So here's the ChangingMinds Blog, from site author, David Straker. This is my more
personal ramblings, though mostly about changing minds in some shape or form.
Please do add your comments via the archive or the right-hand column below. -- Dave
Friday 27-August-10
In safe, cute hands
I recently went on a cruise around the Western Mediterranean, and very nice
it was too. Thomson is a big UK holiday firm with their own planes and boats and
I was impressed by their attention to customer experience. An example of their
creativity in this showed up on the plane, where they clearly understood the
problem of getting passengers to pay attention to the safety instructions.
Many of us have been on enough aeroplanes that we generally ignore the air
crew telling us how to put on life jackets and pointing to the exits. So
somebody thought: what will people watch? The answer they came up with is 'cute
kids'. And here it is:
So what do you think? Cute, huh? Did you pay attention through to the end? The
people on the plane did, both on the flight out and the flight back.
Well done Thomson.
Friday 20-August-10
Persuading parents
Imagine you are a government agency trying to persuade people to adopt a
particular healthcare approach, how should you do it? Studies have shown that
many are suspicious of government communications and are more likely to believe
in alternative sources.
A case in point is some poor UK research that linked MMR (measles, mumps and
rubella) injections for children to autism. It caused a huge decline in parents
taking up the treatment and, even though it eventually led to the dismissal of
the doctor involved, the caution continued with only 85% take-up.
In a study of parent attitudes, Benjamin Gardner and colleagues, five key
points were identified:
1. Parents didn't have enough information, especially about the hazards of
not vaccinating.
2. Government sources were not trusted.
3. Other parents were trusted.
4. There was a bias towards risk-related information.
5. Pro- and anti-MMR arguments were given equal weighting (even though
scientific evidence massively confirms the value of MMR vaccination).
These point to ways such government campaigns can be improved, such as with
parent-fronted apparently independent presentations that present data needed and
counter biases. It also shows the power of research-based promotion as opposed
to using traditional wisdoms.
Reference:
Gardner, B., Davies, A., McAteer, J., and Michie, S. (2010). Beliefs underlying
UK parents' views towards MMR promotion interventions: a qualitative study.
Psychology, Health and Medicine, 15 (2), 220-30
Friday 13-August-10
Obvious persuasion
I saw this poster on a church recently:
Obviously there is a God. Now stop worrying and
enjoy life.
Is this persuasive? I thought so. But why? First consider the difference between
the following statements:
There is a God.
Obviously there is a God.
The first is an assertion that could easily lead to a doubter answering 'no
there isn't!' or something similar. But when the second sentence adds
'obviously' one might pause. It's like saying 'of course', with an implication
that there's something wrong with you if you don't agree. But most would,
after that critical pause, revert to the original doubt. But giving pause is a
surprisingly powerful technique, as into this moment you can slip all kinds of
persuasive things.
So consider the next sentence: 'Now stop worrying and enjoy life.' This
contains two commands that you can't really argue with. The first one starts
with 'now', which pulls you into the present (and away from thinking about the
previous sentence). 'Stop worrying' is clever as most
people worry about all sorts of things but by saying it, the writer seems like a
bit of a mind reader, making everything else more true. Being commands, these
phrases also grab you, and in doing so distract you away from any objection to
the first statement. And they are nice and desirable and, in accepting these,
you are more likely to accept the first statement.
Neat, huh? Obviously.
Friday 06-August-10
Logic <> language
When you solve a problem you talk to yourself in logical language, such as
'if I do this then that will not happen'. So is language necessary for logic?
And what about language itself? Are the laws of grammar not just a set of
logical rules? So are logic and language so intertwined to be virtually the same
thing? What if language didn't
exist? Could you still have logic? Perhaps so - after all, many animals exhibit
some form of logical behaviour. So is language about more complex logic?
In fact the answer to the question is 'partly'. Logic is not equal to
language (or, as a computer programmer might write, 'logic <> language'). A recent brain-scanning
research has found that parts of the
brain that are used for logical
thinking overlap with language areas. Subjects were given two types of argument to think about. One was a pure form
of logic, such as "If both X and Z then not Y", whilst the other was based on
grammatical rules, such as "It was X that Y saw Z take" that needed
interpretation of language-related elements such as "object" and "subject".
What has this to do with changing minds? Well persuasive arguments can have
many logical arguments embedded in language, so combining them is good. But what
about the non-overlap? What is the persuasive logic that is outside language?
