The Death of Halloween
As I write these words my calendar tells me it’s October 31 - Halloween - but I suspect it’s lying. The homes and porches in our area were so dark tonight I almost called CPS to report an outage. More yards were decorated with Bush and Kerry signs than Jack O’Lanterns, by far. And there weren’t enough trick or treaters on the streets to fill a mini-van.
Halloween used to mean something. It was a night for make-believe. A night to be with friends. But most of all it was a night for our kids to have fun. Now, it’s just a big nothing.
Have we lost our sense of fun around here? Have we adults forgotten how much fun we had on Halloween when we were kids? Or is it just too much trouble to carve a pumpkin, wear some plastic fangs and hand out Milk Duds?
Whatever the reason one thing is for certain. This year Halloween wasn’t scary. It was pathetic.
Posted on Monday, November 01, 2004 at 07:12 AM
(0) Comments • Permalink • Printer friendly
Share Blair:
The mother of this year’s political messages
Want to see something really scary? Check out this incredible piece of work:
Click here for the scariest political ad I’ve ever seen
Absolutely chilling no matter what side of the issue you take.
P.S. This guy’s site is apparently getting blasted with traffic. If you can’t get through, try later. It’s worth it.
Posted on Tuesday, October 26, 2004 at 09:41 AM
(0) Comments • Permalink • Printer friendly
Share Blair:
Touching the Void
If you like movies that illustrate the indomitable human spirit and you have not yet seen Touching the Void, run, don’t walk, to the video store and grab it. It is that good. I literally was pacing the floor for the last half hour of the film. Stunning, horrifying and inspirational all at the same time. Fabulous, fabulous film!
Posted on Friday, July 09, 2004 at 05:05 AM
(0) Comments • Permalink • Printer friendly
Share Blair:
The Ugly Truth About Honest Communication
One of the biggest impediments to our improving our persuasion skills is honesty. Not honesty toward our targets, but honesty about our own behavior and intentions.
Consider…
Everyone is a manipulator. Good people, bad people, young people, old people. None of us can escape this one. If we are going to survive, we are going to manipulate.
If you’ve ever seen a pitchman working a crowd at a carnival or fair you may have witnessed the shadier side of persuasion. Some pitchmen use confederates in the audience who are instructed to eagerly step forward to buy the pitchman’s product when the buying stage of the pitch begins. This creates a sense of urgency and desire in the genuine audience members who may have been hesitant to buy before the sudden “rush” for the product. Sounds a bit sleazy, doesn’t it? Even if the product is an excellent value and a perfect match for the audience members, few of us could justify the use of such a blatant manipulative tactic and still consider ourselves “ethical” persuaders.
Now let’s take a look at another type of pitch. The Evangelical Crusade.
It has been reported that when some evangelical preachers call for those in the audience to step forward to give their lives to Christ, they aren’t always relying on just the Holy Spirit to get them moving. Apparently, before an event, a number of volunteers may be dispersed throughout the audience waiting for their signal to “spontaneously” come forward. In their wake, many of the remaining audience members follow suit.(1) This very example has been offered by some persuasion experts to show the ethical use of the principle of social proof or consensus. Now, if it is true that this example is ethical while our pitchman’s use of the identical principle is sleazy, we must ask ourselves why this is so. The answer?
Denying this doesn’t make one less of a manipulator. Denying this makes one a less conscious manipulator. And that often makes one a less effective manipulator.
We are hypocrites.
The truth is, everyone is a manipulator. Good people, bad people, young people, old people. None of us can escape this one. If we are going to survive, we are going to manipulate. Of course, no one likes to think of themselves this way. Sure, other people manipulate, but not me. I have good intentions. I would never do such a thing. Now, granted, some people won’t go out and do it intentionally, but don’t be misled. They’ll go out and manipulate just the same. You can count on it. Why? Because manipulation is a part of our very existence. We manipulate the environment, we manipulate people and we manipulate circumstances all in an effort to meet our needs and ensure our survival.
