3. Confusion

Under circumstances where we are overloaded with tasks or information, it’s possible to bypass the process of critical evaluation and shorten the convincer mode.

If you have ever had to make a rapid decision under difficult circumstances, it’s easy to understand how some ‘facts’ might slip by unquestioned.

Gilbert and co-workers demonstrated that confusion or fatigue could cause their test subjects to use untrue statements in decision making, even though the false statements had been marked out in red (3).

Popular Convincer Channels

Since most people are known to have a preference for either see or hear Convincer Channels, these are the most frequently used means of persuasion. Television and newspapers are full of powerful images - and one of the latest trends in marketing is viral marketing through word of mouth.

On an everyday level, we use multiple channels to evaluate each other. Do the salesman’s words match his nonverbal messages? Do the expert’s ‘facts’ agree with what I experienced last week, or read in yesterday’s newspaper?

To find out how we use these methods to decide what we believe to be real, see part 3: Managing Reality.

References:

1. Milgram, S., "Behavioral Study of Obedience", Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 67, 371–378 (1963)

2. Stars must 'check science facts'
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/6224859.stm

3. Gilbert, D.T., Tafarodi, R.W., Malone, P.S., “

Qualified Sources

Firstly, it can make a difference if you are familiar with the source of the information.

If that person/newspaper/TV program is one that you have judged to present good information in the past, you are likely to become convinced more quickly or with fewer examples.

Conversely, a source that has proven untrustworthy in the past will have to work harder to convince. For example, if The Onion printed an unlikely yet true story, few would believe it!

Like many other things in life, we form generalisations about who and what should be trusted. Mr X is always right, the Daily Blurb always tells the real story, the news on Channel X is never biased and so on.

Occasionally, we get caught out, so it’s useful to remember that those are just ‘rules of thumb’ and not absolutes.

Undeniable Plausibility

Generalisations form part of our internal idea of how the world works - our ‘model of the world’.

If a potential new idea or ‘fact’ overlaps to some degree with your internal model of the world, in other words if it is plausible, it will take less time or require fewer examples for you to be convinced it is true.

Generally, this is an extremely useful shortcut that allows us to move through the world more easily. However, things can occasionally go wrong.

This is especially true of areas where you might have little or no knowledge. Without expert help, you may be forced to work your way through a situation using faulty assumptions based on a completely different type of experience.

In short, you may attempt to make the new information fit into your current model of the world. We all can see that painting a portrait is quite different from painting a fence, yet sometimes the flaw in reasoning isn’t so apparent.

Consistent Messages

In order to be convincing, a message must be reasonably consistent. If we’re collecting examples of something, a new example must be sufficiently similar to (or not significantly different from) the information we already have.

So the best thing to do to convince someone is to keep delivering the same message through the same source until they believe it? Not exactly.

Very often, if we get the same message from the same source, we treat it as only one example.

Think about it this way. Have you ever had someone tell you about a movie they liked that you’d never heard of before? Suppose they just kept saying ‘Go see it, it’s really great!” every time you met them.

Is that, by itself, convincing? Or would you ask someone else’s opinion too, go online and read reviews or look in the newspaper for more info?

I’m betting that you’d gather more information first, especially through a broad range of channels. And that breadth of information tends to form a stronger conviction.

So the messages must be sufficiently similar in order to qualify as examples of the same thing, yet sufficiently different to qualify as new examples. Marketers know this, so they present a consistent message about their products in a variety of ways.

In the first part of this article, I described how most people need several examples over a reasonable period of time in order to be convinced.

There are several important exceptions to this.

1. Power of Authority

Who qualifies as an authority? Generally, we seem to attach greater significance to information coming from people who we consider to be experts, or who hold positions of authority over us.

Usually, this is a good policy. For example, if I wanted to know something about nuclear physics, I’d lend more weight to the word of someone who has a PhD and works as a physicist, than the opinion of a passing stranger.

But if we accept someone as an authority, we are less critical about all of the opinions that seem to fall within their area of expertise.

Famously, the sociologist Stanley Milgram explored this in what is now known as ‘the Milgram Experiment’ (1). Briefly, he wanted to see how far people would go in following orders from a person in a position of authority. A significant proportion of the subjects in his experiment (65%) administered what they thought were lethal electric shocks - as a result of following the orders of a man in a white coat who was only allowed to tell them to continue the experiment using four pre-selected phrases.

Medical Doctors are also acknowledged as authorities and their opinions can be extremely convincing. In other professions, we are often encouraged to shop around to get a consensus, while in medicine, a “second opinion” is considered to be extremely cautious - and very few go so far as a third opinion!

However, celebrities have also become authorities and can have a huge influence on the public. I have no problem with an expert golfer selling golf clubs, or an Olympic sprinter selling running shoes.