How can you persuade logically but non-linguistically?
Reference:
Monti, M.M., Parsons, L.M. and Osherson, D.N. (2009). The boundaries of language and
thought in deductive inference. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences
of the United States of America
Your comments
Regarding your paragraphs on language and logic: Surely it’s all more
fundamental than this. Language is based on symbolic reference. Symbols evolved
from our perceptions. Perception has evolved out of the physical necessity to
understand and manipulate our environment for our survival. All animals have
evolved different apparatus to perceive their environment according to their
bodily needs, hence various species perceive their environment in radically
different ways. This perceptual apparatus is literally making the world logical
for us according to our needs as a particular species. Therefore logic is a
fundamental constituent mechanism for survival. Language is a particular
representation of logic; language is predicated on defining things, and we can
only define that which we perceive to be. To follow on from this, and answer
your question “how can you persuade logically but non-linguistically” in art,
perspective or depth of field perfectly exemplifies a logical representation of
the environment non-linguistically. There is evidence that even some cave
drawing demonstrates this knowledge. Similarly photographic imagery by Muybridge
accurately demonstrated the motion of a galloping horse without language and
logically settled a very long standing argument.
-- Peg
Dave replies:
Hi Peg. Yes, it's all a construct, really. It's also relative.
Friday 30-July-10
Persuading with food
I have two dogs, both of whom like food and
would eat all day, given the chance. This is good news, as I have associated
eating with good behaviour by using
conditioning during their training.
Sales people and seducers also know that a nice
meal weakens the will and eases compliance. How many major deals have been
sealed over a sumptuous lunch? And how often have games of kneesy under the
dinner table led to subsequent bedroom romps? It's not just the food: research
has shown that people served the same food in upmarket and downmarket
establishments actually believe the food in the posher places taste better.
Food also changes mood and behaviour. A study in
Cricket Green, London, of behaviour of children with special needs has show that
a 'good' diet and regular exercise led to a marked reduction in hyperactivity. I
appreciate this personally: when our daughter was young we found that green
fizzy drinks led quickly to an excited and uncontrollable state.
It is not surprising really. Mind and body are
strongly linked and the chemicals you eat will of course affect brain chemistry.
The lesson is plain: eat well, think well, feel well.
Friday 23-July-10
What is beauty?
I sat on a train recently opposite two women. As a human male, I naturally assessed
their attractiveness as prospective partners. Of course I did nothing further,
but this sizing up, if we are honest, is a programming that most men cannot
avoid.
One was a beautiful young woman with made-up almond eyes. The other was an
older, somewhat overweight lady. So who was most attractive? Perhaps contrary to
programming, I thought the older lady better. Why? It was a lot to do with
humour. The young woman never smiled and seemed to be lost in negative thoughts
as scowls crossed her face. On the other hand, the older lady seemed comfortable
in herself as she gaily chatted and laughed with her companion.
Attractiveness is more than physical and a relaxed smile makes a lot of
difference. If you look miserable, angry or otherwise negative, you will lose a
lot of friends (and potential friends). And if you show yourself as a warm, contented individual, you
will likely find yourself a lot more popular.
Friday 16-July-10
Emotion and music
What is music for? My theory is that it stimulates our need for a sense of
control by repeating patterns whilst varying these to stimulate our need for
novelty. In doing so music makes us feel good, evoking strong emotions (at least
for music we like!).
An interesting further question is around the extent to which music has
universal elements that cross cultural boundaries, touching deep human chords.
Researcher Thomas Fritz and his colleagues played samples of
computer-generated piano music to members of the culturally isolated Mafa tribe
of Cameroon, as well as to Western participants. The music was specifically
designed to convey happiness, sadness or fear through careful shaping of mode,
tempo, pitch range, tone density and rhythmic regularity, according to Western
conventions.
Analysis of facial expressions showed that both the tribes-people and Western
participants used the same cues to evaluate and so respond to the music, showing
the universality of musical appreciation and confirming how our brains are
'wired' for this. Interestingly, high tempo music was seen as happy whilst
slower music was seen as sad or even fearful. A further experiment using
non-harmonious 'music' confirmed this with much less appreciation shown.
It would have been interesting in these tests to find the 'edge' where
appreciated harmony decays into disliked disharmony. There is certainly a
spectrum even in what we call music where the likes of Stockhausen, heavy metal
and avant garde jazz are liked only by a smaller audience. I remember my
parents' comments about Hawkwind and Pink Floyd and I have wondered myself about
my own children's choices.
