How to Be Persuasive

http://www.moskalyuk.com/blog/yes-50-scientifically-proven-ways-to-be-persuasive/1624

by mixmax • 17 years ago

160 26 17 years ago

hendler• 17 years ago

Scientifically proven; with no proofs.

"The authors take the position that persuasion is a science, not art, hence with the right approach anybody can become the master in the skill of persuasion."

My approach is a bit simpler than 50 tactics. My two favorite forms of persuasion are to be honest, and be correct. Maybe it's obvious I'm not in marketing.

The closest thing in the text to "be honest" was "Admitting you’re wrong makes people more trustworthy."

I didn't read the article carefully - maybe the book is a good read.

mixmax• 17 years ago

You're right about the proofs, there should have been sources included. The book might be more thorough...

I think you're oversimplifying a field you're not familiar with though, it's like a non-hacker saying that all you need to store data is to set up a microsoft Access database, and you're good to go. It's correct, but misses a lot of problems and subtleties.

ShabbyDoo3• 17 years ago

The book is well footnoted and uses as its examples the actual experiments performed.

prostoalex• 17 years ago

Sources for all the research are quoted in the appendix to the book.

mattchew• 17 years ago

Scientifically proven; with no proofs.

Yup. Exhorting people to conserve electricity with smiley face postcards caused a meaningful change in power use? Maybe, but I doubt it. (And if it did, may God help the people in that neighborhood.)

mediaman• 17 years ago

Peoples' minds do not function like your computer. The reference you cite was part of a study that was properly sourced in the book, so yes, it is true.

If you look more broadly and read introductory psychology books, you will discover the many quirks that our (and I mean all of ours -- yours and mine included) brains have. Whether that means that all the world's population needs God's help to survive because of the way our brains function is a question that we won't be able to answer in our lifetime.

blackman• 17 years ago

honesty is always the best policy, but how you present your honesty can be the deciding factor in whether your ideas are taken on board.

i enjoyed influence by cialdini, it helped a lot in getting my ideas across in my job.

randomwalker2• 17 years ago

I'm glad someone wrote this up. When I was reading the book I started to do exactly this, but then it was such an interesting read that I couldn't tear myself away after each chapter to write the summary. The lessons have proven very useful both in my start-up and in personal life.

The best thing IMO is that the authors are all about playing it completely straight. You probably wouldn't guess that from the title of the book. But in fact, each chapter ends with advice on how not to misuse the technique you just learnt.

I highly recommend that you read the book rather than just skimming the summary. The reason is that there are numerous case studies in the book (drawn from actual scientific studies) of counterintuitive human behavior, which the authors then explain. The examples will make the material stick in your head a lot better.

ShabbyDoo3• 17 years ago

I'm reading this book now but prefer Caldini's _Influence_ (http://www.amazon.com/Influence-Psychology-Persuasion-Busine...) because it takes a more systematic approach to understanding what persuades others. For example, a chapter is dedicated to "social proof" and relevant experiments showing its power and subtleties are discussed.

xel02• 17 years ago

I have influence and am considering this book. Is there any significant difference in content?

ShabbyDoo3• 17 years ago

I'm only about 1/4 the way through. Some of the experiments cited seem to have been conducted after the initial release of Influence. I think that "50 Ways" is designed to be an easier read, but it doesn't give one the framework obtained by Influence.

joe_the_user• 17 years ago

In fact, most of the things mentioned in this article are just variations on one of Cialdini's seven methods

cubix3• 17 years ago

I recently saw no. 2 put into practice ("... the message mentioned that majority of the guests who stayed in this specific room chose to be more environmentally conscious and reused their towels") almost word for word. It struck me as so obviously manipulative that I left my towels in a crumpled heap on the floor, which I don't normally do, as a matter of principle.

randomwalker2• 17 years ago

I don't get why you think it's manipulative. The book has a prominent caution not to use such a message unless it is true (see my other comment.) Assuming the hotel wasn't lying, what exactly is the harm?

The thing you would realize if you read the book is that all of our normal conversation is "manipulative," in that we are trying to elicit some desired response from the other person. Otherwise we'd speak like a robot, with no emotions or facial expressions, always make pure statements of fact and never get anything accomplished.

cubix3• 17 years ago

First of all, their motive is primarily cost savings rather than environmental, which is fine -- I want lower hotel costs too. If they asked me to reuse the towel to reduce costs, I could respect that and would likely comply. They are using the guilt many people harbour about the environment to get what they want. Just be honest.

Secondly, the "majority of guests ..." is a blatant example of argumentum ad populum, a logical fallacy. Appeal to me based on my self-interest, appeal to me based on the environment -- I may or may not agree -- but simply stating what other people are doing is not sufficient. I disagree with a lot of what other people do. Also, devices like "in your specific room" are transparent and annoying. If I checked-in to a particular room where, by sheer chance, the last 200 people trashed it, would it be then OK to do the same? That's the same argument they're using.

Oh, and one small thing, they're claiming to know why the previous guests picked up their towels up, and therefore to be mind readers since there was no survey. They can't say "well, that's the popular opinion" because they're talking about that specific room.

Hexstream• 17 years ago

"Admitting you’re wrong makes people more trustworthy."

Wouldn't that make them more trustful?

chairface• 17 years ago

It's awkward, but I believe they intend "you're" and "people" to refer to the same entity(s).

But I see what you're saying.

sofal• 17 years ago

It strikes me that there could easily be a mismatch between the actual intent of the person utilizing these tricks and the perceived intent. To the extent that these two are the same, these are great methods to use. If they are different, then these tricks will lead to greater disillusionment in the long run, requiring even subtler approaches.

I can't stand to walk through a mall or browse the web without Adblock because it's like swimming through a sea of lies. Somewhere out there are honest and genuine marketers with a product that is deserving of everything they say about it, but I can't hear them through the noise of all the other marketers using the same exact tactics.

sutro• 17 years ago

Summary: People are idiots.

coglethorpe• 17 years ago

"Group A drank regular orange juice, group B drank orange juice infused with caffeine."

Want this.

jerf• 17 years ago

At the risk of killing you, http://www.aonevitamins.com/caffeine.htm , which is simply the first hit for "caffiene powder". It's not exactly a tricky recipe.

spydez• 17 years ago

United Nuclear has it cheaper. http://www.unitednuclear.com/chem.htm

Just, yeah. Don't kill yourself. :P Lethal dose is somewhere between 10 and 20 grams. Rough, spydez-levels of caffeination call for ~1/2 teaspoon of pure caffeine powder per gallon of water or juice or tea or what have you.

Enjoy.

Or, for extra credit, make a caffeinated heavy water ice cube.

aik• 17 years ago

Anyone find any of these tactics to be unethical?

How to Be Persuasive

Related Stories