The problem arises when celebrity names become associated with things they aren’t qualified to endorse.

This issue has recently been in the news as celebrities have been asked to check their facts before lending support to campaigns that make scientific claims (2).

And that’s what the power of authority does - it adds more significance to the information.

2. Significant Examples

If an example is especially significant, it can cause us to form a generalisation just from that one instance. This is an important safety mechanism that takes precedence over our normal convincers.

Think about it. How many times does a child have to be burned by a flame, before they learn that putting their hand in the fire is painful? Only once, as it’s a really significant example.

Emotional intensity can make an example significant in that way, bypassing the usual convincers.

For example, one rough ride on an aeroplane out of dozens of good flights can convince a person that flying is ‘dangerous’. Just one intense counter-example can overturn a large number of normal examples.

What has sufficient emotional intensity? How about the “four F’s” from sociology - Fighting, Fleeing, Feeding and Finding a mate - to put it most politely. They’re all designed to be strong motivators that get a job done right away.

These powerful biological imperatives can short-circuit the normal convincers, through imposing a greater sense of significance on the related information.

3. Confusion

Under circumstances where we are overloaded with tasks or information, it’s possible to bypass the process of critical evaluation and shorten the convincer mode.

If you have ever had to make a rapid decision under difficult circumstances, it’s easy to understand how some ‘facts’ might slip by unquestioned.

Gilbert and co-workers demonstrated that confusion or fatigue could cause their test subjects to use untrue statements in decision making, even though the false statements had been marked out in red (3).

Popular Convincer Channels

Since most people are known to have a preference for either see or hear Convincer Channels, these are the most frequently used means of persuasion. Television and newspapers are full of powerful images - and one of the latest trends in marketing is viral marketing through word of mouth.

On an everyday level, we use multiple channels to evaluate each other. Do the salesman’s words match his nonverbal messages? Do the expert’s ‘facts’ agree with what I experienced last week, or read in yesterday’s newspaper?

To find out how we use these methods to decide what we believe to be real, see part 3: Managing Reality.

References:

1. Milgram, S., "Behavioral Study of Obedience", Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 67, 371–378 (1963)

2. Stars must 'check science facts'
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/6224859.stm

3. Gilbert, D.T., Tafarodi, R.W., Malone, P.S., “Y

In short, you may attempt to make the new information fit into your current model of the world. We all can see that painting a portrait is quite different from painting a fence, yet sometimes the flaw in reasoning isn’t so apparent.

Consistent Messages

In order to be convincing, a message must be reasonably consistent. If we’re collecting examples of something, a new example must be sufficiently similar to (or not significantly different from) the information we already have.

So the best thing to do to convince someone is to keep delivering the same message through the same source until they believe it? Not exactly.

Very often, if we get the same message from the same source, we treat it as only one example.

Think about it this way. Have you ever had someone tell you about a movie they liked that you’d never heard of before? Suppose they just kept saying ‘Go see it, it’s really great!” every time you met them.

Is that, by itself, convincing? Or would you ask someone else’s opinion too, go online and read reviews or look in the newspaper for more info?

I’m betting that you’d gather more information first, especially through a broad range of channels. And that breadth of information tends to form a stronger conviction.

So the messages must be sufficiently similar in order to qualify as examples of the same thing, yet sufficiently different to qualify as new examples. Marketers know this, so they present a consistent message about their products in a variety of ways.

In the first part of this article, I described how most people need several examples over a reasonable period of time in order to be convinced.

There are several important exceptions to this.

1. Power of Authority

Who qualifies as an authority? Generally, we seem to attach greater significance to information coming from people who we consider to be experts, or who hold positions of authority over us.

Usually, this is a good policy. For example, if I wanted to know something about nuclear physics, I’d lend more weight to the word of someone who has a PhD and works as a physicist, than the opinion of a passing stranger.

But if we accept someone as an authority, we are less critical about all of the opinions that seem to fall within their area of expertise.

Famously, the sociologist Stanley Milgram explored this in what is now known as ‘the Milgram Experiment’ (1). Briefly, he wanted to see how far people would go in following orders from a person in a position of authority. A significant proportion of the subjects in his experiment (65%) administered what they thought were lethal electric shocks - as a result of following the orders of a man in a white coat who was only allowed to tell them to continue the experiment using four pre-selected phrases.

Medical Doctors are also acknowledged as authorities and their opinions can be extremely convincing. In other professions, we are often encouraged to shop around to get a consensus, while in medicine, a “second opinion” is considered to be extremely cautious - and very few go so far as a third opinion!

However, celebrities have also become authorities and can have a huge influence on the public. I have no problem with an expert golfer selling golf clubs, or an Olympic sprinter selling running shoes.