Reference:
Fritz, T., Jentschke, S., Gosselin, N., Sammler, D., Peretz, I., Turner, R.,
Friederici, A., & Koelsch, S. (2009). Universal Recognition of Three Basic
Emotions in Music. Current Biology, 19 (7), 573-576
Friday 09-July-10
Littering with disgust
I was in Dublin recently and saw the following sign on rubbish bins in the
city:
'Litter is disgusting; so are those responsible.' So what is
going on? What method of persuasion is being used here? This is a classic
two-step sequential method, where the first sentence ('litter is disgusting') is
easy to accept, and also in this case difficult to reject. Having got you
hooked, the next sentence is the killer: 'So are those responsible'. Now you are
compelled to agree that people who litter are disgusting.
Now disgust is a particularly powerful thing, as if I disgust
others they will quickly eject me from their social groups and I will become
that most feared of things, an outcast. To be ostracized is to have one's need
for belonging to be removed
and most people really do not want this to happen. So they distance themselves
quickly from anything that will cause this, which in this case means not
littering!
Friday 02-July-10
Who's in control of the bus?
We all have deep need for a sense of
control and the anxiety and
panic of feeling out of control is distinctly unpleasant. On the other hand the
sense of being in control is pleasant. We feel relaxed, powerful, confident.
One of the most important domains of control is our selves. We have all kinds
of natural urges, from eating to aggression which we need to control and which
can lead to inner conflict ('I'd like to punch him but I'd better hold back'). A
problem we have with this is that when we are in the normal, non-urge state, we
think we will be able to control our urges. The reality is that urges are deep
and powerful motivators that are difficult to resist. This rational vs. 'urge
state' has been called the "cold-to-hot empathy gap" and the mistaken belief we
can manage our urges "restraint bias".
Loran Nordgren and colleagues investigated this inner battle. They first gave
one group of students an easy memory task and another a hard one. Those on the
easy task subsequently rated their ability to overcome mental fatigue more
highly. A serious impact of this effect was that the also thought they could
leave more of their coursework until the last week of term.
In a second study, students arriving or leaving the college cafeteria ranked
seven snack bars from least favourite to favourite and then chose one to take
away. If they brought it back uneaten the next week, they could keep the bar and
also win $4. The leavers, who had already eaten and whose self-perception of
restraint ability was therefore higher, were more likely to choose their first
or second favourite snack bar, and were more likely to eat it during the
following week.
In a third experiment some were given a fake self-control test then asked to
watch the movie "Coffee and Cigarettes" whilst not smoking. They were promised a
greater cash reward the more difficult they made the challenge for themselves.
Those given good results on the test chose more tempting challenges, such as
holding the cigarette in their hand rather than having it on the desk. They were
also more likely to give in to that temptation.
In a further study with people in a 'quit smoking' programme, those who
claimed more impulse control were found to be more like to relapse.
The bottom line is a warning: 'Restraint bias' is real. The more we believe
we can control our urges, the more risks we take and the more we end up giving
in to pressures from the subconscious. If you want to say 'No' to yourself,
realise the danger and keep yourself out of temptation's way.
Reference:
Nordgren, L., van Harreveld, F., & van der Pligt, J. (2009). The Restraint
Bias: How the Illusion of Self-Restraint Promotes Impulsive Behaviour.
Psychological Science, 20 (12), 1523-1528
Friday 25-June-10
Body language and negotiating traffic
I was recently stuck at the edge of a stream of slow-moving cars, trying to
get out of car park in Oxford. You probably know the situation: the cars are
nose-to-tail with everyone studiously not looking at you as the refuse to let
you in.
So what could I do? Other than wait for some kind (or guilty-feeling) soul,
how could I persuade one on the drivers to let me in front of them?
What I did, most successfully, is as follows: First, I wound my window down
to reduce the barriers between me and them. Then I waved in a friendly way at a
selected driver. This movement caught his peripheral vision, even though he
wasn't looking directly at me. Seeing someone wave in a friendly way then made
him pause and try to figure out if he knew me, which required paying more
attention to me. In that moment of confusion I gestured a request to let me out,
with a palm-up request, pointing where I wanted to go, also with raised,
questioning eyebrows. I then followed it up quickly, before he could figure out
what I was doing, with a thumbs-up thanks as I smiled in a friendly way and
inched forward a little. Caught in the trap, probably still unsure if he knew
me, he could do nothing but smile back and wave me on. And with a further wave
and thanks I was out!
Negotiating traffic is a perennial problem and I often use such methods,
making eye contact and with friendly, gently assertive
non-verbal requests. I
never get cross and toot my horn but try to be elegantly persuasive such that
people feel good about helping others. Try it out yourself! You can get to where
you need, quicker and happier. And on today's frenetic roads, that can only be a
good thing!
Your comments
Hi, David. This is a nice post, I do something similar while cycling in
congested traffic. It always works.
I am also wondering how can I condemn someone's aggressive attitude when they,
for example, cut my path all of a sudden. I want to do this in a non aggressive
way, something that will trigger a feeling of shame in them, rather than showing
them the fist :)
Do you have any suggestions I might add to my repertoire?
-- Adrian
Dave replies: Hi Adrian. I understand the cycling dilemma and it's a very exposed position
where you are sometimes just not seen or not thought too much about. One
advantage of being exposed is that your body language is more visible and you
are higher up, so you can communicate well once you've caught their eye.
A way to embarrass a driver is to point at him whilst looking at another
driver and raising your eyebrows as if to say 'Just look at this idiot'. If
windows are open, you can literally say 'Look at this!'. I'd do the pointing
palm up, by the way, as it's less aggressive. You don't want to appear to be
attacking the first driver as other drivers may side with them. Neutral or
concerned expression with a hint of vulnerability may be more effective.
Drivers are always strangely concerned about what other drivers think of
them. If they see you highlighting their errors to others they'll be
significantly more embarrassed and likely ashamed.
Beg to differ David, sort of...
"....First, I wound my window down to reduce the barriers between me and
them....." That is a good idea. It reminds the drivers that there are people
inside those machines just like them.
However, IMHO, the machines (the cars) have to converse. The horn is like using
CAPS in emails - a little too ambiguous and intense. Use the turn signal as a
request - turn them on as if to ask the other vehicle to let you in. If he/she
is stubborn turn it off quickly until the next car. Flash the headlights in
gratitude to the obliging commuter.
Courtesy is awkward on highways. The worst is being #10 in a line of cars and
#'s 1 to 8 will not allow the exiting car out. Then, unexpectedly, #9 does!!
Why??? - the line-up was almost past. So annoying!
Once, way back, I used to commute with an old ex-military FWD (a little tougher
than AWD SUV's). The traffic line was Km's long. I put my "rig" in FWD and drove
along the rough easement a km or two. When I had to re-enter the line none would
allow me to benefit from my advantage!! Petty!
-- Peter
Dave replies: Hi Peter - nice addition in conceiving of inter-vehicular communication.
Cars indeed are extensions of their drivers and even slight movements send
signals. About your problems, letting people in is a status thing -- to let a
person in puts yourself behind and for many this is about putting themselves in
a lower status than you. But then a person of high status can show their
magnanimity by letting you in and does not feel inferior. The trick in getting
in is to signal to the other person that letting you in will not reduce their
social position and your signals to them actually increases their status.
I'm wondering what Adrian's point would be to 'condemn' someone who
displays unwelcome behaviour on the road: why would one bother to condemn them?
At best it would distract you and them, increasing danger on the road; at worst
they are a mad axe murderer and will kill you (actually happened in Sydney NSW
where a motorist disagreed with a a released murderer who got out of his car and
stabbed the motorist to death). If some one 'disses' you on the road, just
remember, it takes all types, even ar**holes! Only you don't have to be one too.
-- clive
Friday 18-June-10
Thinking about doodles
Do you doodle? I do. I'll just draw shapes as I listen and think. Sometimes
they are unconnected with what is going on -- just geometric shapes, mostly --
and sometimes about things in the back of my mind. I don't think any of it would
excite Freud but I sometimes wonder about its value.
Researcher Jackie Andrade got subjects to listen to a boring message and only
write down the names given of people who, in the message, were being invited to
a party. Half were told to doodle as they listened, and this seemed to help as
the doodlers could later recall 29% more of the names than the non-doodlers.
It's a simple bottom line: if you want to remember more, doodle as you are
listening! The only caveat, of course, is to also pay attention to what is going on and not get lost
in the doodle or drift off into private daydreaming.
