In the pick-up end-game scenario we mentioned above, a good milestone is time (“at 2:00am, I’m asking for a number and getting out;” “If I don’t get an IOI in 2 hours, I’m outta here.”) But no matter how you do it, never let anything convince you or force you to abandon your plan, cross your quantified threshold, or pass your pre-set milestone.
5. To be sound, tactics do not need to be revolutionary, nor do strategies need to be complex. Keep it simple and aim for maximum efficiency (aka, “The Watergate Rule”).
Tactics don’t need to be original. Simply making small improvements on a tried-and-true method will suffice. Complex as the world is, rarely will you ever be called upon to deal with a wholly unique problem for which no solution exists. As such, you don’t need to be a dazzling innovator or a creative genius to execute effective tactics. However, not attempting to improve an existing tactic is usually as bad an idea as trying to concoct a completely new one. Why? Because most of the tactics others tell you to use are either inefficient or generic. They work, sure, but their usefulness to you is probably very limited. Fix them with customizations that make them more efficient and more germane to your specific situation. But always start with them; don’t ignore them. In our experience, novelty usually indicates risk. Stick with what you know and improve upon it, little by little.
Basic tactics should be condsidered the platform upon which your complete strategies are built. We pointed out that psychopaths utilize a number of tactics to enlarge their pool of possible successes. A psychopath trying to pick up women in a bar or club, for example, will approach as many women as possible until one decides to give up her number or go home with him. It’s a very basic tactic, and statistically, it always works, even though it’s inefficient and blandly generic. But while our entire Dark Triad project is intended to discover how to make tactics like this better, in the end, frequent approaching will always be the foundation of any future strategy we propose. Our Dark Triad project is essentially an effort to make frequent approaching more efficient.
Sticking with proven tactics also has a beneficial side-effect: it forces you to keep your overall strategy simple.
Now, simplicity is not usually a problem we see in other sources’ persuasion advice. Most of the time, in fact, these sources could stand a little more (or a lot more) nuance. But overly complex strategizing is a very common problem among amateurs and laypeople like ourselves. They’re usually smarter, more rational, and more astute than the average person. They hold Machiavellian characters in high regard. And, as a result of their personal proclivities, they also sometimes think they can “mastermind” any situation and become “the-man-behind-the-curtain.” They usually can’t. Their strategies are overly-complex and unwieldy. Too many of them enjoy strategizing more than acting. And of course, their tactics are usually too creative and too risky to test out. When they do put their plans in place, though, things break down quickly.
Another example: G. Gordon Liddy, the legendary and infamous campaign strategist, was renown during the Cold War for ingenious plans to subvert domestic political opponents. When he joined then-President Richard Nixon’s campaign team in the early 1970s, he brought with him his love of intrigue, which Nixon, himself a fan of cloak-and-dagger style strategies, eagerly encouraged. Liddy’s plans were expensive, elaborate, and shady. One of them involved spy-planes, unregistered yachts, high-end call girls, state-of-the-art recording equipment, hired goons, kidnapping, blackmail, and burglary. Nothing like the plan had ever been attempted before in American politics. In the end, though, all it came to was a bungled B&E at the Watergate Hotel. The rest is history.
The Watergate scandal is a classic example of a strategy that’s too elaborate for its own good. And while most of you will probably never be involved in anything this complicated, it serves as reminder to always follow precedent and to always keep your strategies simple. That’s why Rule 5 is also known as The Watergate Rule.
6. Options are invaluable. Have an exit strategy in place, and avoid all-or-nothing situations.
Time is valuable. Energy is valuable. Money is valuable. And you you will spend large volumes of each one throughout your lifetime trying to sway others; it’s unavoidable. Get the most out of your investments by creating or seizing alternative options whenever and wherever possible. This could be as basic as bar-hopping; it could be as elaborate as seeding a location with a crowd of your own friends via mass text before walking in with your date while simultaneously engineering a spur-of-the-moment houseparty across town. The more options you have, the more power you wield, and even if you don’t achieve your primary goal, you’ll never feel like you wasted your resources.
But always remember that options are not substitutes for escape routes. Your strategies will break down, either because of your mistakes or because of unforeseen circumstances. It’s not a matter of if, but rather of when, and it’s imperative that you have a way out before you go in. Failure often results in embarrassment, and embarrassment, if not dealt with, leads to long-term social damage. Minimize that damage by preparing believable excuses and alibis. Line up a fall guy (or girl). If you’re out somewhere, have a getaway car on standby. And needless to say, never get drunk while on campaign. These are very basic safety procedures everyone should take; not enough people do.
