Psychologist Robert Cialdini wrote the seminal book on the Laws of Persuasion[1] in which he presents and discusses the prevalent methods of marketing. An important part of critical thinking entails a knowledge of these principles so that one is aware of when they are being used and can ascertain the validity of that use. Dr. Cialdini enumerates six principles or Laws of Persuasion as he calls them.

1-LAW OF RECIPROCITY

This law observes that people generally try to repay in kind what another person has provided to them. If someone gives you something, especially unsolicited, a sense of obligation is created to respond back somehow. We have probably all received those address labels in the mail from various non-profit organizations requesting a charitable donation. Feeling compelled to “return the favor” results in more donations.

This rule is appropriately used in negotiations when the ideas of fairness and equal exchange are on the table. The old adage of “give him a yard and he’ll take a mile” describes an inappropriate use: reciprocity implies a mutually agreed upon equality in whatever is exchanged; thus the other old saying, “you scratch my back, I’ll scratch yours.”

Many conflicts in human relationships occur when expectations of reciprocity go unfulfilled, especially when the party receiving the benefit refuses to recognize, or is totally ignorant of, the favor they received (for a biblical example, read 1 Samuel 25). Often the favor given is merely in the eyes of the one giving it and offense arises when the alleged recipient fails to acknowledge having received such a favor when, in fact, they received nothing of value to them in the first place. (The concept of gratitude is also related to this law but would require more discussion than is necessary for now.)

Interestingly, Christian ethics removes this potential source of conflict from human relationships by demanding the exact opposite behavior on the part of Christians, even to the point of how one treats one’s enemies:

And if you lend to those from whom you hope to receive back, what credit is that to you? For even sinners lend to sinners to receive as much back.  But love your enemies, do good, and lend, hoping for nothing in return; and your reward will be great, and you will be sons of the Most High.  For He is kind to the unthankful and evil.  (Luke 6:34-35)

2-LAW OF COMMITMENT AND CONSISTENCY

People instinctively do not want to appear to be capricious and mercurial, but consistent in their thoughts, feelings, and actions, and so will resist change once their minds are made up or they have taken a stand, however small. All too often, this includes ignoring contrary facts and data and rationalizing one’s choices even when the evidence shows a mistake was made (pride and an unwillingness to admit a mistake frequently enters the picture here). In a marketing situation, once a commitment is made to a cause or product, however small, it then becomes easier to be convinced to increase that commitment.

Resistance to change is not necessarily bad, and change (“progress”) is not necessarily good. It truly depends on the extent to which the current situation conforms to reality versus that to which change is being advocated. (The current administration is initiating “change” with policies that have repeatedly failed throughout history, but apparently those failures are being willfully ignored in an incredible dissociation from reality, dooming us to a repetition of the disasters of history.) A very wise man once noted:

My son, fear the LORD and the king; do not associate with those given to change; for their calamity will rise suddenly, and who knows the ruin those two can bring? (Proverbs 24:21-22)

An example of employing this law as a persuasion tactic is the use of a series of questions which lead the other side through “small” decisions step-by-step to only one obvious conclusion: to accept the general concession. Once you say “yes” to the first steps, it becomes increasingly more difficult to say “no” at the end of the question chain even if the final question would normally elicit a negative response. The key is making the steps small, with only one desirable response.

This method is not a necessarily a bad thing. Frequently, a logical argument needs to proceed in discrete steps to a final inevitable conclusion using data correctly extracted and applied, and using logic appropriately. The entrapment occurs when the logic is invalid or the data used is false or distorted by hidden premises in its use. A classic “neutral” example is the old mathematical “proof” that 2 equals 1:

Let a = b, then

Q.E.D.!!!

Each step in this “proof” is mathematically valid taken separately; you are either doing the same thing to both sides of the equation, or correctly rearranging the components of each side. Nevertheless, the obvious conclusion is equally obviously wrong to the point of absurdity (even in “new” math)! Why? Hidden in the “big picture” and this chain of “decisions” is a mathematical fact that invalidates one of the above operations, but it is subtly masked in a seemingly valid step so that you don’t see the error as you execute the step.[2]

This form of argumentation can be seen frequently coming from the Left. For example, gay activists, when they aren’t exploding in their “tolerant” invective, will use such arguments:

“You believe in family, right?”       

“Well, yes.”

“And families are made from marriages, right?”      

“Um, right.”

“And everyone should have equal rights, right?”

and since no one wants to appear so politically incorrect as to answer this question in the negative, this is often answered in the affirmative as well, which then let’s our activist set the hook with:

“Well, then, why can’t gay people have the right to be married? Don’t they have a right to a family? I thought you said you were for family?!”