The problem arises when celebrity names become associated with things they aren’t qualified to endorse.

This issue has recently been in the news as celebrities have been asked to check their facts before lending support to campaigns that make scientific claims (2).

And that’s what the power of authority does - it adds more significance to the information.

2. Significant Examples

If an example is especially significant, it can cause us to form a generalisation just from that one instance. This is an important safety mechanism that takes precedence over our normal convincers.

Think about it. How many times does a child have to be burned by a flame, before they learn that putting their hand in the fire is painful? Only once, as it’s a really significant example.

Emotional intensity can make an example significant in that way, bypassing the usual convincers.

For example, one rough ride on an aeroplane out of dozens of good flights can convince a person that flying is ‘dangerous’. Just one intense counter-example can overturn a large number of normal examples.

What has sufficient emotional intensity? How about the “four F’s” from sociology - Fighting, Fleeing, Feeding and Finding a mate - to put it most politely. They’re all designed to be strong motivators that get a job done right away.

These powerful biological imperatives can short-circuit the normal convincers, through imposing a greater sense of significance on the related information.

3. Confusion

Under circumstances where we are overloaded with tasks or information, it’s possible to bypass the process of critical evaluation and shorten the convincer mode.

If you have ever had to make a rapid decision under difficult circumstances, it’s easy to understand how some ‘facts’ might slip by unquestioned.

Gilbert and co-workers demonstrated that confusion or fatigue could cause their test subjects to use untrue statements in decision making, even though the false statements had been marked out in red (3).

Popular Convincer Channels

Since most people are known to have a preference for either see or hear Convincer Channels, these are the most frequently used means of persuasion. Television and newspapers are full of powerful images - and one of the latest trends in marketing is viral marketing through word of mouth.

On an everyday level, we use multiple channels to evaluate each other. Do the salesman’s words match his nonverbal messages? Do the expert’s ‘facts’ agree with what I experienced last week, or read in yesterday’s newspaper?

To find out how we use these methods to decide what we believe to be real, see part 3: Managing Reality.

References:

1. Milgram, S., "Behavioral Study of Obedience", Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 67, 371–378 (1963)

2. Stars must 'check science facts'
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/6224859.stm

3. Gilbert, D.T., Tafarodi, R.W., Malone, P.S., “

In the first part of this article, I described how most people need several examples over a reasonable period of time in order to be convinced.

There are several important exceptions to this.

1. Power of Authority

Who qualifies as an authority? Generally, we seem to attach greater significance to information coming from people who we consider to be experts, or who hold positions of authority over us.

Usually, this is a good policy. For example, if I wanted to know something about nuclear physics, I’d lend more weight to the word of someone who has a PhD and works as a physicist, than the opinion of a passing stranger.

But if we accept someone as an authority, we are less critical about all of the opinions that seem to fall within their area of expertise.

Famously, the sociologist Stanley Milgram explored this in what is now known as ‘the Milgram Experiment’ (1). Briefly, he wanted to see how far people would go in following orders from a person in a position of authority. A significant proportion of the subjects in his experiment (65%) administered what they thought were lethal electric shocks - as a result of following the orders of a man in a white coat who was only allowed to tell them to continue the experiment using four pre-selected phrases.

Medical Doctors are also acknowledged as authorities and their opinions can be extremely convincing. In other professions, we are often encouraged to shop around to get a consensus, while in medicine, a “second opinion” is considered to be extremely cautious - and very few go so far as a third opinion!

However, celebrities have also become authorities and can have a huge influence on the public. I have no problem with an expert golfer selling golf clubs, or an Olympic sprinter selling running shoes.

The problem arises when celebrity names become associated with things they aren’t qualified to endorse.

This issue has recently been in the news as celebrities have been asked to check their facts before lending support to campaigns that make scientific claims (2).

And that’s what the power of authority does - it adds more significance to the information.

2. Significant Examples

If an example is especially significant, it can cause us to form a generalisation just from that one instance. This is an important safety mechanism that takes precedence over our normal convincers.

Think about it. How many times does a child have to be burned by a flame, before they learn that putting their hand in the fire is painful? Only once, as it’s a really significant example.

Emotional intensity can make an example significant in that way, bypassing the usual convincers.

For example, one rough ride on an aeroplane out of dozens of good flights can convince a person that flying is ‘dangerous’. Just one intense counter-example can overturn a large number of normal examples.

What has sufficient emotional intensity? How about the “four F’s” from sociology - Fighting, Fleeing, Feeding and Finding a mate - to put it most politely. They’re all designed to be strong motivators that get a job done right away.

These powerful biological imperatives can short-circuit the normal convincers, through imposing a greater sense of significance on the related information.

3. Confusion

Under circumstances where we are overloaded with tasks or information, it’s possible to bypass the process of critical evaluation and shorten the convincer mode.