Denying this doesn’t make one less of a manipulator. Denying this makes one a less conscious manipulator. And that often makes one a less effective manipulator.
“...we are all at the mercy of influences of which we are unaware and over which we have virtually no conscious control. What is even more frightening is that we ourselves, no matter how careful and discreet we believe ourselves to be, are constantly influencing others in ways of which we may be only dimly or not at all aware. Indeed, we may unconsciously be responsible for influences of which we consciously know nothing and which, if we knew them, we might find totally unacceptable.” (2)
Dr. Paul Watzlawick, Psychotherapist
The most persuasive messages have little if anything to do with logic, ethics, full disclosure or any other pleasant sounding terminology; they have to do with touching the other person deeply.
We are far more powerful, and have far more impact on others, than we can even imagine. Yet, most of us fail to experience this power. Why? Because our unacknowledged hypocrisy leads to ignorance. Ignorance of our own power. We literally do not know the range of persuasive tools at our disposal.
Parents plead their cases with their children. Salesmen do the same with their clients all to no avail. Why? Because more often than not the “magic” of persuasion isn’t in their words or their arguments. It is elsewhere. It is literally outside the scope of their awareness and all the volume and persistence in the world won’t fix the problem. If anything, they’ll make it worse.
Too often we approach persuasion as if it were merely a matter of finding the right stream of words to say to another person. Every word will be true, everything that should be disclosed will be disclosed. I will answer every question and address every concern. This is the ethical way. One can’t argue with that. However, it is also the way of the dead. The dead argument that is.
The most persuasive messages around have little if anything to do with logic, ethics, full disclosure or any other pleasant sounding terminology; they have to do with touching the other person deeply. This requires sensitivity, awareness, compassion, and yes, occasionally deception. Not deception for the sake of trickery but for the sake of drama for it is drama that can move men where nothing else will.
And despite what some moralists would have you to believe, many of the “victims” of these deceptions are some of the most satisfied “customers” on earth.
Jesus often taught through parables rather than simply stating what he meant directly. Why? Because this works more often than not. Thunderous evangelists create images and energy from the pulpit that can literally be felt by those who hear them. Why? Because this works more often than not. When romancing women, smart men rarely state their ultimate intentions and instead wow their potential mates with dinner, dancing and conversation. Why? Because this works more often than not.
Do the recipients of these indirect persuasion techniques complain after they have been affected in the process? Rarely. In fact, they are often grateful for having been touched so profoundly. The fact is, while people may profess to want direct, honest communication few respond to it. Sorry, but it’s true.
Am I advocating deception? If the circumstances call for it, you bet. Each of the examples I just used and countless others could be seen as, what some philosophers have called, benevolent deceptions. The persuader isn’t necessarily trying to “fool” the person but instead get around the person’s natural tendency to reject straight, logical arguments. Of course, this sounds nasty but there’s a reason why it is often necessary in our relationships with others. You may have already guessed it. It’s because it works more often than not.
We aren’t looking for people to tell the truth to us. We’re looking for people to be true to us. True as in genuine, loyal and faithful - even if that requires a little manipulation and deception along the way.
It works because this is the way we are wired. It is our nature. And despite what some moralists would have you to believe, many of the “victims” of these deceptions are some of the most satisfied “customers” on earth.
So there it is. Manipulation. Deception. Power. It’s all there whether we acknowledge it or not. The only problem is, it is only by acknowledging it that we can come to practice it with integrity. Otherwise we are lost in the land of hypocrisy.
Do we owe others the truth? Absolutely. Especially when we are asked a question point blank. How much is this going to cost me? Whose lipstick is that on your collar? What were you doing the night of the murder? Try telling anything less than the truth in situations like these and see what you get.
But the majority of situations in day-to-day life are rarely so cut and dried. The blunt truth is often the last thing we’re looking for. No, we aren’t looking for people to tell the truth to us. We’re looking for people to be true to us. True as in genuine, loyal and faithful - even if that requires a little manipulation and deception along the way.