Several invalid assumptions permeate this stream of argumentation, but one must be on one’s toes to catch them. It is not my purpose here to discuss this particular issue at length, but to briefly point out two of them: 1.) everyone does not, in fact, have equal rights; criminals have many rights removed from them; people with highly contagious diseases do not have the right to unlimited contact with the rest of humanity; children do not have (or at least should not have) equal rights with adults; etc., etc. and 2.) marriage is a necessary but not sufficient component in defining family; there involves much more, including the equal but different contribution by the members of both genders in the definition of family that has been in successful operation for millenia.

3-LAW OF LIKING

When you like someone, or you believe that they are “just like you,” you are more inclined to believe their assertions, to want to please them and, consequently to purchase whatever they are selling, be it a product or an ideology. This is why salesmen and politicians try to establish a rapport with potential buyers/voters with various antics, valid and invalid. Here is why testimonials from satisfied customers flood the airwaves: when someone just like you agrees that such and such is a good idea, or works wonders on their bathtub, then it must be a good idea/product, and don’t I want to be just like them and use it too?

This law can be seen in operation in the old “good cop, bad cop” routine, where one person in the other negotiating party is clearly opposed to your own objectives, but it appears that another of their team members is “on your side.” The average man sees this any time he wants to buy a car. “His” salesman really, really wants him to have this car, “but, ya know, that (mean) ole boss/manager, he just won’t let it go for any less money. So let me just try and see if I can get him to come down a little more.” And it’s all been choreographed before you ever set foot on the door!

While this may accurately describe how people in general operate, the law itself is actually useless in determining truth due to the susceptibility of individuals equally to deception and/or error. Just because your next door neighbor believes something works well doesn’t necessarily make it so, even for them. This is not to say that testimonials have no value, but the context in which they are given is critical in estimating their value. User reviews, especially in appreciable numbers (Proverbs 11:14, 15:22, 24:6), in which the good, the bad, and the ugly of a product are put forth are of greater weight than those in commercials where the individuals giving the testimonials have likely been paid and thus have a conflict of interest in their framing of their report.

The tendency to overuse this principle leads to the “echo chamber” effect seen all too frequently in politics with those who refuse to acknowledge differences of opinion from their constituents, and in business when the boss surrounds himself with so-called “yes men” who never point out mistakes or problems with a course of action. Healthy debate requires at least a temporary a setting aside of this principle.

Another abuse of this principle is when the drive for “unity” demands ignoring critical differences in opinion, distortion of facts, and hiding underlying agendas. This strategy was used consistently and successfully by liberals in the beginning of the twentieth century as they slowly took over conservative seminaries and churches in this country.

4-LAW OF SCARCITY

This might be called the law of supply and demand in human interactions, for it points out that in situations of indecision, the instant the product becomes “the last one available” the urgency and “need to buy” ratchets up a notch or two whether we think about it or not. Since you have generally been considering buying it, or something like it, and short supply must originate in high demand, it seems to make it more likely that you will be unable to get another one quickly, or at all, if you decide you want it later. Here again the used car lot provides ample examples, where indecision leads the salesman to confide in you that several others have been looking at that same car, and even made offers on it, so if you don’t buy now, Now, NOW…it’ll be GONE, and you will kick yourself for the rest of your life for missing out on this deal! Anytime someone pressures you for a decision, this law comes into play, for one of our most valuable commodities is time.

This is why wisdom says:

The plans of the diligent lead surely to plenty, but those of everyone who is hasty, surely to poverty.  (Proverbs 21:5)

and

Do you see a man hasty in his words? There is more hope for a fool than for him.  (Proverbs 29:20)

The fact is that rarely does the situation really require an immediate decision (battlefields and hospital triage being notable exceptions). When you base your life and your decisions on an urgent feeling rather than rational thought, you are a gullible goose ready to be plucked and served up. Solomon described you like this:

Whoever has no rule over his own spirit is like a city broken down, without walls.  (Proverbs 25:28)

5-LAW OF AUTHORITY

Have you ever seen celebrity endorsements or “expert” testimonials? This is an appeal to authority to convince you that if it’s good enough for them, then it’s good enough for you. Oh, and incidentally, if you use it, then you might even develop the good looks or acquire the wealth or fame that these individuals do as well. At least that is the subtext. (Just once I’d like to see the Marlboro Man in his hospital bed after he’s lost a lung and is spitting out the other and then see how romantic smoking cigarettes truly is.) Truth in advertising when the truth is really not as good as it sounds is often masked by using someone whose judgment we intuitively trust (whether or not it is well placed is another story) to give us the message that we really, really, need this product, or have to believe this message.

This principle embodies the logical fallacy of an appeal to authority. It is a fallacy because even “experts” can be mistaken or deceived. Authority is only as good as the level to which it conforms to the data and the underlying reality of that data. This is one reason I have used my own credentials only once on this blog (when my credentials impinged directly on my knowledge of the subject matter), and try to remain anonymous for the most part: I want my readers to interact with the data, the data analysis and the logic presented rather than my personality or education or experience. Ad hominem responses (and comments) are eschewed by this author and highly discouraged in the comments.

A classic example of this principle being used in the ideological realm is Carl Sagan and his evolutionary propaganda TV series Cosmos. Dr. Sagan was an astronomer, yet in that series, he asserts authority in multiple disciplines outside the area of his expertise simply because it fits his agenda.

Now, an astute reader of a leftist persuasion (such as Piker perhaps?) might ask, how does that differ from what I’m doing here on this blog? Aren’t I claiming an expertise in history, and theology, and a multiplicity of other disciplines outside my own area of training and experience? The not so subtle difference is:  I do not claim to be, or try to portray myself as, an expert in these fields, but as a researcher presenting data in these areas. As such, I seek to provide my sources and links to the original data so that the reader may judge for themselves the truth of my assertions, and I invite discussion, to what extent this venue permits, in the comments and additional posts. Correct me if and when I am wrong, but do so with facts, data, and sound and logical argumentation that goes to the point, not my personality (calling me a stupid doofus does not refute my argument, regardless of how much better it might make you feel).

6-LAW OF SOCIAL PROOF

This is just a fancy way of saying “peer pressure!” If others are engaging in a specific behavior, or believing a specific thing, then it must be the proper and right thing to do, right? An innocuous example: canned laugh tracks on TV sitcoms. They generally elicit audience laughter, and consequently higher ratings. When we aren’t sure what to do in any given situation, we tend to rely on others around us to guide our reaction.

Classic, and fun, examples of this are the psychological studies in which the old TV show, Candid Camera, would engage. These were so much more subtle and imaginative than the garbage you currently see on so-called “reality TV” these days. In one such study they looked at people in an elevator. The door opens and the subject enters. There are three other people in the car, and they are all looking at the ceiling…for no reason whatsoever. As the car moves, the subject slowly freaks out and almost invariably will end up joining the others staring at the ceiling for no reason whatsoever other than the social pressure of his peers in the car. They did the same with direction in which they were facing (everyone else facing the rear of the car, or the one side of the car). It was truly hilarious to see the expressions on the subject’s face as he or she processed the information of what the others were doing and tried to decide whether or not to join them!

Here is why we see the MSM trying to disparage, ignore, and downplay the recent TEA Parties: heaven forbid that the majority of Americans realize that they are in the majority and that the social consensus really doesn’t conform to the worldview of the MSM!

APPLICATION

The above principles of persuasion can be used for good or ill. Controlled, in the right context, and used for communicating truth, they are useful knowledge tools for the education of others. In the wrong hands and with the motives of deception and exploitation, they become the basis for unethical manipulation.

In an excellent recent analysis of how Obama and his campaign and current administration have used the methods outlined by Saul Alinsky submitted by our fellow Townhaller, Garnet92, we can see some examples of several of the above principles being used to deceive and exploit those who fail to realize the disconnect from reality that they are willingly embracing when following our The One over the cliff. (All quotes below are from this essay; put it on your list of posts to read…NOW!)

One of the more obvious ones is the use of the converse of the Law of Liking: if we tend to believe and follow those we like, then we will tend to disbelieve and reject those we don’t. Thus the Alinsky doctrine, “Pick the target, freeze it, personalize it, and polarize it…. There is no point to tactics unless one has a target upon which to center the attacks.” The principle operates on an emotive level, so objections based on logic and data will be less effectual in countering it unless one can get the subject to calm down and realize how irrationally emotional he is being. One has only to recall the MSM treatment of the candidates in the last election to see positive (for Obama) and negative (against any of his opponents) examples of this.

Another Alinsky doctrine is to stage loud, defiant, massive protest rallies. The reason: “Such demonstrations can give onlookers the impression that a massive movement is preparing to shift into high gear….” This is an attempt at using the Law of Social Proof.

Lastly, the idea of laughing at your enemy to provoke an irrational anger combines both the Law of Liking and the Law of Social Proof. The thought conveyed is that the one being ridiculed is different and not like you, and everyone else knows it so that we can only laugh and thus ignore any point, however true, that originates from that absurd source.

The Alinsky doctrines include much more, and seeing them described in comparison to Democratic strategies that have been used in the recent past right up to today is somewhat chilling. Garnet92’s point that we should start using the same strategies against them has considerable merit to the extent that we do not sink to their level of deception and manipulation but use them to unshackle the befuddled minds of their minions.

In conclusion, an awareness of the method someone is using to try to persuade us of something is necessary to discern whether or not there is validity to their use of those methods and to their position. If we are not to be bamboozled (technical term for being royally deceived and manipulated), it behooves us to know and recognize the tools of the trade.