Reference:
Andrade, J. (2010). What does doodling do? Applied Cognitive Psychology, 24 (1),
100-106
Friday 11-June-10
Psychological Billing
How do psychologists bill their clients? With a good idea of how we are
motivated, you might expect them to do it well. I recently got billed by the
British Psychological Society and indeed it was a persuasive affair.
The bill, for a registration as a qualified psychometrician, was due in
January. In December I received a form to complete and an envelope to return the
money. In January I got another letter, nudging me and reminding me of the
benefits of being listed. In February, I got an email. March was another email
and April brought a letter, and a copy of the letter in an emailed pdf. So at
last I paid up.
Do I need the listing? Not yet, but perhaps I was persuaded. At no time did
they use coercive language -- just a gentle persistence that gradually convinced
me to pay up. Perhaps I should have given up earlier -- an organisation founded
on psychology should know how to persuade -- but being curious, I deliberately
let it ride, and maybe learned a thing or two more about changing minds.
Friday 04-June-10
The pleasure of mystery
One of the disappointing things about science is that it reduces the world,
and us, to the mundane. Magnetism isn't magic -- it's just a field effect. There
was no godly act of creation -- we're just jumped-up monkeys who evolved out of
the primordial soup. Consciousness and the self are just patterns of neural
firing.
Whilst science has its benefits, we still like a good mystery. It engages us.
It fills us with awe. It makes special meaning and adds excitement in an
increasingly predictable world.
Mysteries are unknown and may be unknowable. They can also be comforting,
saving us from having to think too much. Strange events can be dismissed as
'fate' or the will of a deity. We can just shrug and not worry too much.
Mystery is also useful in changing minds. Things that we know and understand
can be safely ignored, but the unknown grabs our
attention, either as a possible
threat or a potential way to satisfy needs. If you present others with dry
facts, they may be ignored or forgotten. The
uncertainty of a mystery, on the
other hand, creates the tension of intrigue and interest, motivating them to
think and act.
One way of presenting a mystery is to
tell a story. Stories have twists and
turns that keep the listener guessing right to the end. Another way is to pose a
problem that has no apparent easy solution, then to lead the people on a journey
of discovery.
So go on then -- be mysterious!
Tuesday 28-May-10
Toilet Ads
Talking about toilets is not something we do every day. In fact when we need
to even mention it, we use euphemisms to avoid embarrassment, such as the loo,
lav, little room, WC, comfort station, and so on. In robust (usually male)
company, people laugh and over-compensate in the other direction to show that
they a not embarrassed at all, and so talk about the bog, john, trap, etc.
So in the spirit of embarrassment, let's talk about it. An interesting
question is about what you do in the loo, other than attending to the natural
business (ok, let's steer clear of that stuff!). Getting to the point, people
are sitting or standing with little to do, which is an ideal opportunity for
advertisers to capture an idle brain that would actually welcome a distraction.
I do see some toilet advertising, but not much. It's kind of a specialist
field as not all brands want to be associated with toilets which they associate
as unpleasant, smelly places. I don't think it is actually that big a deal as
many public toilets in shops and hotels are extremely clean (where else gets
such attention -- often several times a day).
A good toilet ad, then, takes account of the person's situation and gives
them something distracting to read. Ideally, reading time is about as long as,
um, the person is there. Humour can work, especially in men's toilets, but only
to raise a wry grin -- a chap laughing when standing next top you may be taken
as doing so at your expense, so to speak.
Placement is critical and should be at eye level where people are stationary.
I came across an example of really bad placement once, where the ads were nicely
placed at eye level and had a good quantity of text to read, but were placed
between the urinals in a men's toilet. This required a man standing there to
turn his head partly in the direction of the guy standing next to him. This is a
big no-no! In the toilet, especially when doing your business, the rules for men
are eyes forward, ignore others and most definitely never appear in any way to
be looking towards another chap's private parts! The result for that particular
advertiser wasn that their ad would hardly be read.
So. What general lessons can we draw? The bottom line is to be open and
creative in how you think about where you can advertise, seeking out moments
when your audience would actually welcome your advertisement, but always, always
do this based on a sound understanding of human psychology.
Friday 21-May-10
Good trouble at Jamie's
We were in Oxford recently and decided to give 'Jamie's' restaurant a go.
Jamie Oliver is a young British celebrity TV chef who has done a lot to help
young people, from championing nutritious school meals to encouraging young
chefs in setting up their own restaurants. Nice guy. Likely nice restaurant?
Read on...