If you have ever had to make a rapid decision under difficult circumstances, it’s easy to understand how some ‘facts’ might slip by unquestioned.

Gilbert and co-workers demonstrated that confusion or fatigue could cause their test subjects to use untrue statements in decision making, even though the false statements had been marked out in red (3).

Popular Convincer Channels

Since most people are known to have a preference for either see or hear Convincer Channels, these are the most frequently used means of persuasion. Television and newspapers are full of powerful images - and one of the latest trends in marketing is viral marketing through word of mouth.

On an everyday level, we use multiple channels to evaluate each other. Do the salesman’s words match his nonverbal messages? Do the expert’s ‘facts’ agree with what I experienced last week, or read in yesterday’s newspaper?

To find out how we use these methods to decide what we believe to be real, see part 3: Managing Reality.

References:

1. Milgram, S., "Behavioral Study of Obedience", Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 67, 371–378 (1963)

2. Stars must 'check science facts'
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/6224859.stm

3. Gilbert, D.T., Tafarodi, R.W., Malone, P.S., “

However, celebrities have also become authorities and can have a huge influence on the public. I have no problem with an expert golfer selling golf clubs, or an Olympic sprinter selling running shoes.

The problem arises when celebrity names become associated with things they aren’t qualified to endorse.

This issue has recently been in the news as celebrities have been asked to check their facts before lending support to campaigns that make scientific claims (2).

And that’s what the power of authority does - it adds more significance to the information.

2. Significant Examples

If an example is especially significant, it can cause us to form a generalisation just from that one instance. This is an important safety mechanism that takes precedence over our normal convincers.

Think about it. How many times does a child have to be burned by a flame, before they learn that putting their hand in the fire is painful? Only once, as it’s a really significant example.

Emotional intensity can make an example significant in that way, bypassing the usual convincers.

For example, one rough ride on an aeroplane out of dozens of good flights can convince a person that flying is ‘dangerous’. Just one intense counter-example can overturn a large number of normal examples.

What has sufficient emotional intensity? How about the “four F’s” from sociology - Fighting, Fleeing, Feeding and Finding a mate - to put it most politely. They’re all designed to be strong motivators that get a job done right away.

These powerful biological imperatives can short-circuit the normal convincers, through imposing a greater sense of significance on the related information.

3. Confusion

Under circumstances where we are overloaded with tasks or information, it’s possible to bypass the process of critical evaluation and shorten the convincer mode.

If you have ever had to make a rapid decision under difficult circumstances, it’s easy to understand how some ‘facts’ might slip by unquestioned.

Gilbert and co-workers demonstrated that confusion or fatigue could cause their test subjects to use untrue statements in decision making, even though the false statements had been marked out in red (3).

Popular Convincer Channels

Since most people are known to have a preference for either see or hear Convincer Channels, these are the most frequently used means of persuasion. Television and newspapers are full of powerful images - and one of the latest trends in marketing is viral marketing through word of mouth.

On an everyday level, we use multiple channels to evaluate each other. Do the salesman’s words match his nonverbal messages? Do the expert’s ‘facts’ agree with what I experienced last week, or read in yesterday’s newspaper?

To find out how we use these methods to decide what we believe to be real, see part 3: Managing Reality.

References:

1. Milgram, S., "Behavioral Study of Obedience", Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 67, 371–378 (1963)

2. Stars must 'check science facts'
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/6224859.stm

3. Gilbert, D.T., Tafarodi, R.W., Malone, P.S., “

3. Confusion

Under circumstances where we are overloaded with tasks or information, it’s possible to bypass the process of critical evaluation and shorten the convincer mode.

If you have ever had to make a rapid decision under difficult circumstances, it’s easy to understand how some ‘facts’ might slip by unquestioned.

Gilbert and co-workers demonstrated that confusion or fatigue could cause their test subjects to use untrue statements in decision making, even though the false statements had been marked out in red (3).

Popular Convincer Channels

Since most people are known to have a preference for either see or hear Convincer Channels, these are the most frequently used means of persuasion. Television and newspapers are full of powerful images - and one of the latest trends in marketing is viral marketing through word of mouth.

On an everyday level, we use multiple channels to evaluate each other. Do the salesman’s words match his nonverbal messages? Do the expert’s ‘facts’ agree with what I experienced last week, or read in yesterday’s newspaper?

To find out how we use these methods to decide what we believe to be real, see part 3: Managing Reality.

References:

1. Milgram, S., "Behavioral Study of Obedience", Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 67, 371–378 (1963)

2. Stars must 'check science facts'
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/6224859.stm

3. Gilbert, D.T., Tafarodi, R.W., Malone, P.S., “You can't not believe everything you read”, Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 65, 221-233. (1993)