I was having a flu jab the other day (because I believe in the amazing power of vaccines to prevent illness and protect vulnerable people in our community from infection) and told the nurse I was the editor of the NZ Skeptics (I know what a bragger!), and guess what, she assumed I didn't believe in vaccines. I soon cleared things up and she seemed genuinely relieved and shook my hand. It made me wonder what type of negative experiences she's had with people when they found out what her job is, and also if the idea of skepticism perhaps needs a bit of positive P.R.
Luckily for me I was enrolled in a soft skills course recently at work all about ‘Influencing'. Great I thought, I'll find out some techniques on how to change people's minds about not vaccinating their children, or gain an insight into why fake news seems so prevalent these days.
The course started off with a discussion based on cards that described different personality types. It reminded me quite a bit of my Chinese Astrology book, sorting people into categories like ‘The Carer', ‘The Analyst', and ‘The Player' and so on. Turns out I'm an Analyst. As a skeptic journal Editor and Business process analyst you should expect no less.
After a personality quiz, some slides and role playing, here for you are the main points I took home:
-
Over 80 percent of influencing people isn't the words they say, it's the body language, tone and other non-verbal cues.
-
People are more likely to buy into what you say if you are like them.
-
People are more likely to be influenced by what you say if you ask them questions first to find out where they are coming from.
-
Making suggestions rather than imposing an answer on someone is more likely to influence someone to change their minds.
This all made me, as the All Blacks would say “Pause and Think”.
So point one and two seem to explain an awful lot of what is wrong with the world and why bias is so prevalent. You could say it helps explain why there is a gender pay gap, why people spend so much on uncomfortable shoes, and why people follow terrible and dangerous celebrity advice—placenta shake anyone?
Point two explains why if you are in the in-group you'll be looked after, but if not, you're going to have a hell of a time getting your message across.
Point three offers a solution to counter the bias (if you can overcome point two and spend some considerable effort to fluff up your message – see point one). If I can only ask face-to-face where someone is coming from, presuming I can get a foot in the door, then they might listen. This really is the hard bit, given our time-poor lifestyles, our faces glued to our screens, or in an office environment dominated by a certain narrow demographic with tight deadlines.
Finally, point four tells us suggestions are supposed to influence more than proclamations. My understanding of televangelists and dictatorial world leaders jars with this statement. I further suspect it is repetition of ideas since childbirth, and cultural and peer pressure that truly influences people, but on reflection, I'd probably be more likely to give someone else a look in if they suggested an idea for me to mull over (and investigate in my own time) rather than ramming an idea down my throat.
I know I love getting asked “Why are skeptics so closed minded?” Perhaps we can use our new skills to turn that around and ask “Would you like to go for a beer and talk about that?”