This is ugly stuff. This is the stuff no one wants to talk about. And why is it so difficult for us to accept it? Because to acknowledge that we cannot help but manipulate and deceive and then couple this with the fact that we impact others in ways we can hardly imagine is overwhelming. How do we deal with the moral issues when they aren’t as black and white as we have been led to believe?
Sure we can deny this and resolve to only speak “the truth” and let the chips fall where they may. While it isn’t possible to actually do this, at least pretending to do so gives us the right to claim the “moral high ground.” But what if in doing so we fail to meet the deeper emotional needs of those in our lives and end up losing them to other people? Who will be to blame then?
Or perhaps we shouldn’t concern ourselves with whether or not we will be manipulative but rather how we will be manipulative and what effect this will have on those around us. Could it be that this is how we will ultimately be judged?
Notes:
1. Though this claim has been mentioned by others in the field of persuasion, I originally learned of this in Robert Cialdini’s excellent book, Influence, (Allyn and Bacon, 2001), in which he quotes from the following source: Altheide, D.L., & Johnson, J.M. (1977). Counting souls: A study of counseling at evangelical crusades. Pacific Sociological Review, 20, 323-348.
2. How Real is Real: Confusion, Disinformation and Communication, Copyright 1976 by Paul Watzlawick. Published by Vintage Books, 1977.
Posted on Wednesday, May 05, 2004 at 11:14 PM
(1) Comments • Permalink • Printer friendly
Share Blair:
The Stranger in the Corner
A priest was arrested for allegedly exposing himself to an undercover police officer. That’s what this morning’s local newscast reported. After watching this my 11-year-old son, Zac, turned to me and asked, “How could he do something like that if he’s a priest?”
Just the other day a friend was complaining that his father showed little interest in his life. My friend got more compliments and interest in his work from total strangers than he did from his own father. He wondered, “How could he be so disinterested in me? Afterall, he’s my father.”
This same basic question shows up everywhere. How could a mother kill her own kids? How could a husband murder his own wife? How could my own child have stolen from me? How could my own (fill in the blank with your favorite label) do this to me?
Why are we so often shocked by these types of situations? How can we explain this?
Here’s what I told my son.
“Imagine there’s a total stranger standing over there in the corner,” I said. “He’s a totally normal looking guy but a complete stranger. We know absolutely nothing about him. Can you imagine that?” I asked.
My son nodded.
“Okay, do you think that man is capable of doing good things in his life?”
“Sure,” my son responded.
“Me, too. Now, do you think he is also capable of doing bad things in his life?”
“Of course.”
“I agree,” I said. “But let’s change things a bit. What if we called this guy ‘Fred’ - do you think he’s still capable of doing both good and bad things?”
Zac nodded again.
“How about if we called him ‘Barney’?”
He nodded again but with a confused look on his face.
“Now, how about if we called him ‘Priest’?
My son smiled. And just like that he understood.
“Don’t ever forget what I just taught you,” I told him. “I don’t care what people are called, whether it’s Fred, Daddy, Priest, President or Doctor, the name does not change the fact that they’re human. They’re capable of many things. Good things, bad things and everything in between.”
This is such an obvious point, isn’t it? We all “know” this, so why even bring it up?
Because while we all “know” it, we too often forget it.
If you don’t believe me, just ask yourself why you were so shocked or angered the last time someone acted against their label. Perhaps your “spouse” ridiculed rather than comforted you. Your “best friend” betrayed your confidence. Or maybe you heard of a teacher, preacher or parent doing something “despicable”. Whatever the situation, chances are a label, and all the expectations we’ve been trained to believe goes with it, blinded us to reality of the human condition.
Whether we call someone Fred, Priest, Mom, Dad, Son, Daughter, or anything else the label doesn’t remove what that person - as a human being - is capable of.
But of course, we already knew this, didn’t we?
I just wonder how long it will be before we forget it and get blindsided - again.
Posted on Wednesday, May 05, 2004 at 10:30 PM
(5) Comments • Permalink • Printer friendly
Share Blair:
