There are many times I can think of where I wished my real life experience was more like Dungeons and Dragons. For example, if my D&D character wants to convince a non-player character of something, the Dungeon Master might ask me to "make a Persuasion check." So if I can roll a high enough number on a 20-sided die (including bonuses for being Charismatic), the DM would inform me that I've successfully changed the NPC's mind. With a low number on the d20, however, the DM might explain that my character's arguments were simply not strong enough, or that they got nervous and said the wrong thing, for example, and the NPC remains unmoved.
In real life, the skill of persuasion is a lot more complicated than the randomness of a die-roll. First of all, you actually have to come up with the arguments you want to use, rather than leaving them to the imagination. At one time, that's what I thought was the most important part of getting someone to see your point of view: the arguments. I like to think of myself as a logical person (it's the blue mana in me), so putting myself in the opposite position, I think a clear, well-crafted argument based on facts would be the best way for someone else to change MY mind about something. However, a closer examination of this strategy shows that it's lacking a key component, one that's best summed up in the saying "it's not what you say, but how you say it."
When you come at someone with only logic and facts, it presents yourself as "the one who knows." This in turn presents the person who's mind you want to change as "the one with insufficient information and inferior/flawed reasoning." Even if your facts are impeccable and your arguments are perfect enough to convince someone that they are wrong about something, it can be extremely hard for that person to accept that they are wrong. A good persuasion check is not just a good argument, but also takes into account the mental state of the character who is the target of the check.
I realize now that my focus on the content of a position (philosophical, political, or otherwise) only looks at the end result: here is a position THAT I HOLD, and I want it to be a position THAT YOU HOLD. It completely ignores the process of TRANSITIONING from "the position you currently hold" to "the position I want you to hold." If someone holds an incorrect position, what was the method by which they arrived at that position? And what's the broader point of view of someone who holds that position? And what might that point of view tell me about the likelihood of that person's changing their mind? And why?
This is why in D&D there's additional modifiers that you add to your skill checks if you've trained in that particular skill. For example, a character who is "proficient in Persuasion" might have put a lot of thought into the above topics, and come up with some useful working theories. I haven't done a lot of training in this skill myself, and I wouldn't claim to be a naturally charismatic persuader. But one thing I'm reasonably sure of is that no one changes their mind by being bewildered. D&D has the Intimidation skill for that. Unfortunately, that's how many of the people with the most convincing facts/arguments tend to engage on platforms such as Twitter. Or, if you're a GOP lawmaker, on the floor of congress.
In the category of "a little knowledge is a dangerous thing," I would say the first step is to look at persuasion from the point of view of compassion, particularly self-compassion. Changing one's belief system is a difficult process, no matter for what reason. Once again putting myself in the opposite position, and thinking of what frame of mind would make me most likely to change my beliefs, it would be if the convincer had some compassion for the worldview-changing ordeal I would be going through. And then of course I would need to have some compassion for myself, not just for how hard it is to change one's opinion, but as a consolation for holding incorrect beliefs to begin with.
Of course there's the real danger of appearing condescending when striving for compassion; or alternatively, of beating yourself up when it comes to self-compassion. There's tips to avoiding those pitfalls and more in Kristin Neff's book "Self Compassion." The point is that in order to change someone's mind, you have to come at it from a position of caring about that person. Which is, come to think of it, how we should go about all communication, and much of everyday life in general. But convincing some people of that is a whole 'nother story.
No comments:
Post a Comment