Thoughts About Persuasion Checks

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.

Thoughts on Convincing People to Give Up Power

So much has changed since my last post. In the twelve days since I took a 10-year retrospective look at the Gemini Twins fantasy astrology baseball team of 2009, we've seen people in all 50 states (myself among them) take to the streets in protests against abhorrent police brutality against Black people, most recently the murders of George Floyd and Breonna Taylor. While these demonstrations have made it clear that Americans are ready for a complete reimagining of our country's approach to policing, they have also jolted me and many of my white friends into the (much too delayed) realization that we have been passively complicit in the systemic racism in our society. We have all started doing work, in our own ways, to get more informed and become better allies, in what will be an ongoing effort. 

Of course, there's also the struggle to be an "effective" ally, rather than just a "good" ally. And now I'm reading certain things that say allies are not what's needed, and we're NOT supposed to call ourselves allies? I guess that makes sense - "being an ally" sounds like something that one can achieve, rather than describing the lifelong process of learning, growing, and acting effectively. So much is changing so fast, including perceptions. And before I get bogged down with the labels of what I'm trying to become, I'll say that first and foremost I'm trying to learn more about the issues at stake here and be a more effective citizen in general.

Like many of us white people, I've started reading more material by Black writers, including Ta-Nehisi Coates. One line from "We Were Eight Years In Power" stood out to me as especially relevant: "What people anywhere on this earth has ever, out of a strong moral feeling, ceded power?" I feel like this applies particularly to the police, an institution that has its roots in exerting power over Black bodies. Even as someone who has been personally anti-police for many years, it took me WAY too long to learn that our current model of policing rose out of slave patrols (and colonial anti-insurrectionist tactics and violent strike-breakers). In addition, police departments have been given a tremendous amount of power in recent times, through reliance on them for an increasingly varied tasks (for which they are NOT suited), and inflated government budgets that reflect this reliance. 

Calls to defund or abolish the police have gained national attention in the wake of protests against police brutality, with one major city already taking steps to disband their police department, and transition to community-based approach to public safety, rather than the severe focus on crime and punishment. But while the situation in Minneapolis is heartening for sure, that's just one of the roughly 18,000 individual police departments in the country. So for everywhere else, my question now is, how do we get the police - or rather, the people in power who benefit from the destructive actions of the police - to give up this power?

Sure, studies have shown that the police as an institution are relatively inadequate when it comes to preventing crime, and that in many cases, their presence in communities actually makes those communities less safe. But for most people, it's not enough to assume that they will be willing to change their life-long conceptions about how society works when presented some data points, no matter how convincing or well-researched they may be. This is especially true if these people have something to gain from the status quo remaining in place; i.e. if they enjoy the protection by the police rather than suffer from persecution by them (i.e. if they are white and/or own property). Going back to the Coates quote above about ceding power, it's unreasonable to believe that city councils across the country will vote to do the right thing for their communities, if there's even the slightest belief that doing so will be a threat to their ability to maintain power.

But going beyond the intellectual realm of agreeing on and adopting policy, even if communities vote to disband their police departments and go through all the proper channels to make it a reality, who's going to physically relieve the police of the power they've accumulated? It's like the gun rights fanatics, even some elected officials, who respond with threats of violence to measured proposals to remove unnecessarily deadly weapons from our streets -- how do you think the police themselves will respond to policies that promise to reduce their personal power? Do you think they'll just hand over their guns, tanks, riot gear, tear gas, and rubber bullets just because some politicians think it will be safer for their constituents? It's not like police across the country have ever hesitated to act in ways that prove the case against themselves, time and time again.

Of course, we won't have to worry about this particular doomsday endgame scenario for a long long time, not until many people are convinced of the need to abolish police and agree on the best methods to make that a reality. And I'm the long process to come will include effective plans about how to transition to a police-free state in a way that leaves everybody satisfied. But that's the problem with a good compromise: it tends to have the opposite effect.

I know that a little knowledge is a dangerous thing: after having read just the first two chapters of Beyond Policing by Alex Vitale (being offered as a free ebook on Verso), I'm naturally going to have a lot more questions than answers. I'm hoping to find some of these answers in later chapters of the book, or in some of the resources offered by MPD150, as they work with the city of Minneapolis to disband their police department. But either way, I know that I won't be discouraged by the difficult nature of the questions I'm now beginning to consider. I'll use that very difficulty as motivation to learn more and fight harder. Because it's now starting to become clear that the future welfare of our communities is what's at stake here.