A table was available and we were ushered down a circular staircase to bijou
cavern. Not salubrious, but pleasantly basic, which suited us fine. A friendly
young lady helped us choose dishes and I plumped for a spring chicken on a
polenta mash with nice sounding sauce over it.
The problem came when I started eating. Every mouthful had bits of bone in
it. I asked for a dish to hold the bits and quickly filled it. Getting less and
less happy, I gave up. And like a good grumpy customer, I decided that the
polenta mash was rather too wishy washy as well. I sat there, plotting what to
say and wondering how to signal my displeasure by giving a miniscule tip.
Then the waitress came by and asked how we were doing. So I told her.
Bluntly, but politely. Expecting excuses, I was surprised when she thanked me,
said she was sorry and that feedback was important to them. She did try a bit of
excuse by saying how spring chickens were bony, but I countered by saying she
could have warned me and that bony bits could be seen as a choking hazard. She
wisely didn't try pressing the argument and apologised again as she took the
dish away.
The icing on the apologetic cake was complete when she came back and said
that we wouldn't be charged anything for the dish. My confidence in Jamie was
fully restored and I thanked her by giving an extra-large tip.
Will we go back again? Most certainly. My wife's dish was delicious, which
shows they can cook well, and, most importantly, they showed that they
understood good service.
Friday 14-May-10
Duelling ideologues and the ancient prince
I recently went to the 'President's Lecture' at the RSA where Professor
Bjorn Lomborg was speaking on climate change. The president, who is HRH the
Duke of Edinburgh (Prince Philip) was chairing the meeting. I sat in the front
row, between an architect and a consultant, and just in front of the Prince.
The presentation was interesting enough, though the architect next to me kept
twitching, shaking his head, muttering and making hurried notes. When it
completed and questions began he leapt up, pretty much grabbed the microphone
and launched into a diatribe about how the speaker was misquoting research and
using fallacies in his argument. The speaker started to respond and the
architect interjected again and a bit of a shouting match ensued. Prince Philip
joined in, telling the architect to let the speaker finish and I patted him (the
architect, not the Prince) on the arm to sit down, which he did.
The next questioner then went off on another rant, criticizing the RSA for
inviting such a charlatan and renouncing his fellowship before storming out. And
in a show of outraged solidarity, the architect followed suit.
In the stunned vacuum that followed, I took the microphone and posed the
question that perhaps the deeper question for climate change, as illustrated so
graphically here, is one of agreement. Curiously, the speaker didn't answer my
question, thought the word 'agreement' did seem to crop up a number of times
after.
Prince Philip was marvellous throughout. He directed questioners and hushed
interlopers with a vigorous directness that belied his 89 years. At the end, he
sat back and said, with a wry grin, 'Well, with all this business, I'm glad I'm
old!'
Friday 07-May-10
Non-stop negotiation
I was walking to work this morning and noticing how, as we walk along we are
in a non-stop series of
negotiations with other people as we somehow manage to navigate the
rush-hour throng without constantly bumping into other people.
Consider how you avoid another pedestrian. From a collision course, each
person signals their intent by either turning slightly or maybe not turning ('I
expect you to get out of my way!'). If both turn then another collision may be
imminent so both may turn again or wait for the other. If I see a collision
coming I often stop dead and let the other person figure out what to do to get
around me. I've never had
The same pattern applies to crossing the road, albeit more hazardously. I see
a car coming, the car sees me stepping off the pavement, and somehow we manage
to miss one another. This is particularly true in London where I often walk. In
other places it seems as if the pedestrian is expected to get out of the way,
running and diving as necessary, but in London the taxis and other professional
drivers stay relaxed and pedestrians don't worry too much about being run over
as they cross the road.
This pattern continues into other areas of life. How often, for example do
you silently negotiate in conversations about who speaks when? Issues of power,
fairness and need are resolved through action rather than explicit discussion.
As a general persuasion point this is worthy of reflection. If you can
consciously navigate what are normally subconscious negotiations then you can
become a lot more successful at changing minds
Your comments
Wow! A mind I can relate to. I live in the US and have noticed these
types of rules change from state to state. I have been to 5 different countries
and have noticed how people "negotiate" the sideways and roadways. My intention
thus far has been to observe and learn, for more survival motives. However, I
haven't made this correlation between this observation and how we verbally
negotiate our way in the world. This insight on your part will help me as I am
always working on how I relate to the world and people. Thanks, Dave
